The final comments about Horton's Christless Christianity have to do with the charge of Gnosticism in American Christianity and Horton's use of secondary sources to argue his position in the book.
I have a hard time identifying American Christianity with the Gnostics of the early church era. I am not convinced by his arguments that this is true. To make this argument, Horton depends on the work of Harold Bloom, especially his work The American Religion. Here, Bloom sees Gnostics under every rock. His own Gnosticism becomes the lens through which he interprets American Christianity. However, Bloom's work has been criticized by Martin Marty and Alfred Kazin. They say that the charge of Gnosticism might stick if applied only to non-Christian American religion and the search for spirituality. Bloom, however, tries to make it stick to Christianity in the United States. The Gnosticism he sees appears in the private aspects of Protestantism. He especially takes a shot at the Baptist idea of "soul competency." As defined by Baptists, this means "the God-given freedom and ability of persons to know and respond to God’s will. Baptists believe that God gives people competency--that is ability--to make choices. Human beings are not puppets or machines." There is nothing particulary Gnostic about this.
It seems that Horton has used Bloom's work and the work of Harold Lee (who agrees with Bloom) rather uncritically. It is this uncritical use of secondary sources which bothers me about his book. Rather than do his own investigation of the use and place of Christ in American preaching, he relies on the work of other people, not to illustrate his own research, but in place of it.
Horton's book would have been better if he concentrated on Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel movement and done so with his own analysis.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Christless Christianity, Part 2
In chapter 3 of Christless Christianity, Mike Horton analyzes the ministry of Joel Osteen and others like him. This is one of the most passionate chapters in the book. Osteen's ministry becomes the paradigm to analyze popular religion in the United States. Horton's analysis of Osteen can be summarized in the phrase facere quod in se est (do your best) from medieval theology. Osteen even seems to think that God will "make it up" in regard to difference between God's expectations and our efforts. Osteen may not be a theologian, but he seems to have grasped the essentials of medieval Christian theology.
A curious aspect of Horton's analysis is his statement (which he admits sounds heretical), "it is probably worth telling Americans that you don't need Jesus to have better families, finances, health, or even morality." I think Horton is saying that this is the gist of most American preaching. Christians as well as most Americans do not need to believe in Jesus to have all the good things of life. However, for those of us who live in the already/not yet period between the resurrection and Christ's return, having Jesus is no guarantee of any of these blessings. Indeed, following Christ can mean family divisions, poverty, illness and death.
Turning to chapter 4 (How we turn good news into good advice), Horton uses the law-gospel distinction to analyze modern religion. His discussion raises a couple questions. One concerns his assertion that we are not to live the gospel, but only believe it. He resists the idea of living the gospel because he thinks that makes it a message about us. I think Paul would disagree. He wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:2, "You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ, delievered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (ESV). Paul seems to be saying that the Corinthians were living gospels because of the work of God's Spirit in them. Paul also wrote to the Ephesians, Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (5:1-2) (ESV). Again, Paul seems to say that imitating Christ is not law, but gospel. Paul gives practical advice, instruction and calls to discipleship which may be considered as gospel because they grow out of our justification and salvation in Christ.
A second question about law and gospel arises when Horton says we need "a fresh encounter with God's law in its full force." The question is this: did Jesus and Paul preach the law? It seems that the answer must be, No, because they preached the good news of the kingdom. It must be said that Peter and Paul, when addressing the Jews, spoke about the Jewish rejection of Jesus and the judgment that would follow if they did not repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus preached "repent and believe the good news." The problem with American preaching may be that pastors do not know how to preach the gospel because they do not know how to preach Christ from the OT, and they do not know how to ground behavior in the work of Christ. Whenever pastors give good advice, instruct their hearers in the teachings of the Bible and call them to discipleship, they need to ground all that in the work of Christ which people are called to believe.
It is finally in this chapter that Horton tells us what he means by "Christless Christianity." In his words it
does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the words Jesus, Christ, Lord or even
Saviour. What it means is the way those names and titles are employed will be
removed from their specific location in an unfolding historical plot of human rebellion
and divine rescue and from such practices as baptism and communion.
If he had put this in the first chapter and organized the book around this definition, this work would be more clear, cogent and concise.
More to follow.
A curious aspect of Horton's analysis is his statement (which he admits sounds heretical), "it is probably worth telling Americans that you don't need Jesus to have better families, finances, health, or even morality." I think Horton is saying that this is the gist of most American preaching. Christians as well as most Americans do not need to believe in Jesus to have all the good things of life. However, for those of us who live in the already/not yet period between the resurrection and Christ's return, having Jesus is no guarantee of any of these blessings. Indeed, following Christ can mean family divisions, poverty, illness and death.
Turning to chapter 4 (How we turn good news into good advice), Horton uses the law-gospel distinction to analyze modern religion. His discussion raises a couple questions. One concerns his assertion that we are not to live the gospel, but only believe it. He resists the idea of living the gospel because he thinks that makes it a message about us. I think Paul would disagree. He wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:2, "You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ, delievered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (ESV). Paul seems to be saying that the Corinthians were living gospels because of the work of God's Spirit in them. Paul also wrote to the Ephesians, Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (5:1-2) (ESV). Again, Paul seems to say that imitating Christ is not law, but gospel. Paul gives practical advice, instruction and calls to discipleship which may be considered as gospel because they grow out of our justification and salvation in Christ.
