Essays On The OPC: A Brief Review

I recently picked up a copy of this 2011 publication: Confident of Better Things: Essays Commemorating Seventy-Five Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (ed. John Muether and Danny Olinger).  This is a thick book (500 pages) and I haven’t read every essay in it, but I would like to point it out to our readers.

As already noted, this book is a collection of articles and essays gathered to celebrate the 75th year of the OPC (1936-2011).  The editors put it this way:

“…We confess that there is no perfect church, that churches as well as individuals are guilty of sin and liable to error.  ‘OPC’ does not stand for the ‘Only Perfect Church.’  If anything, the OPC is the church of the broken heart.  That is, the OPC carries with it the belief that the way to Christ is found through the conviction of sin.  The good news is that sin is dealt with once for all in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then a new and joyous life follows” (p. 1).

Around 25 men contributed to this collection, including Richard Gaffin, John Fesko, Robert Godfrey, Robert Strimple, and Richard Muller (among many other able scholars, pastors, and teachers). The book has five main sections: 1) History, 2) Theology, 3) Christian Education, 4) Mission of the Church, and 5) Ecumenicity.   Each section contains around five essays.

This book isn’t a detailed history of the OPC – although it does contain some OPC history.  Between these covers you’ll find the authors explaining the truths of Scripture, the doctrines of Reformation theology, the power of preaching, the motivation for missions, the beauty of the gospel, and the importance of the confessions.  More specifically, here are the titles of a few essays: “The Legacy of Charles Hodge,” “Tongues Today?,” “Was Adam Historical?” “Catechetical Instruction in the OPC,” “Called to the Ministry,” and “The Ruling Elder in Church Planting,” among others.  So far I’ve enjoyed the article on tongues by Gaffin and the discussion of missions by Mark Bube.  I’m also looking forward to reading the chapter on redemptive historical hermeneutics as well as Godfrey’s article on the OPC/URCNA relationship (perhaps he’ll rightly tell the URC to aim towards a more Presbyterian polity!  Stay tuned….).  Actually, most of the articles look like good reading.  I hope to read them over the course of the summer.

If you’re interested, Confident of Better Things is priced fairly (around $14.00).  It is well worth the investment.  I’m thankful the editors and writers worked together to give the church a fine resource – not just for those in the OPC, but others who appreciate solid, confessional Reformed church piety, practice, and worship.

rev shane lems

Deconstructing Evangelicalism

Some of our readers will no doubt be interested in this book: D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004).  What is it about?  Hart gives a summary in the introduction:

“My point put simply is that the movement neo-evangelical leaders patched together ended up splintering because it lacked the discipline and rigor of the church.  Of course, the aim of evangelicalism was to find a lowest common denominator faith that would take members from diverse denominations and independent congregations and stitch them together into a recognizable quilt.  It was, as Jon R. Stone has rightly observed, a work of coalition-building.”

“The problem, however, was that the effort to establish a flexible and potent union of Protestant conservatives was predicated on a fundamentally liberal maneuver.  To defend and propagate the essential truths of the Bible, neo-evangelical leaders pared back denominational (read: churchly) accretions such as a full-blown creed, an order of worship, and a polity to govern ordination and exercise discipline.  In effect, the creation of a core set of common beliefs was similar to (if not the same as) the liberal attempt to separate the kernel from the husk of the Bible.”

“The study that follows could lead the rather disconcerting conclusion, then, that for mere Christianity to survive, its wise and constant diligence needs to be directed to as complete a reflection on biblical truth as possible.  In other words, to preserve the minimum, you need to defend the maximum.  This is the logic that those who call themselves evangelical have instinctively avoided” (p. 30-31).”

The following sentence stuck out for me: “to preserve the minimum, you need to defend the maximum.”  Well said.  You’ll have to get the book to see how Hart expands and explains this summary.

D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism.

rev. shane lems

A Critique of Rome’s View of Scripture – Kruger (Part 1)

In Michael Kruger’s 2012 publication, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, he wrestles with the Roman Catholic understanding of canon and Scripture and gives several helpful critiques, which I’ll list below (and in a later blog post).  By way of reminder, Rome holds to a “trifold authority structure that includes Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium (the church’s teaching authority)” (p. 39; cf. Dei Vernbum, 2.9-10).

In Rome’s view, the canon (Scripture) is determined by the church. Rome rejects the Reformation principle of sola scriptura because she believes there needs to be an external source of authority that tells us what the canon is.  So Karl Rahner said, “[Scripture] exists because the church exists,” and one 16th century Catholic cardinal said “The Scriptures have only as much force as the fables of Aesop, if destitute of the authority of the church.”  Or, in the words of Hans Kung, “Without the Church there would be no New Testament.”

Here is Kruger’s helpful critical evaluation of Rome’s view that the canon is derived from the church or caused by the church.

“1) Although the New Testament was not completed all at once, the apostolic teaching was the substance of what would later become the New Testament.  And it was this apostolic teaching, along with the prophets, that formed the foundation for the church, rather than the other way around.  As Ephesians 2:20 affirms, the church was ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.’  The church is always the creatura verbi (‘creation of the Word’).  [Stephen] Chapman sums it up: ‘The biblical canon is not a creation of the church, the church is instead a creation of the biblical canon.’”

