are-family-values-enough-march-april-1995 by Modern Reformation

Words to Winners of Souls

Apologetics to the Glory of God

Words to Winners of Souls

John M. Frame

Horatius Bonar

Frame unveils the richness of a biblical apologetic in its many forms, including proof (presenting a rational basis for faith), defense (answering ob jections), and offense (expos ing the folly of unbelief). He clarifies the relation ships of reason, proofs, and evidences to faith, biblical au thority, and the lordship of Christ. Frame also offers a fresh look at probability argu ments and the problem of evil. Particularly helpful are his extensive use of Scripture and his presentation of spe cific lines of argument, in cluding a model dialogue in the closing chapter.

This timeless classic offers heart-searching counsel and a gripping challenge to put aside all that interferes with the ministry of the gospel. Drawing from Owen, Baxter, McCheyne, Edwards, and oth ers, Bonar summons us to faith, zeal, and love for lost souls. He warns of "the traged y of a barren ministry" and gives special attention to the need for ministerial con fession of sin. Though written over a century ago, these words are as timely, convict ing, and inspiring today as when first delivered. 0-87552-164-9, paper $3.99 72 pages

0-87552-243-2, paper $14.99 279 pages

Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2 Francis Turretin The arrival of the first com plete English translation of Turretin's Institutes has been applauded by J. I. Packer, Richard A. Muller, Paul D. Feinberg, John M. Frame, and many others. In this volume Turretin treats God's law, the covenant of grace, the person and state of Christ, the media torial office of Christ, calling and faith, justification, and sanctification and good works. "If ever a great theological work has been unjustly ne glected it has been Francis Turretin's masterful volumes. . . . Let's all knock off a month from our regular work and study Turretin!" -James M. Boice

0-87552-452-4, cloth $39.95

You can find these titles at your local Christian bookstore or call 1-800-631-0094.

Lord and Christ Ernest C. Reisinger Can a person have Jesus as Savior and not as Lord? W' happens to the central doc trines of Scripture when Christ's lordship is viewed as optional? How does the non lordship view impact practical matters such as evangelism, preaching, counsel, growth in grace, and assurance? Ernest C. Reisinger discusses these and other crucial issues to show the implications of the "lordship controversy" for theology and life. "Like a master diagnosti cian, Reisinger subjects the whole controversy to an in criminating doctrinal exami nation." -Thomas K. Ascol 0-87552-388-9, paper $8.99 198 pages

£$iitor-in-Chief Michael Horton

Managing Editor ~i' Sqra McReynolds ,

Design

','"

Shane Rosenthia!l}

'~.),>

Contributing.SchOlars

Are

~ Dr. John Armstrong

Dr. Steve M. Baugh

Dr· James Boice

Dr. O, A. Carson ,

Th:e Rev. Knox Chamblin

: J~r. Bryan Chapell "

Dr, Daniel Dorianr

The Rev. 1. Ligon:'Duncan

Dr. Timothy George

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

" Dr. John Hannah

Darryl G. Hart

Dr. Carl"¥. H . Henry ,

the Rev. tMichael Horton

Dr. Rope.rt Kolb '

Dr. AN ~h Mawhinney ',

Dr. J.oel Nederhood '

Dr. ,Roger Nicole ,

The Rev. Kim Riddlebarger

, .Dr. Rod Rosenbladt

Dr. Robert Preus

Dr. R. C. Sproul

Dr. Robel} Strimple .-

Dr. WillemA. VanGem~ren

Dr. Gem~. E;'Veith

Dr. David Wells

Family Values Enough?

Dr.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THEOLOGY IN MARRIAGE

Tim & Beth Brewer

THE COVENANT IS A FRAMEWORK FOR LIFE &FAMILY

Willem VanGemeren

GOD'S GRANDCHILDREN

Michael Horton

FATHERS, INSTRUCT YOUR CHILDREN

Kim Riddlebarger

CURE fJoard of Dir~dp,rs Douglas Abendroth ,%

M ichael E. Aldrich':

Joh:r G. Beau man

Che.ryt B,iehl

The ReY·;.;;Earl Blackburq

Dr. W : Rqbert Godfrey ,5 ,:,~,

RichardH;:ermes .