A second question about law and gospel arises when Horton says we need "a fresh encounter with God's law in its full force." The question is this: did Jesus and Paul preach the law? It seems that the answer must be, No, because they preached the good news of the kingdom. It must be said that Peter and Paul, when addressing the Jews, spoke about the Jewish rejection of Jesus and the judgment that would follow if they did not repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus preached "repent and believe the good news." The problem with American preaching may be that pastors do not know how to preach the gospel because they do not know how to preach Christ from the OT, and they do not know how to ground behavior in the work of Christ. Whenever pastors give good advice, instruct their hearers in the teachings of the Bible and call them to discipleship, they need to ground all that in the work of Christ which people are called to believe.
It is finally in this chapter that Horton tells us what he means by "Christless Christianity." In his words it
does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the words Jesus, Christ, Lord or even
Saviour. What it means is the way those names and titles are employed will be
removed from their specific location in an unfolding historical plot of human rebellion
and divine rescue and from such practices as baptism and communion.
If he had put this in the first chapter and organized the book around this definition, this work would be more clear, cogent and concise.
More to follow.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Christless Christianity
The recent discussion in the blogosphere over John Frame's review of Michael Horton's book Christless Christianity (http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2009Horton.htm) has led me to buy a copy of Professor Horton's book to read for myself. I finished the book a few days ago, but today is the first chance I've had to post my own comments. This entry will focus on Horton's book. I will evaluate John Frame's response in another post.
In general, I found the work to be uneven. Chapters 6 and 7 are well written and thought out. The arguments are clear, concise and cogent. The work of Christ is clearly spelled out in Chapter 6 and a call to faithfulness is well presented in Chapter 7.
The earlier chapters, however, seemed to me to have been written in a rush. There is a sense of passion in his arguments, which is not wrong in and of itself, but makes these chapters less well thought out than the closing chapters. I found myself making a number of comments about what he was saying. I will return to these chapters below.
Second, I think a better subtitle such as A Critique of Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel would have been preferable. This is where the meat of Horton's argument is directed and would have saved him from Frame's criticism of painting with a broad brush.
Third, Horton is right in describing some parts of evangelicalism (to say nothing of liberalism) as vacuous. I have worshiped in some churches where the prayers and the sermon really said nothing useful. He is also correct in identifying a particular kind of American Christianity. In this regard, he could have strengthened his case by refering to the work of Mark Noll in his book America's God which clearly describes an American theology that has been shaped by American ideals. For instance, on page 54 Horton says, "It is not secular humanists but we ourselves who are secularizing the faith by transforming its odd message in some less jarring to the American psyche." This is precisely the point Noll makes in his work.
I will now review the first three chapters of Christless Christianity as well as chapter 5.
In chapter one, Horton describes what he means by Christless Christianity. It is that Christ is not preached in the apostolic sense. Instead, Jesus is a prop "for our own play." Sermons address issues like marriage, spiritual disciplines. Some of what Horton writes is similar to Ed Clowney's test of a Christian sermon: If a rabbi could preach that sermon, it wasn't Christian.
Yet, Horton's argument in chapter 1 is not totally convincing. He does not paint a clear picture of what he really means by a Christless Christianity. The closest he comes is his oft repeated phrase, "Do more, try harder." While this may be true, he says this is what he assumes "to be the regular diet in many churches across America..." (p. 17). He does not say at this point what grounds he has for that assumption. It is almost like he is setting up a straw man to knock down. As his discussions in the book later show, however, he is not setting up a straw man. If he had introduced some of that evidence in this first chapter, his arguments would be on firmer ground.
At the end of the chapter, Horton acknowledges that his judgments may be too sweeping or ill-informed. He further claims not to have any "particular wing, movement, person, or group" in mind. Further reading in the book reveals, however, that he does have particular persons in mind. Aside from that, he does make judgments that are too sweeping.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to naming the American captivity, which he calls "moralistic, therapeutic deism." Part of his arguments in this chapter are anecdotes, part based on the research of George Barna, Christian Smith, James Davison Hunter and other researchers, as well as magazine articles and even television dialogue. The closest Horton comes to dealing with primary sources is when he analyzes the preaching of Charles Finney. Yet, there is a difference between the Arminian, Semi-Pelagian preaching of Finney and the preaching recorded by Barna and others. He is right that some of Finney's preaching could be called moralistic, but it is a stretch to call it therapeutic and deistic.
Horton's sources in this chapter are one problem for me. Using secondary sources may be a time saving device, but in the age of the Internet, he could have searched for sermons online to evaluate and draw his own conclusions.
A second problem for me in this chapter is the structure. On page 48 he notes the work of Marcha Witten who analyzed a number of sermons regarding the prodigal son preached by Southern Baptist and PCUSA pastors. Yet, it is not until page 55 that he more or less begins to deal with the results of her work. The intervening pages are a side trip in which he again discusses the problem he sees with some parts of American Christianity. When he begins to discuss her findings, he does so uncritically. Witten found that the sermons treated God as the extravagent lover. Horton seems to accept this conclusion. Yet, is this not the point of the parable, especially as described by Tim Keller in his book The Prodigal God? Horton laments the absence of any need of a mediator or Christ's atoning work. He seems to have forgotten that this is a parable and must be understood as such. Witten found (and Horton accepts) that the preachers had a variety of things to say about the younger son and critiques the pastors for what they said and did not say. Some of their comments about the younger son are moralistic and perhaps do not take seriously enough his actions. But the parable is about God and is meant for the Pharisees. Neither Witten or Horton seem to get this.
