Pietism and Subjectivism: Undoing Biblical Worship

  The Pietist movement and subjectivism are two things – among others – that have corroded, watered down, and weakened Christian worship in the United States.  When all the emphasis is on the self, feelings, experiences, and emotions, you know you’re in the realm of pietism and subjectivism (that or an Oprah show).  We’ve all heard these types of phrases: “what will my heart feel” to “I could sing of your love forever,” to “I feel your presence” to “let it burn in me.”  The objective truths of Scripture – sin and salvation - are only alluded to (if at all) and the enraptured feelings of the inner self are front and center.  Rather than asking what God wants us to do in worship, many simply do what makes them feel a religious “high.”  Unfortunately this is even prevalent in many Reformed and Presbyterian churches which historically have placed the objective truths front and center. I like what Scott Clark has to say about this topic.

“Perhaps the most outstanding example…of the subjective turn in Reformed piety is in public worship.  It would not be hard to find a Reformed congregation today in which the Sunday (or Saturday night) liturgy begins with twenty-five minutes of Scripture songs sung consecutively, each song blending into the next, perhaps augmented by a Power Point or video presentation.  In this increasingly popular liturgy, the singing is followed by a dramatic presentation which, in turn, is followed by congregational announcements, most of which focus on the various cell-group programs.  Increasingly, the sermon is a brief, colorfully illustrated, emotionally touching collection of anecdotes, in which the hearer is not so much directed to the law and the gospel, but, in one way or another, to one’s self.”

“Anxious to intensify the religious experience of parishioners or to make the church accessible to the nonchurched, many Reformed congregations have turned to new measures, to drama, dance lessons, and even a service arranged thematically by the name of the local professional sports franchise.  Such practices are rather more indebted to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century revival practices than they are to Geneva, Heidelberg, or Westminster Abbey.  Such practices are also symptoms of the synthesis of Reformed worship with the emerging modern culture in which, as Philip Rieff noted, hospital and theater replace the church” (p. 73).

 R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2008).

shane lems

Definite Atonement, Particular Redemption

For me, one of the most comforting doctrines of grace is the biblical teaching that Christ’s death actually accomplished salvation for his people.  In other words, Jesus’ atoning death didn’t merely make salvation possible – it actually saved people from sin and misery.  In Calvinism this is called ‘limited atonement,’ though I prefer the terms ‘definite atonement’ or ‘particular redemption.’  In Jesus words, he said that he laid down his life for his sheep whom no one can snatch from his hand (cf. John 10).  Elsewhere in scripture his people are called the “elect” whom no one can bring a charge against because it is God is the one who justified them (Rom. 8.33).  I’ve been enjoying Mike Horton’s book, For Calvinism, to prepare for an upcoming sermon series on the doctrines of grace, and his chapter on definite atonement is a great explanation of this truth.  Here are a few excerpts.

“All orthodox Christians maintain that the atonement is limited either in its extent or its nature.  Calvinists believe that it is limited (or definite) in its extent, but unlimited in its nature or efficacy: Christ’s death actually saved the elect.  Arminians believe that it is unlimited in its extent, but limited in its nature or efficacy: Christ’s death makes possible the salvation of everyone, but does not actually save any.”

“As the seventeenth-century Puritan John Owen observed, every position that recognizes that some will finally be lost places a limit on the atonement at some point – either it is limited in its extent or in its effect.  Owen summarizes the points: Christ died for (1) all of the sins of all people; (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people.  If unbelief is a sin and some people are finally condemned, there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.”

Horton then gives some explanations that help prove the doctrine of definite atonement (I’ve summarized them):

“First, this view maintains that Christ’s death actually saves.”

“Second, this view emphasizes the relationship between the Trinity and redemption.”

“Third, this view places the focus entirely on Christ rather than on the believer.”

Near the end of the chapter Horton writes this (with which I’ll conclude).  It brings us back to the application of this doctrine: it is a great comfort for the Christian.