THE SUBMISSIVE WIFE

Bryan Chapell

RESTORING FATHERHOOD

Don Eberly

The Rev,- Michael Horto~.

Dr. RohEirt Preus

Dr. '.'.,..... Luder Whitlock ,

THE SERMON & THE LUNCH

c.s. Lewis

?:~~<."-

,CHRISTIANS UNITED

for REFORMATION:

~duy'ational foundatid~~Bt:;;~

is a non-profit committed to communi cia~Bgthe insights of the :' 16th century Reformation't~.1:he 20th century , church, For more informatrO~l call our number ' listed betow, or write us C\(:<r

C URE

CHRISTIANS U NITED

In this Issue Letters To The Editor Interview: A Discussion with Tim LaHaye Book Revi ew: When Fathers Ruled

Page Page Page Page

2 3 11 32

f~:~REFORMATION

222 1 East Winston Road Suite K, Anaheim, CA 92806

SUBSCRIBE TO

modern REFORMATION 1-800-956-2644

22 MARC H /AP RIL 1995

Readers familiar with modern REFORMATION will not be surprised at the thesis that every crisis in the church is a symptom ofthe unraveling ofGod-centered ~ faith and practice, worship and life. Beyond House / Resolution 386 or whatever, judgment begins in the house of God and in order to point the way forward for the rest of society, we ought to recognize the challenges to and opportunities for a recovery ofthe "godly family" in our very secular age. In this issue, then, we will be looking for the biblical foundations for the Christian family and for those fed on a steady diet of moralism and pop-psychology, it will bear a noticeably different set ofemphases. Regardless of whether you agree with the articles, we hope they will stimulate both us and our readers to think more deeply about the Christian home. ~

In This Issue

M i c /h a e I

r ton

o rehearse the litany of statistics related to the break down ofthe modern family would not only be boring; it would be useless. We all bear the statistical evidence in our own lives and nobody has to be convinced that there is a crisis, with even the most avant -garde, "progressive" periodicals that only five years ago were champions of the "new morality" now pronouncing A Timely Issue? their concerns. From psychologists to social workers, and politicians on both sides ofthe partisan aisle, many ofthose whose immersion in the behavioral sci ences has itself laid the foundation for the crisis are now employing the same methods but coming to vastly different conclusions. Individualism is out, community is in. Even the Atlantic Monthly issued a mea culpa with the rather remarkable cover story, "Dan Quayle was right," referring to the de bate sparked by the "Murphy Brown" debacle. Even if situation comedies have become the occasion for public discourse on this subject of momen tous significance, we can take some delight in the fact that people are wak ing up and smelling the coffee. One would think that this is the best possible moment for evangelicals to make disciples ofthe "family values" movement, but alas, the statistics con cerning the break-down of evangelical families leaves little room for gloating and much room for embarrassment. If political and moral solutions were sufficient to save the American family, then surely the evangelical movement could have been in the position just now to point the way forward. But di vorce and child abuse are as common in evangelical Christian as in non Christian households, pointing up the deeper spiritual crisis. 2

M A R C H/APRIL 1 9 9 5

Integrating

the whole of

Scripture

with the

totality

of life.

Francis A. Schaeffer 1912-1984

COVENANT

THEOLOGICAL

SEMINARY

and the Francis Schaeffer Institute St. Louis, Missouri

1--800--264--8064

Correspondence Study available through our Continuing Education Institute

modern R EFORMATION

-~-~----'-'-- ~~--; . ' ':'~'-;--,r:------,-~

LE. TT.,J:,>:RS:;

Your latest issue of modern REFORMATION was superb as it articulated a clear diagnosis of the sad condition of evangelical belief. Your insights on Finney and revival ism have identified the destructive cancer that has so set people we've cared for spinning off into irrelevancy -some running in existentialist terror from our church. Thank you for the sobering clarity you have presented. D. J. H., Sr. Pastor The January/February issue (The "Surfing Sunday" cover) of modern REFORMATION is delicious, but oh, so vicious! Let your speech be always seasoned with grace, not just salt. But shrink not. As Martin Luther said, "Truth at all costs." H. M.