More later.
In general, I found the work to be uneven. Chapters 6 and 7 are well written and thought out. The arguments are clear, concise and cogent. The work of Christ is clearly spelled out in Chapter 6 and a call to faithfulness is well presented in Chapter 7.
The earlier chapters, however, seemed to me to have been written in a rush. There is a sense of passion in his arguments, which is not wrong in and of itself, but makes these chapters less well thought out than the closing chapters. I found myself making a number of comments about what he was saying. I will return to these chapters below.
Second, I think a better subtitle such as A Critique of Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel would have been preferable. This is where the meat of Horton's argument is directed and would have saved him from Frame's criticism of painting with a broad brush.
Third, Horton is right in describing some parts of evangelicalism (to say nothing of liberalism) as vacuous. I have worshiped in some churches where the prayers and the sermon really said nothing useful. He is also correct in identifying a particular kind of American Christianity. In this regard, he could have strengthened his case by refering to the work of Mark Noll in his book America's God which clearly describes an American theology that has been shaped by American ideals. For instance, on page 54 Horton says, "It is not secular humanists but we ourselves who are secularizing the faith by transforming its odd message in some less jarring to the American psyche." This is precisely the point Noll makes in his work.
I will now review the first three chapters of Christless Christianity as well as chapter 5.
In chapter one, Horton describes what he means by Christless Christianity. It is that Christ is not preached in the apostolic sense. Instead, Jesus is a prop "for our own play." Sermons address issues like marriage, spiritual disciplines. Some of what Horton writes is similar to Ed Clowney's test of a Christian sermon: If a rabbi could preach that sermon, it wasn't Christian.
Yet, Horton's argument in chapter 1 is not totally convincing. He does not paint a clear picture of what he really means by a Christless Christianity. The closest he comes is his oft repeated phrase, "Do more, try harder." While this may be true, he says this is what he assumes "to be the regular diet in many churches across America..." (p. 17). He does not say at this point what grounds he has for that assumption. It is almost like he is setting up a straw man to knock down. As his discussions in the book later show, however, he is not setting up a straw man. If he had introduced some of that evidence in this first chapter, his arguments would be on firmer ground.
At the end of the chapter, Horton acknowledges that his judgments may be too sweeping or ill-informed. He further claims not to have any "particular wing, movement, person, or group" in mind. Further reading in the book reveals, however, that he does have particular persons in mind. Aside from that, he does make judgments that are too sweeping.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to naming the American captivity, which he calls "moralistic, therapeutic deism." Part of his arguments in this chapter are anecdotes, part based on the research of George Barna, Christian Smith, James Davison Hunter and other researchers, as well as magazine articles and even television dialogue. The closest Horton comes to dealing with primary sources is when he analyzes the preaching of Charles Finney. Yet, there is a difference between the Arminian, Semi-Pelagian preaching of Finney and the preaching recorded by Barna and others. He is right that some of Finney's preaching could be called moralistic, but it is a stretch to call it therapeutic and deistic.
Horton's sources in this chapter are one problem for me. Using secondary sources may be a time saving device, but in the age of the Internet, he could have searched for sermons online to evaluate and draw his own conclusions.
A second problem for me in this chapter is the structure. On page 48 he notes the work of Marcha Witten who analyzed a number of sermons regarding the prodigal son preached by Southern Baptist and PCUSA pastors. Yet, it is not until page 55 that he more or less begins to deal with the results of her work. The intervening pages are a side trip in which he again discusses the problem he sees with some parts of American Christianity. When he begins to discuss her findings, he does so uncritically. Witten found that the sermons treated God as the extravagent lover. Horton seems to accept this conclusion. Yet, is this not the point of the parable, especially as described by Tim Keller in his book The Prodigal God? Horton laments the absence of any need of a mediator or Christ's atoning work. He seems to have forgotten that this is a parable and must be understood as such. Witten found (and Horton accepts) that the preachers had a variety of things to say about the younger son and critiques the pastors for what they said and did not say. Some of their comments about the younger son are moralistic and perhaps do not take seriously enough his actions. But the parable is about God and is meant for the Pharisees. Neither Witten or Horton seem to get this.
More later.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Anglicans and Rome
For the life of me, I cannot understand why any Anglican/Episcopalian would accept the invitation of the Bishop of Rome to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Granted, the Catholic Church of today is not the church of the days of Henry VIII. Yet, Roman Catholic teaching on important articles of faith are at variance with the teachings of the 39 Articles and the English Reformers.
Those from the Anglican community who are open to the Bishop of Rome's invitation seem to do so for two reasons: Roman Catholic moral teaching which has not given in to the moral relativism found in the Episcopal Church; and to be seen to be ecumenical. However, they are overlooking fundamental differences between the two churches regarding the basics of salvation. The 39 Articles and the English reformers, e.g., Archbishop Cranmer, teach a decidedly Protestant and Reformed view of justification by faith. The Catholic Church continues to hold to unreformed views of justification.