“2) The earliest Christians did have a canon, namely, the Old Testament itself (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:6, 2 Tim. 3:15-16), which seems to have existed just fine prior to the founding of the church.  There are no reasons to think that the Israel of Jesus’ day had any infallible revelation from God that helped it choose the books of the Old Testament canon.”

“3) From the very earliest days, believers received Paul’s letters as Scripture (1 Thes. 2:13), Paul clearly intended them to be received as Scripture (Gal. 1:1-24), and even other writers thought they were Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).  Thus, the Scriptures themselves never give the impression that their authority was ‘derivative’ from the church, or from some future ecclesiastical decision.”

“4) It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church ever made a formal and official declaration on the canon of the Bible, particularly the Apocrypha.  In light of this scenario, what can we make of the Roman Catholic claim that ‘without the church there would be no New Testament’?  Are we to believe that the church had no canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Council of Trent?  The history of the church makes it clear that the church did, in fact, have a functioning canon long before the Council of Trent (or even the fourth-century councils).”

“J. I. Packer sums it up well: ‘The church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity.  God gave us gravity…Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.”

Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 44-45.

rev shane lems

The (Futile?) Search for Christian America

Here’s a book that deserves to be brought back into our discussions and onto our reading lists: The Search for Christian America by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden.  It was first published in 1983 and then expanded in 1989.  But the message is completely relevant for Christians today.

Here are some questions the book tackles: How “Christian” is America’s religious past?  Is the “Christian Nation” concept harmful or helpful to effective Christian action in society?  Was/is America God’s treasured nation among all nations?  Should we try to “go back” to “Christian America?”  What relationship does idolatry have with patriotism, if any?   How is the First Great Awakening related to the American Revolution?

If those questions didn’t grab your attention, here’s the two-fold argument of the book (in the authors’ own terms):

“1) We feel that a careful study of the facts of history shows that early America does not deserve to be considered uniquely, distinctly, or even predominately Christian, if we mean by the word ‘Christian’ a state of society reflecting the ideals presented in Scripture.  There is no lost golden age to which American Christians can return.  In addition, a careful study of history will also show that evangelicals themselves were often partly to blame for the spread of secularism in contemporary American life.”

“2) We feel also that careful examination of Christian teaching on government, the state, and the nature of culture shows that the idea of a ‘Christian nation’ is a very ambiguous concept which is usually harmful to effective Christian action in society” (p. 17).

I’ll come back to this book later.  For now, let me simply say that I highly recommend it.  Though it flies in the face of many American evangelical beliefs, I believe it is a must-read for Christians living the U.S.  The Search for Christian America will help the today’s church remain distinct from the world and able to engage culture in a wise, biblical, and prophetic way.

FYI, at the time of this post there are quite a few used copies on Amazon for less than $10 shipped.  It’s certainly worth that!  And my thanks go out to one of our readers for mentioning this book last week.  I trust he’ll back up my recommendation!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

You Ask Me How I Know He Lives?

In this brilliant book that traces the roots of unbelief, agnosticism, and atheism in America, one thing James Turner discusses is how religion moved out of the head and into the heart.  In other words – and for better or worse – at one point in American history, belief in God was spoken of as a matter of modernistic scientific knowledge.  But since the arrival of Darwinism, American religious leaders were forced to prove the existence of God in other ways.  Since evolution began to dominate the scientific field, it became difficult to use science and scientific reasoning to prove God’s existence. 

So in the 19th century the emphasis of religious feelings, individualistic emotions, raptured hearts, and love-sick souls arose in American religion.  The existence of God was reduced to a feeling in the chest, emotional high, or spiritual experience.  These things are clearly evident in many hymns from the 19th century.  Turner uses a few different religious figures from the 19th century to explain this.

“Now, to more and more people, belief in God seemed to express feeling rather than to state knowledge.  Chauncey Wright called faith in God, ‘a sentiment, not a faculty of knowledge.’  Henry Adams described it as a form of ‘imaginative and emotional expression,’ ‘a state of mind, like love or jealousy.’  Lester Ward defined it as ‘the embodied and organized state of the emotions.’  The neurologist George Beard said bluntly that ‘to prove a religion would be to kill it – to transfer it from the emotions, where it belongs, to the intellect, where it can find no home’” (p. 198).

Lyman Abbott captured this inward turn when he said, “If I was to retain any really forceful belief in God and immortality, or even in practical morality, I must believe in the trustworthiness of spiritual experience” (p. 188). 

As I said before, I cannot recommend this book enough when it comes to the studies of American religion.  If you truly want to “engage” American religious culture today, you have to trace the roots of our religious past.   Without God, Without Creed by James Turner is one of the best and most readable resources for that purpose.  In other words, this book will make you see the 19th century American connection between 1) the Mormon “burning bosom in the chest,” 2) the words of the hymn, “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart,” and 3) the theology of today’s Hallmark card.

shane lems