Santa Rosa, CA

I am supposed to be studying for a final next week, and what comes in the mail but the latest modernREFORMATlON. I hope you realize that I am now hours behind because I couldn't put the magazine down until I finished it.

R. S. Pittsburgh, PA I want to thank you whole heartedly for the thought, care and hard work that you put into each issue of modern REFORMATION. It seems that every issue directly addresses some topic with which I am wrestling with at the time. I'm keeping every issue for future reference and some day will have a shelf full, just like my National Geographic collection.

M.V. State College, PA

I am enjoying your magazine because it seems to bear out conclusions my wife and I have come to a long time ago, but we are just "peasants in the pew." We read with interest the January/February issue of modernREFORMATION. It was very interesting to see Leonard Payton's glossary arranged alphabetically and in point form. Many items are just the things we have been discussing for years. Maybe there is hope? Are there any others of like mind out there?

M. F. Battleford, S. K. Canada Thanks again for another informative, provocative and timely edition of modern REFORMATION. All the authors got right to the core of the issue of "God and Politics." Their essays were intelligent and thought ful. They were helpful to me as one who has thought a great deal about this subject and has been looking for the proper understanding in light of Biblical truth .

C.H. Ephrata, PA

It was great to get the magazine. I've needed this kind of support as I've struggled with guilt relating to "not being fully yielded to Christ." M.D.

New Gloucester, ME

I believe strongly in what you uphold and in all CURE is doing to bring about a new reformation in today's church. Thank you for helping me to see clearer in my own walk. M.J. Moorhead, MN Thank you for speaking the truth in love. The body of Christ at large needs the challenge and I'm thankful for those who contribute to the "modern reformation" in our midst. I was personally encouraged and challenged to assess my beliefs by many of the writings in modern REFORMATION, and for that I am grateful. R.A.

The Sanctuary Foursquare Church of Canyon Country

My wife recently ordered the complimentary copy of modern REFORMATION on "God and Politics" and it was a

I received a free issue of your publication

breath of biblical fresh air!

modern REFORMATION and found it to be informative but

D.C.

also entertaining as well as beautifully packaged.

Dos Palos, CA

G.H. Longmont, CO

modern R EFORMATION is the best magazine I receive!

P.M . I found modern REFORMATION to be a refreshing change in the Christian magazines I have read . R.S. Pittsburgh, PA

Thank you for your letters. Currently, modernREFORMATION is looking for feedback from each issue in order to continue this new section. If you have any questions, comments, or criticisms of a particular issue or article, please drop us a line. Our address is CURE, 2221 E. Winston Rd., Ste. K, Anaheim CA 92806, or you can e-mail us at our new on-line address: ICuRElnc@netcom.com".

M A RC H / AP R IL 1995

The Importance of Theology in Marriage It Takes More Than Love to Keep us Together

by TIM & BETH BREWER

eaders of modernREFORMA TION are well aware of teady "drift" by evangelical Protestants in this <'£ 0 ,utry away from their historical moorings. And, sadly, the widespread doctrinal ignorance within the church today is not the only proof that American evangelicalism has become, for the most part, a ship without a rudder. Despite all the banter about traditional family values, it would seem that marriage and family life among American evangelicals does not fare much better than our theology. Recent surveys show that evangelicals are just as likely to divorce, and almost as likely to have engaged in extra marital affairs, as their non-believing neighbors. Two-thirds of the Christians surveyed con sidered "divorce a reasonable solution to a problem marriage," and almost half thought divorce to be an acceptable solution in spite of the consequences that it would have upon their children. l Even more lamentable is the fact that born again Christians, while remaining staunchly opposed to abortion ideologically, neverthe less still opt for it-and at a rate no less frequent than those who profess no faith at all. So much for our "family values." As shocking as these statistics may sound, though, perhaps they should not surprise us. For what affects ethics as much as theology? Indeed, as an evangelical pastor, I am convinced that it is no accident that both our theological convictions and family values have become 4