The 39 Articles position on justification is clear:
XI. Of the Justification of Man.We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
Compare this to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992:
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:[40] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.[41]
1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.
While there are similarities between the two statements, but the Catholic statement puts more emphasis on human merit and action to the point of collaboration with God. The Catholic view of justification combines justification into one, rather than keeping them separate as reformation theology does.
For this and other reasons, Anglicans should be wary about returning to Rome. Rome has not reformed itself enough to warrant the return of anyone from Canterbury.
Those from the Anglican community who are open to the Bishop of Rome's invitation seem to do so for two reasons: Roman Catholic moral teaching which has not given in to the moral relativism found in the Episcopal Church; and to be seen to be ecumenical. However, they are overlooking fundamental differences between the two churches regarding the basics of salvation. The 39 Articles and the English reformers, e.g., Archbishop Cranmer, teach a decidedly Protestant and Reformed view of justification by faith. The Catholic Church continues to hold to unreformed views of justification.
The 39 Articles position on justification is clear:
XI. Of the Justification of Man.We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
Compare this to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992:
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:[40] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.[41]
1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.
While there are similarities between the two statements, but the Catholic statement puts more emphasis on human merit and action to the point of collaboration with God. The Catholic view of justification combines justification into one, rather than keeping them separate as reformation theology does.
For this and other reasons, Anglicans should be wary about returning to Rome. Rome has not reformed itself enough to warrant the return of anyone from Canterbury.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
A Conservative Bible??
It is not enough to make god in our image. News on the Internet today heralds the planning of a "conservative" Bible, i.e., a Bible that reflects the language and concepts of political and economic conservatives. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project claims that the Bible as translated now is too liberal. By liberal they mean:
- a framework of liberal bias. This includes the presence of John 8:53ff (the woman taken in adultery), the inclusion of verses not found in the best manuscripts, socialism (as evidenced by terms like comrade) and questioning the use of "shrewdly" in regard to the dishonest manager in the Gospels.
- not emasculated, a reference to the unisex of the NIV and other translations.
- not dumbing down the language of Scripture in translations. They complain that the NIV is written for a 7th grade reading level. This begs the question of how difficult the language of Scripture should be. Since the NT was written in koine Greek, which was the common language of the people, it seems right to translate the NT into a language which its readers can understand. Martin Luther recognized this when he produced a Bible in German for common people to read.
- using language that hides addictions. Their example here is "casting lots" instead of gambling. However, the Roman soldiers were not gambling when they cast lots for Jesus' clothing. Casting lots was a common practice in the ancient world and in the Bible.
- not understanding the free market language of Jesus' parables. Jesus's parables were not economic lessons, but lessons about the kingdom of God.
- being wordy.
- not translating Word (logos) in John 1:1 by the word truth.
This project only makes sense as another way in which people reject the revelation of God. Rather than being challenged and transformed by God's inerrant and infallible Word, this project seeks to judge God's Word to fit their own categories. No doubt this kind of bible will have its appeal, but it will not be the Word of God. Just because liberals do this kind of translation does not justify its practice by political and economic conservatives.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Beware the leaven of the Republicans and other right wing voices
This blog is about theological thoughts. Theology speaks to everything since there is no "square inch of earth that Jesus Christ does not say, This is mine." (Abraham Kuyper).
Leaven is the biblical word for yeast and speaks to its effects in dough. Jesus used the word to warn his disciples about the Pharisees and others whose words and teachings were false and not according to God's word and will.
In our day we (Christians and everyone else) must beware of the leaven of the right wing who for the most part are Republicans. Their words are false and thus lead people to believe what amounts to lies as they put their particular spin on matters like health care reform, judicial nominations and the President's place of birth. Their actions are immoral for they violate God's condemnation of lying (the 9th commandment; Paul's words in Ephesians).
Their comments deliberately misconstrue the intent of health care reform, especially as it relates to end of life issues. They have riled up senior citizens with their message that the government will require senior citizens to prepare for euthenasia. This leads to uncivil and rude behavior at meetings where members of Congress and the Secretary of Health try to explain the plans for health care reform. Of course, senior citizens are responsible for their own behavior if they listen to the right wing without checking out the facts for themselves. Beware of the leaven of the right wing.
The leaven of the right wing appears in comments about Judge Sotomayor. Like zombies, most Republicans and their right wing supporters (handlers?) are opposing her nomination calling her a judicial activist. Have they forgotten to think for themselves? Beware of their leaven.
Beware of the leaven of the right wing when they question the qualifications of Barack Obama to be president based on his place of birth. In spite of evidence supporting his birth in Hawaii, they insist on demanding proof of his birth place.
Christians involved in the right wing need to repent and stop believing lies and other self-serving assertions. They need to be like the members of the synagogue in Berea and check out what they are told "to see if these things be so." They need to do their own research and not take the words of others with an agenda.
Leaven is the biblical word for yeast and speaks to its effects in dough. Jesus used the word to warn his disciples about the Pharisees and others whose words and teachings were false and not according to God's word and will.
In our day we (Christians and everyone else) must beware of the leaven of the right wing who for the most part are Republicans. Their words are false and thus lead people to believe what amounts to lies as they put their particular spin on matters like health care reform, judicial nominations and the President's place of birth. Their actions are immoral for they violate God's condemnation of lying (the 9th commandment; Paul's words in Ephesians).