“…The depths of God’s love are revealed in the fact that he sent his Son to accomplish everything necessary to our salvation, not merely to make humanity ‘savable.’  He did not come halfway, as if to say, ‘I did my part, and now you need to do yours.’  Rather, he has carried his loving purposes all the way, accomplishing and applying redemption to those who were ‘dead in… trespasses and sins’ (Eph 2.1).”

Michael Horton, For Calvinism, chapter 4.

shane lems

“

Live by the Spirit (Gal. 5.16)

 This morning (Friday) I had to peel myself away from replays of the Cardinal’s epic game six World Series comeback (and I doubt Josh Hamilton actually heard God tell him he’d hit a home run) to do something far more worthwhile: study Paul’s exhortation to “live by the Spirit” (Gal 5.16).  This is a great but tough subject.  What does it mean to live by the Spirit?  Of course it has to do with sanctification and not justification, but it is difficult to explain what Paul means since the Spirit’s work is largely a mystery (cf. John 3.8).  I found John Murray’s discussion of this biblical teaching very helpful.  The following paragraph is found in Redemption Accomplished and Applied, specifically the chapter on sanctification.

“It is imperative that we realize our complete dependence upon the Holy Spirit.  We must not forget, of course, that our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent in the process of sanctification.  But we must not rely upon our own strength of resolution or purpose.  It is when we are weak that we are strong.  It is by grace that we are being saved as surely as by grace we have been saved.  If we are not keenly sensitive to our own helplessness, then we can make the use of the means of sanctification the minister of self-righteousness and pride and thus defeat the end of sanctification.  We must rely not upon the means of sanctification but upon the God of all grace.  Self-confident moralism promotes pride, and sanctification promotes humility and contrition” (p. 183).

Isn’t this a great way to explain Paul’s exhortation to live by the Spirit?  I especially like Murray’s line that says we have been saved by grace and are being saved by grace.  Justification is by grace alone; so is sanctification.  In Paul’s terms, it is foolish to think we’ve started the Christian life by the Spirit but we reach the goal by our own strength (Gal. 3.3).  And so he ends the epistle of Galatians with the benediction: the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you…Amen (6.18).

If you’ve never read Redemption Accomplished and Applied, do it soon!  This is one of “those” books on my shelves that was groundbreaking the first time I read it and is still helpful and edifying when I read parts of it again (and again!).

shane lems

Some excellent resources for studying the Three Forms of Unity

I stumbled upon this copy of the Three Forms of Unity published just this year by the Reformed Church in the U.S. (RCUS).  Not only is the translation very fine, it contains two really excellent resources as appendices; First, a summary of the Belgic Confession, breaking each article down into a series of theses accompanied by relevant scripture texts proving that thesis; Second, a summary of the Canons of Dort, describing the contents of each article and rejection in a single sentence so that one can get a nice birds-eye view of the entire document.  While the price of the printed copy is hard to beat, you can also download a .pdf of the booklet for free here.

The second resource I stumbled upon was an eReference Library published also by the RCUS containing some excellent confessional resources in .pdf form, several of which are nearly impossible to find in print.  For $49.00 (+ 10% shipping), you can get some 27 books, including:

Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (1616, 1852)

Otto Thelemann, Aid to the Heidelberg Catechism (1896)

George W. Bethune, Expository Lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism (1864, 1866)

Henry Beets, The Belgic Confession Explained (1929)

Peter Y. De Jong, The Church’s Witness to the World: The Belgic Confession (1960)

Thomas Scott, The Synod of Dort and Its Articles (1818, 1841)

I’m strongly considering spending the money simply for the volumes by Bethune, De Jong and Beets!  The others are just icing on the cake!

I’m a little confused about how the ordering process works (see the note at the top of this page), but this looks like a dynamite set of resources!