MARCH/APRIL 19 9 5

equally bankrupt in the modern church. This is not to suggest that sound doctrinal belief and happy, fulfilling marriages are coterminous (after all, there are many non Christians who enjoy the latter without the former); nor is it to say that the Bible should be treated as a prepack aged marriage manual (indeed, Scripture warns that "if for this life onlywe have hope in Christ, weareto bepitied more than allmen").2 Itis merely to point out that, even with good intentions, it is still very questionable whether a fallen creature can"glorify God and enjoy him forever" when he takes his views of God, self, and the world including his primary assumptions about marriage-from the precepts of the self-esteem gurus. Yet this is exactly what many professing Christians at tempt to do. What appears to some to be a harmless blending of the "best of both worlds" is, in fact, anything but harm less. In terms of a genuinely Christian world view, such an approach is tragic-since our assumptions about God invariably affect our understanding of the "chief endofman." If, for example, one embraces a view ofGod that suggests the redemptive value of the Cross is to be found primarily in its moral utility (i.~., God wants to show us how much He loves us, and really only wants to , make us "happy"), can we honestly expect that person, having already defined redemption in such a manner, to be any more than superficial and self-serving in his own

modern REFORMATION

human covenants? In short, how can we expect a person temporal, earthly covenant between a man and a woman with a man-centered theology to produce a God-hon foreshadows God's eternal, holy covenant with those who are the objects ofhis special love. For example, the oring marriage? "But," someone may object, "marriage is an ordi Divine promise in creation that the man will be "united .nance of creation, not redemption." That is absolutely to his wife, " and byso doing will become "one flesh" with correct! One does not have to be a Christian in order to her (Gn 2:24), corresponds-in typological fashion enjoy the fruits of God's common grace in this "holy to the believer's union with Christ. Hence the institution estate." Nevertheless, as believers in Christ, if we begin of marriage, while wholly «common" in one sense, is with faulty notions about the Creator, how can we ever nevertheless a «holy estate" insofar as it can teach us, hope to gain an accurate understanding ofhis purposes when viewed within the covenantal framework, about in creation-whether it be in marriage, family life, work, God's saving purposes in Christ. «But what," you may ask, «does all ofthis have to do government, or culture-or to fathom the deeper meaning behind why God has placed these institutions with how I relate to my spouse?" Simply this: what we believe to be true about God and his purposes in this into his world in the first place? Yet when it comes to marriage, most of us want to world will not only affect our ultimate convictions about jettison theology altogether and run straight to the the «chiefend ofman," but also the way in which we seek "practical." Think, for instance, of how many sermons to relate to others. Like it or not, our theology does the average parishioner has had to endure on Ephesians matter-even in marriage! As the great Reformed min 5 in which the minister waxes authoritatively on the ister Martyn Lloyd-Jones once remarked: "A Christian proper "roles" within marriage; yet, more often than is something before he does anything...the gospel puts a not, this is done without ever so much as mentioning the much greater weight upon what we are than upon what first two-thirds of that book, which spell out the entire we do."4 Does this imply that our behavior in marriage theological basis for our relationship to God and one (or the Christian life) is irrelevant? Ofcourse not! Ifthat another! This fact is even more remarkable, when one were the case, the second half of Ephesians would not considers that Paul himself states explicitly that he is have been written. Nevertheless, one must be in Christ "talking about Christ and the church" in this standard before he can live out the implications of his faith. In text on marriage (Eph 5:32). short, even in the process ofsanctification, «it is not I, but What, exactly, is the "mystery" to which Paul refers Christ who lives in me."s To be sure, Scripture is also full ofmany "practical" in this passage? Throughout the New Testament epistles, Paul uses the word musterion (moos-tay' -ree exhortations regarding human marriage. For example, on) to refer to truths which cannot be discovered through general revelation, but MANY SERMONS THE AVERAGE , , ..;,<f:,"/ ',' ,.. . ,:2',:" "<', rather are kept hidden, i.e., secrets or "myster ' . :'PARIs' H IO'N:dER HAD TO~\§*~PlJRE ON EPHES~A~SS : IN '" ies," until God chooses to make them known through special revelation (cf. Eph 3:4-6).3 A WHicH TB;EMINtSTER ON THE " cl ". » " ;, . ':,'\ . musterion, therefore, pertains not merely to