Their comments deliberately misconstrue the intent of health care reform, especially as it relates to end of life issues. They have riled up senior citizens with their message that the government will require senior citizens to prepare for euthenasia. This leads to uncivil and rude behavior at meetings where members of Congress and the Secretary of Health try to explain the plans for health care reform. Of course, senior citizens are responsible for their own behavior if they listen to the right wing without checking out the facts for themselves. Beware of the leaven of the right wing.
The leaven of the right wing appears in comments about Judge Sotomayor. Like zombies, most Republicans and their right wing supporters (handlers?) are opposing her nomination calling her a judicial activist. Have they forgotten to think for themselves? Beware of their leaven.
Beware of the leaven of the right wing when they question the qualifications of Barack Obama to be president based on his place of birth. In spite of evidence supporting his birth in Hawaii, they insist on demanding proof of his birth place.
Christians involved in the right wing need to repent and stop believing lies and other self-serving assertions. They need to be like the members of the synagogue in Berea and check out what they are told "to see if these things be so." They need to do their own research and not take the words of others with an agenda.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
MC USA: To Laugh or to Cry?
I read today the new issue of Mennonite Weekly Review with coverage of the 2009 gathering of the Mennonite Church in the USA. As I read the articles on the gathering, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry. I was moved to prayer for the church. It seems rather clear that Mennonites have abandoned their long standing commitment to the Bible, at least in regard to the nature of the church. Gone is the sense of the church as a called out people not conformed to the world. Instead, in the name of inclusivity everything goes. People and congregations may believe whatever they want without fear of church discipline. There is a fear of offending or excluding anyone.
The articles boasted of the presence of the Spirit at the gathering. Yet the actions of the gathering cannot be reconciled with the Biblical teaching of the Spirit. It is even likely that will the attendees boasted of the Spirit, that in actuality Ichabod has been written over the church.
The Mennonite convention in many ways parallels the General Convention of the Episcopal Church taking place now. In violation of Scripture, the Convention seems bent on approving blessings for same sex relationships. This is claimed to be the leading of the Spirit but that seems far fetched.
Eventually members from these churches will stand before Christ to give an account of their actions.
The articles boasted of the presence of the Spirit at the gathering. Yet the actions of the gathering cannot be reconciled with the Biblical teaching of the Spirit. It is even likely that will the attendees boasted of the Spirit, that in actuality Ichabod has been written over the church.
The Mennonite convention in many ways parallels the General Convention of the Episcopal Church taking place now. In violation of Scripture, the Convention seems bent on approving blessings for same sex relationships. This is claimed to be the leading of the Spirit but that seems far fetched.
Eventually members from these churches will stand before Christ to give an account of their actions.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Christians and the Right Wing
A prayer request at choir practice the other night prompts this post. A choir member asked prayer because the Department of Homeland Security supposedly has targeted American veterans and Christians. Doubting that this person had actually read this report, and because I believe in reading primary sources, I found the report online. Though it is no longer on the DHS website, a Google search will locate it.
In searching for the report I noticed all kinds of wild reactions to it, mostly critical. However, I was not surprised when I read the report. Rather than being wild and guilty of the criticisms by Christians and other conservatives, I found the report to be very measured and carefully written. It does not accuse American military veterans of anything. It does not accuse Christians of anything. It does take note of right wing extremist groups in the country. It carefully defines rightwing extremism as "those movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority or rejecting government authority entirely." This may include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
The fact that some Christians and conservative commentators find the report troubling indicates that they have not read the report carefully or do not know how to read with comprehension. Their reactions to this report are totally uncalled for. The reactions of members of Congress are also uncalled for. Who cannot admit to the presence of extreme right wing groups in this country that fit the definition in the report? The report notes their existence, identifies some of their activities, notes how some military veterans have been drawn to these groups, and wonders if this could be a pattern for the present and future. American military veterans are no more pure and above board than any one else. The report does not paint every veteran with tar (I certainly don't feel tarred). It just expresses concern that some of them could be drawn in. Christians are not specifically named in the report. But we all know the actions of some opponents of abortion. If all Christians feel condemned by that, they need to ask themselves, why.
Christians who spread negative comments about this report without reading it are guilty of breaking the commandment against bearing false witness and not speaking the truth. They are also guilty of listening to others without reading and thinking about the matter. There is no excuse in this day and age for not locating the report and reading it for themselves. Talk show hosts and advocacy groups all have agendas. To listen to them but not to read the document in question is plain stupid and results in the kind of misinformation that one reads on the internet.
In searching for the report I noticed all kinds of wild reactions to it, mostly critical. However, I was not surprised when I read the report. Rather than being wild and guilty of the criticisms by Christians and other conservatives, I found the report to be very measured and carefully written. It does not accuse American military veterans of anything. It does not accuse Christians of anything. It does take note of right wing extremist groups in the country. It carefully defines rightwing extremism as "those movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority or rejecting government authority entirely." This may include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
The fact that some Christians and conservative commentators find the report troubling indicates that they have not read the report carefully or do not know how to read with comprehension. Their reactions to this report are totally uncalled for. The reactions of members of Congress are also uncalled for. Who cannot admit to the presence of extreme right wing groups in this country that fit the definition in the report? The report notes their existence, identifies some of their activities, notes how some military veterans have been drawn to these groups, and wonders if this could be a pattern for the present and future. American military veterans are no more pure and above board than any one else. The report does not paint every veteran with tar (I certainly don't feel tarred). It just expresses concern that some of them could be drawn in. Christians are not specifically named in the report. But we all know the actions of some opponents of abortion. If all Christians feel condemned by that, they need to ask themselves, why.