_____________
Andrew

My Thoughts on “Bonhoeffer” by Metaxas

 I finally got around to reading Eric Metaxas’ highly publicized biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  I wasn’t going to read it for two reasons: 1) because I don’t usually read biographies of theologians whose works I’ve read extensively, and 2) because I was completely annoyed with Glenn Beck and Eric Metaxas’ discussion of Bonhoeffer where they treated him like an American, patriotic, conservative evangelical.  I didn’t want to read a book that “Americanized” Bonhoeffer so I put E. Bethge’s biography of Bonhoeffer on my “to read” list instead of Metaxas’.  Somebody recently gave me Metaxas’ book to read, so I decided to read it after all.

What do I think of it?

Positively, it was well written.  Metaxas is a good writer and uses the English language well.  I also enjoyed the historical side of the book, since I’ve read scores of books that have to do with WWII.  This might sound trivial, but I also liked the size of the chapters – they were just perfect to read in one sitting.  Though the book did drag along at points (it could have been much shorter!) it was arranged in a readable manner.

Negatively, I do believe Metaxas wrongly casts Bonhoeffer as a patriotic evangelical (as I rightly gathered from the above mentioned interview).  After reading this book, one would think Bonhoeffer was a German-speaking blend of John Piper, George Washington, Mike Huckabee, Martin Luther King Jr., and Abraham Lincoln.  Metaxas describes Bonhoeffer’s youth as an evangelical version of the Von Trap family (in “Sound of Music”) despite the fact that Bonhoeffer’s father was not a Christian and his family rarely went to church.  Bonhoeffer is also portrayed as a prayer warrior who enjoyed quiet times, spiritual disciplines, and exhorted his students to “love Jesus.”

Metaxas also explained Bonhoeffer’s decision to help in a plot to assassinate Hitler as following God’s plan for his life and hearing God’s voice in the matter (phrases used in America today but not in Germany 70 years ago).  In other words, Metaxas uses today’s American evangelical words to describe Bonhoeffer’s life and actions.  This is definitely unhelpful; we can’t call Bonhoeffer a conservative against the liberals as Metaxas does.  This gives us a distorted and simplistic picture of Bonhoeffer.

I’ve read enough of Bonhoeffer to know that though he was an exceptional and gifted man, he wasn’t at all a patriotic evangelical in the way Americans think of those terms.  For two short examples, he was somewhat Barthian (where his christology, anthropology, and ecclesiology intersect – see parts of his Ethics for example) and he had quibbles with certain aspects of the OT (which show up cryptically in his prison letters).  To get a more balanced and accurate view of Bonhoeffer, I’ll now have to read some other sources that discuss Bonhoeffer’s theology.  I realize it is trendy to quote Bonhoeffer in American evangelicalism, but in quoting him we have to be careful not to pretend he’s evangelical in today’s sense of the term.  We should read Bonhoeffer, but in doing so we should be mindful of his theological background and context.  (The same might be said of C. S. Lewis.)

Another thing worth mentioning is the historical scholarship of the book.  Some historical points Metaxas made sounded inaccurate to me based on my earlier studies of WWII, but I don’t have the time and resources to verify this right now.  Before treating this book as “gospel truth” in the area of history, I’d want to hear what serious WWII historians have to say about it.  On this same note, in his brief section discussing Luther, Metaxas really painted an inaccurate historical/theological picture of the reformer.

In summary, after reading Metaxas’ biography I felt like I had just watched a movie based on a book – you know, where the producers take some liberties in attempt to make the story more exciting, compelling, or to get an idea out there that wasn’t really in the book.  I usually like those movies, but end up disappointed because they didn’t accurately portray the real story.  That’s my basic thought about the book.  So if you haven’t yet read it and this topic interests you (and if you are up to reading around 600 pages!), I do recommend it with the following caveats: 1) don’t believe everything you read, and 2) read a fair amount of Bonhoeffer himself to get a better picture of the man, and 3) read a biography about Bonhoeffer from a different (i.e. non-American) point of view.

shane lems