tHINK;:h~ Hdw

.' •••

HAs

WAXES:'~Atrt'HORITATIVELY

PR9PER ROLES WITHIN MAR;aIAGE; YET) MORE OFTEN those things that we do not understand in this life but, specifically, to God's purposes in re lHANr0l'\~IS IS DONE ~ITHOUT EVER SO AS demption that one can never understand apart WE OF from special revelation. Surely, the "mystery" of marriage is no exception. To be sure, when :> THE'JENTIRE THEOLOGICAL: Paul uses this word he is normally referring to 1\ND ONE ANOTHER! ; ·:"ti something being revealed through the com mon medium of ink and paper about God's eternal purposes. In this case, however, something is Paul states that marriage is to be based upon mutual being revealed about God, not in words, but through submission (Eph. 5:21). Mutual submission implies another aspect of the created order: the ordinance of mutual service, as evidenced by the fact that the wife vows to honor and obey someone who has committed marriage. The implications of this are profound. Among himself to laying down his life for her other things, it explains why Paul contends that the welfare. So, too, the husband vows to love uncondition proper relationship between husband and wife is one ally someone who has committed herself to following which typifies the relationship between Christ and His him.6 Apart from the obvious parallels to our faith in bride, the church. Marriage is a "mystery" insofar as this Christ, what could be more «practical" than a life-long

}~1<~Nij~~iii~

FIR~T,,~it¥O-THIRDS

WlqIC~.~ ~PETIt~~' 6uT " ::i OU~i;:R~£~Tt~6~s~IP TO'\{}:P,D

MUcn

THAT~'OqJ({,',;

BASH(F0;~ "

MARC H /APR IL 1995

relationship based upon mutual love and submission? In Christian marriage, the husband and wife are called to be, first and foremost, the servants of one another.

No doubt this is why, in his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul places his instructions regarding the marital covenant within the context of Christian sancti fication. The apostle states:

NOTHING SH:ATTERS THE ILLUSION O'F OUR OWN . ,

DECENCY QUITE LIKE THE INTIMACY OF MARRIAGE. '.,

'i-

',"

AFTER ALB; JT IS EASY to''I,:lECEIVE OURSELVES INTO fE.tINKING i RAT ~,'.

;

.':':':", ' .

WEuA~E BASICALLY(~GOOD:' LOVING ' ",,/'"

/;:

Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in ordertopleaseGod... Nowweaskyouand urgeyou to do this more and more. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to live with his own wife in a way that is holy and honor able."9

PEOPLE, ',WNTIL WE ARE ::EORCED INTO A SITUATION ~<,

':~?,

','.~

'.~'

This verse does not guarantee that marriage will inevitably produce sanctified people; nor does it imply that a single person cannot grow '. Il\TT~~EST FOR THAT OF ANOTHER. in godliness. But it does suggest that at least one ofGod,s many purposes in marriage is the Admittedly such practical exhortations are not growth of the Christian believer. To overlook or deny unique to Christian marriage. Indeed, in the last two this fact is to make a serious mistake in learning how to chapters ofEphesians, Paul applies the exact same prin live "lives that are pleasing to God." Indeed, when all is ciples of love and mutual submission to virtually every said and done, perhaps the most important question that relationship imaginable-man, woman, child, slave, can be asked of any marriage is simply this: how much and master. Nevertheless, the marriage relationship is more does our spouse reflect the image and glory ofGod unique in one sense. For while the problems that one because of it? ~ encounters in marriage may not be any differen t q uali ta tively (for the most part) from those of other interpersonal relationships, they are certainly more "re vealing," due to the unique demands placed upon the parties involved? In that sense, Christian marriage is "revelatory" in almost the same sense as the Law. For even as Paul asserts that "before the law came I did not know sin,"8 marriage can be a very convincing tutor. Let me explain. The Christian-as virtually every pagan knows-is called to serve God with all ofhis heart, mind and strength, and also to love his neighbor as him self. Nevertheless, as every true believer must learn (eventually), it is not until one actually tries to fulfill this command that he discovers the depth ofhis own deprav ity. In this sense, marriage is a great "lab practical." Nothing shatters the illusion of our own decency quite like the intimacy ofmarriage. After all, it is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are basically "good," lov ing people, until we are forced into a situation where we really must sacrifice our own self-interest for that of an other. It is no accident that the first years ofmarriage can Dr. Timothy Brewer is a graduate of Colorado State University, Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, and is presently the senior pastor of Central be so « difficult." For every son ofAdam and daughter of Presbyterian Church in S1. Louis, Missouri. He is ordained in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church . Beth is active in teaching a women's Bible study group, as well as caring for three Eve are born self-centered by nature, and perhaps noth growing children . ingilluminates this fact better than the day-to-dayreality 1 As cited by George Barna, 1993 Church Report.