Christians who spread negative comments about this report without reading it are guilty of breaking the commandment against bearing false witness and not speaking the truth. They are also guilty of listening to others without reading and thinking about the matter. There is no excuse in this day and age for not locating the report and reading it for themselves. Talk show hosts and advocacy groups all have agendas. To listen to them but not to read the document in question is plain stupid and results in the kind of misinformation that one reads on the internet.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Preaching the Resurrection
I heard three Easter sermons this week, one in person and the other two electonically. Of the three two were a bit disappointing. Rather than talking about the significance of Christ's resurrection, they made us the center of the story. Why is that? Are we tired of proclaiming the work of Christ in his resurrection? Are they afraid of intellectualizing the event? Or have they bought into the "me" culture of American Christianity where what an event means to me is more important than the objective nature of the event?
The resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. It's primary meaning is the message of Jesus' victory over death. The resurrection is a theological event and statement about Jesus. As the Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 1, "we preach Christ crucified." Paul also said "we do not preach ourselves." To preach or emphasize our own experience is not the preaching of Christ. To preach Christ is not merely to talk about the Resurrected Lord but to preach the resurrection. How can we do less than the Apostles?
Of course, the resurrection has much to do with us. It is the guarantee of our resurrection, it is the basis of the whole Christian life. Those who believe in Christ and trust in his saving work are already resurrected to new life. But we can only talk about that in the context of preaching Christ's resurrection.
The resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. It's primary meaning is the message of Jesus' victory over death. The resurrection is a theological event and statement about Jesus. As the Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 1, "we preach Christ crucified." Paul also said "we do not preach ourselves." To preach or emphasize our own experience is not the preaching of Christ. To preach Christ is not merely to talk about the Resurrected Lord but to preach the resurrection. How can we do less than the Apostles?
Of course, the resurrection has much to do with us. It is the guarantee of our resurrection, it is the basis of the whole Christian life. Those who believe in Christ and trust in his saving work are already resurrected to new life. But we can only talk about that in the context of preaching Christ's resurrection.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Something Like a Defense of Definitive Sanctification
In a recent post on his blog here Professor Scott Clark from Westminster Seminary in California critiques Professor John Murray's view of Definitive Sanctification. All three of these confessions are clear that Christ "is made unto us...sanctification," that those who are justified are also sanctified, and those that are "called and regenerated" are "further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection."
2. The absence of this doctrine in Reformed theology is not necessarily a sign of error. Reformed theologians are human and finite. Their perspective has limitations especially as they developed their views vis-a-vis the views of Rome. Reformed theologians and confessions were more concerned with issues of justification and good works and the relationship between the two.
3. Reformed theology missed an opportunity to develop its views of sanctification as compared to the Roman view which treated justification and sanctification together. An understanding of Definitive Sanctification would have made clear the difference between justification and sanctification and yet understood both as the work of Christ.
4. In Paul, sanctification is parallel to justification and glorification. If justification is a definitive act, there is no reason not to believe that sanctification and glorification are not likewise definitive. In justification, God declares us righteous. In Christ we are glorified, having been seated in the heavenly places (Colossians 3) already. In sanctification, God declares us to be holy, to belong to him, to be set apart for his service. We do not become more justified nor more glorified. We are sanctified which is the whole basis for the imperatives of the Christian life in Paul's letters.
Thinking along these lines, Murray's concept is Reformed.
2. The absence of this doctrine in Reformed theology is not necessarily a sign of error. Reformed theologians are human and finite. Their perspective has limitations especially as they developed their views vis-a-vis the views of Rome. Reformed theologians and confessions were more concerned with issues of justification and good works and the relationship between the two.
3. Reformed theology missed an opportunity to develop its views of sanctification as compared to the Roman view which treated justification and sanctification together. An understanding of Definitive Sanctification would have made clear the difference between justification and sanctification and yet understood both as the work of Christ.
4. In Paul, sanctification is parallel to justification and glorification. If justification is a definitive act, there is no reason not to believe that sanctification and glorification are not likewise definitive. In justification, God declares us righteous. In Christ we are glorified, having been seated in the heavenly places (Colossians 3) already. In sanctification, God declares us to be holy, to belong to him, to be set apart for his service. We do not become more justified nor more glorified. We are sanctified which is the whole basis for the imperatives of the Christian life in Paul's letters.
Thinking along these lines, Murray's concept is Reformed.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Holy Scripture (5)
A much fuller exposition of the Quaker doctrine of the Scriptures is given by Robert Barclay in his 1673 work A Catechism and Confession of Faith. Chapter II bears the title "Of the Rule and Guide of Christians and of the Scriptures." Barclay treats the distinction between the Old and New Covenants in a way that exalts their dis-unity over against unity. His emphasis is rather on the role of the Spirit as the guide and rule of Christians under the Gospel. He makes much of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in answer to the question "Is it an inward principle, then that is to be the guide and rule of Christians?" he quotes I John 2:27 and I Thessalonians 4:9 as affirmative answers. This naturally raises the question about the purpose of Scripture. To answer that he refers to Romans 15:4-it was given to comfort and strengthen us. It does not, however, lead us to the truth; this the work of the Holy Spirit.