2 1 Corinthians 15: 19

ofhavingto share one's most intimate space with another 3 Cf. Ranald Macaualy and Jerram Barrs' discussion of this text in Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual

Experience, (Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1978), P 173.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies on the Sermon on the Mount, Vol. 1 (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI., 1959).

human being. This is especially true when the "other" 4p.96.

2:20

becomes one flesh with us! Caring for one's spouse even 56 Galatians See Dick Keyes' excellent treatment of this topic in Beyond Identity: Finding Yourself in the Image and

Character of God (Servant Books: Ann Arbor, MI. , 1984), pp.211-225.

as we "love and cherish our own bodies" (Eph 5:28-29) 7 Ibid.

8 Romans 7:7, 7:9

goes against every grain of our fallen condition. 9 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 3-4. See NIV footnote for variant reading.

WHERE

WE REALLY 'MUST SACRIFICE OUR OWN SELF

MARCH /APRIL 1995

modern REFORMATION

relationship and guarantees its fulfillment). The cov enant is not quite like a contract wherein two parties agree to the terms, sign with orwithoutwitnesses, and are held responsible for meeting the terms as legally binding within a given time frame. A covenant is an agreement that God initiates, signs, and agrees to the terms of its fulfillment. God's covenants are rightly designated as "sover eign administrations of grace." The word "sovereign" brings out the source ofthe grace: It is God who initiates and maintains the relationship. If it were to depend on human beings, the covenants would be null and void, because, by our very nature, we are covenant breakers. Each covenant is an assurance ofGod's commitment to maintain the relationship.

by WILLEM V AN GEMEREN

he concept ofthe family is undercut in our society. Indi vidualism and politically correct language have eroded the classic image ofthe family. While the "image" ofthe nuclear family is not necessarily biblical, there are forces that seek to destroy the family as an antiquarian relic of the Judeo-Christian legacy. The biblical concept of covenant has a bearing on our understanding of the family from a Christian per spective. The word "covenant" is found in both the Old and New Testaments. It is frequently a designation for the relationship that God graciously maintains with sinful and frail humans from generation to generation. First, the Lord initiates the relationship. A divine cov enant is monergistic (i.e., God inaugurates the

Covenant with Creation At creation the Lord made a commitment with all oflife, incl uding humans. Though the covenant terminology is not formally used in Chapters 1 and2ofGenesis, the idea is implicit. God decrees the world into existence, brings all the components harmoniously together, and calls the family of humans to serve him. The order in creation came by divine fiat. God spoke and created a world with great variety and harmony. Order is both conservative and progressive. God loves order, but not static order. With him is great vari ety, "How many are your works, 0 Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures" (Ps 104:24). The congruence of all its parts permits unifor mity as well as progression. On the one hand, the Lord maintains all his works. On the other, he ensures that his handiwork matures, progresses, and develops. Creation is subject to time, and, as such, participates in a history of the natural order. The solar system effects a cycle of day and night, ofseasons, and ofyears. Within the sequence of time, trees and plants grow and hybridize, and living creatures (animals and humans) reproduce. Over time, creation is enhanced by the great variety within the spe cies, made possible by genetic changes. The order ofcreation is also the concern ofhumans. The Lord has given us the mandate to serve him. This mandate comes with two provisions. First, the Lord en dowed humans with his image. Weare like him in character (e.g., love, compassion, fidelity, purity, pa tience, righteousness, justice), in our ability to communicate, and in our competence to operate in his world. The second provision is his blessing. The divine blessing is a grace that enables us to live and experience vitality in our existence. Vitality is a gift that takes many forms in everyday life: the enjoyment offood and drink, the ability to establish a family and produce offspring, the vigor ofhealth and life, the competence and skill that