We have previously mentioned Barclay's other writing An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. This work consists of 15 propositions and an exposition of each. Proposition III deals with the Quaker doctrine of Scripture, and refutes other options. Barclay describes Scripture as having proceeded from the Spirit of God and containing (1) "a faithful historical account of the actings of God's people in divers ages," (2) a prophetical account of things which have to come to pass and things yet to occur, and (3) "a full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrines of Christ." (Barclay, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, 72-73). The Scriptures are not, however, "the adequate primary rule of faith and manners" (73). The Spirit is the principle rule; Scripture is secondary to the Spirit.
We have previously mentioned Barclay's other writing An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. This work consists of 15 propositions and an exposition of each. Proposition III deals with the Quaker doctrine of Scripture, and refutes other options. Barclay describes Scripture as having proceeded from the Spirit of God and containing (1) "a faithful historical account of the actings of God's people in divers ages," (2) a prophetical account of things which have to come to pass and things yet to occur, and (3) "a full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrines of Christ." (Barclay, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, 72-73). The Scriptures are not, however, "the adequate primary rule of faith and manners" (73). The Spirit is the principle rule; Scripture is secondary to the Spirit.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689
Since I haven't posted for a while, I wanted to share my understanding of the differences between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. As I wrote in my WTS Th.M. thesis, I believe that the differences between the two confessions (aside from the obvious differences related to Baptist ecclesiology) are due to a difference theological climate in Great Britain. By 1677, the Baptists were dealing with a different set of theological issues than the divines of Westminster in 1647. This is true, too, regarding the differences between the first London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the second confession. The writers of the 1677 confession made a clear decision to use the Westminster Confession as a model. Yet, they made a variety of changes in wording which I believe are due to the presence of more radical groups such as the Quakers, and the rise of rationalism in religion, especially as that affected doctrines related to Holy Scripture and the Trinity. The 1677 confession's teaching on Holy Scripture seems to be dealing with both the views of Quakers and the views of rationalism as applied to Scripture. With this in mind, I will continue now with more of my Th.M. thesis.
What was the Quaker doctrine of Scripture? To answer this question we may examine the views of two Quakers--James Nayler and Robet Barclay. Nayler was an early associate of George Fox. In January, 1653, he was placed on trial in Appleby, England. The following conversation was part of that trial:
Just[ice] Pears[on]: "To the Word: What sayest thou to the Scriptures? are they the Word of God?"
Jam[es] Nayler: They are a true declaration of the word that was in them who spoke them forth."
Higginson: Is there not a written Word?"
Jam[es] Nayler: Where readest thou in the Scriptures of a written Word? The word is spiritual, not seen with carnal eyes: but as for the Scriptures they are trie, and I witness them true, in measure fulfilled in me, as far as i am grown up." (Hugh Barbour and Arthur O. Roberts, eds., Early Quaker Writings 1650-1700) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 261-262.)
Nayler also reveals his view of the Scriptures in response to Richard Baxter's The Quaker Catechism of 1655 (Baxter's replies to Quaker questions are in Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, p. 273). Nayler refers to Baxter's position that the Scriptures were written to be a standing rule. His response is to mock it. wondering how this could be when "scarce two of you can agree about it, what is the meaing of it, and how many copies is there of it? Which of them is the standing rule? (Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, 284.) He then responded to some queries put forth by Baxter: Do they believe the Scriptures to be true? Nayler answers in the affirmative, but responds negatively to Baxter's position that the Scriptures call themselves the Word of God. Baxter, says, Nayler, did not bring forth any Biblical texts to prove that "the letter is the word." (Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, 284).
What was the Quaker doctrine of Scripture? To answer this question we may examine the views of two Quakers--James Nayler and Robet Barclay. Nayler was an early associate of George Fox. In January, 1653, he was placed on trial in Appleby, England. The following conversation was part of that trial:
Just[ice] Pears[on]: "To the Word: What sayest thou to the Scriptures? are they the Word of God?"
Jam[es] Nayler: They are a true declaration of the word that was in them who spoke them forth."
Higginson: Is there not a written Word?"
Jam[es] Nayler: Where readest thou in the Scriptures of a written Word? The word is spiritual, not seen with carnal eyes: but as for the Scriptures they are trie, and I witness them true, in measure fulfilled in me, as far as i am grown up." (Hugh Barbour and Arthur O. Roberts, eds., Early Quaker Writings 1650-1700) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 261-262.)
Nayler also reveals his view of the Scriptures in response to Richard Baxter's The Quaker Catechism of 1655 (Baxter's replies to Quaker questions are in Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, p. 273). Nayler refers to Baxter's position that the Scriptures were written to be a standing rule. His response is to mock it. wondering how this could be when "scarce two of you can agree about it, what is the meaing of it, and how many copies is there of it? Which of them is the standing rule? (Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, 284.) He then responded to some queries put forth by Baxter: Do they believe the Scriptures to be true? Nayler answers in the affirmative, but responds negatively to Baxter's position that the Scriptures call themselves the Word of God. Baxter, says, Nayler, did not bring forth any Biblical texts to prove that "the letter is the word." (Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, 284).
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Holy Scripture (4)
The other approach that Hill notes is one that denies the infallibility of the Bible, and subjects it to textual criticism (Hill, 261-263). What Hill calls the denial of infallibility, he illustrates with examples which may be classified as denials of authority and examples of supposed errors.
Against such a background the emphasis of the Second London Confession may be seen the best. We may isolate one particular group that the writers of the Confession may have had in mind when they affirmed the "Scripture is the only sufficient, certain,and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience." This group is most likely the Quakers. This is not an arbitrary identification. It s based on an understanding of the events of mid-17th century English church history. Though we will not be able to spell out the full scope of their often stormy relationship (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, demonstrates how several Baptist confessions were directed specifically at the Quakers), we can discuss some of the doctrinal and practical points at which Baptists and Quakers were engaged in conflict.
Against such a background the emphasis of the Second London Confession may be seen the best. We may isolate one particular group that the writers of the Confession may have had in mind when they affirmed the "Scripture is the only sufficient, certain,and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience." This group is most likely the Quakers. This is not an arbitrary identification. It s based on an understanding of the events of mid-17th century English church history. Though we will not be able to spell out the full scope of their often stormy relationship (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, demonstrates how several Baptist confessions were directed specifically at the Quakers), we can discuss some of the doctrinal and practical points at which Baptists and Quakers were engaged in conflict.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Holy Scripture (3)
It must be remembered that the Baptists wrote their confession nearly thirty years after the Westminster Confession was written. Much had happened in England in the intervening years. The Baptists faced doctrinal problems not faced in the mid-1640s. This was especially true concerning the Scriptures. The Baptist emphasis on the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture was probably written to refute erros about the nature of Scripture circulating in mid-17th century England.
Christopher Hill has summarized the attitude toward the Scriptures by radical groups in England in terms of two main approaches. One approach was to "use its stories as myths to which each could give his own sense, a sense that need not consider the original meaning of the text." (Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1975), 261). Such a use was illustrated in the writings of the Quaker apologist Robert Barclay. Writing in 1675, Barclay described the work of the Scriptures, their service to us, as a mirror in which we see the experiences of the saints of old. Through this we are strengthened and confirmed and given the hope of obtaining the same end. Scripture is something to be fulfilled in us. As Scripture is fulfilled in us, we "discern the stamp of God's spirit and ways upon them." (Robert Barclay, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity being an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the people called Quakers (Philadelphia: Friends Book Store, n.d.), 88).
Christopher Hill has summarized the attitude toward the Scriptures by radical groups in England in terms of two main approaches. One approach was to "use its stories as myths to which each could give his own sense, a sense that need not consider the original meaning of the text." (Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1975), 261). Such a use was illustrated in the writings of the Quaker apologist Robert Barclay. Writing in 1675, Barclay described the work of the Scriptures, their service to us, as a mirror in which we see the experiences of the saints of old. Through this we are strengthened and confirmed and given the hope of obtaining the same end. Scripture is something to be fulfilled in us. As Scripture is fulfilled in us, we "discern the stamp of God's spirit and ways upon them." (Robert Barclay, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity being an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the people called Quakers (Philadelphia: Friends Book Store, n.d.), 88).
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Second London Confession: Holy Scripture (2)
This is not to say that the Westminster Confession does not use the term "infallible," for it does, as a hermeneutical approach to Scripture. "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself (WCF I.9). The Second London Confession says the same thing. However, when comparing the two confessions, the Second London Confession uses infallibility to describe the character of Scripture. Thus the confession opens with these words: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallibile rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience (SLC I.1).
The reason for the Baptist affirmation of the infallibility of Scripture has nothing to do with an attempt to show doctrinal superiority over the Westminster Confession, but rather to address contemporary matters in English theology.
The reason for the Baptist affirmation of the infallibility of Scripture has nothing to do with an attempt to show doctrinal superiority over the Westminster Confession, but rather to address contemporary matters in English theology.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Second London Baptist Confession: Holy Scripture
The most obvious difference between the Westminster and the Second London Confession is found in the opening sentence of the Second London Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and the infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, faith, and Obedience. In the Westminster standards, this concept is not explicitly discussed. However, if the question is not raised outright, it is implied in the Westminster standards. Following Calvin's views, the Westminster Confession contrasts God's revelation in nature and creation, with his revelation in Scripture (WCF I.1). Natural, creation revelation is not "sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will which is necessary unto salvation." God, therefore, gave the Scriptures "to declare...His will unto His church" and to better preserve and propagate the truth. Scripture is thus a better means of God's revelation. It is sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that leads to salvation. If it is sufficient, it is at least by implication, trustworthy, which is an acceptable synonym for "infallible."
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith
For my Th.M. thesis at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, I wrote a comparison of the London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. At the heart of the thesis was a harmony of the two confessions, laboriously typed on a portable typewriter by my wife. The thesis explored the differences between the confessions as suggested by the harmony. The point of the thesis was to argue that the Second London Confession was a confession in its own right, and not just a Baptist recension of the Westminster Confession as Philip Schaff suggested. I will be trying, as time and energy permit, to publish in this blog the material from my thesis that supports this argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)