MARCH/APRIL 1995

make a person creative and productive, the social skills andwisdomnecessarytomaintainasocialnetwork,and the likelihood of meaningful communication. God's gracious commitment to the world, and to us, is the context for human responsibility. By God's grace we enjoy life, sustain our physical existence, communicate, develop a social network, achieve success, and reproduce. However, the enjoyment of his grace necessitates an appropriate submission to his Lordship. This response comes in the forms oflove for God, submission to his will, an imitation ofhim, and a zealfor the glory ofhis name. We were created with the will to serve him well or poorly, to reflect his character or to develop

other humans, theworld, and, especially, from God. Itis the opposite of vitality, in that death decreases our en joyment of life and our sense of accomplishment and purpose. ~

Covenant with Noah: Common Grace This biblical emphasis of God's commitment to cre ation, including fallen humanity, is the subject ofGod's covenant with Noah (Gn 9:8-17). It confirms God's care for the human family, even when we live in rebel lion, corruption, and alienation (Gn 3; 6; 11). On the one hand, we endure anguish orpain (Gn 3: 16-17; cf. Ps 90:9-10), are subject to physical deterioration ending in death (Gn 3:19), enjoy a limited span of life CPs

FI'om the fall of man on the (~ovenant becomes "a sovereign administration of ,ace in which the Lord continues to bless his creatures even thOllffh the,Jva,re under condemnat,l·on." ~

character deficiencies, to enhanceorderorto obstruct it. The Lord put the character ofAdam and Eve to the test. They failed the test. Their failure, through their disobedience, toglorifyGoddidnotend their marriage, their special place in the divine order, ortheir dignity. It did radically alter the covenant relationship because it inaugurated a new dimension to the covenant. From this point on the covenant becomes "a sovereign admin istration ofgrace in which the Lord continues to bless his creatures even though they are under condemnation." God's covenant with creation from the fall ofhumanity until the second coming of the Lord Jesus is the assurancethathe upholds his created order, butthefullnessof his blessing diminishes to a trickle: "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (Rom 8:22). God has moderated his blessing, but he has not ended it. Were he to stop his blessing, we would be lethargic, and soon be extinguished. The psalmist ex presses this sentiment well: "When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust" (Ps 104:29-30). The fall ofhumanity did alter our relationship with God,aswellastheoperationoftheprovisions. Whilewe still reflect God's character, the image of God in us has been marred because ofsin. Selfish expressions are more the norm than the exception: self-love, harshness, infidelity, impurity, impatience, lack of righteousness, injustice, etc. Whereas God had graced human existencewith "vitality," the fall introduced "death." Death is that experience in which we live in alienation from self, 8

MAR C H/APRIL 1995

90:10), and, worst of all, are under condemna tion of eternal separation from his fellowship

(Rom 5: 16). The experience ofpain imperils our

~::fe:~t,i~~i~:~~,e::;r:up:cee~~c~~~e~:,:it:t~~:

hand, God keeps the possibility of a relationship with him open. Weare not possessed by evil nor are we demonic. While we are totally depraved, we are still image-bearers. The covenant is an assurance that we, while under condemnation, may still enjoy God's grace. This grace, also known as common grace, secures benefits for all creatures. As Jesus said, "He [God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Mt 5:45).

Covenant with Abraham: Special Grace The covenant with Abraham provides the assurance of both grace and promise. The grace God bestowed on Abraham and his descendants is special in the sense that God brings people into fellowship with himself, assures them ofhis presence, and gives them the hope ofrestora tion. Special grace comes in the form of election and of promises. Whereas before Abraham, God had already demonstrated a special love for individuals (Enoch, Noah), with Abraham he revealed his marvelous plan of a new order. Let us look at several aspects ofthe Abraha mic covenant.

Election God freely chose Abraham. His privileged position was unmerited: "For I have chosen [Hebrew: "known"] him" (18:19). National Israel's position was also one of grace, because their entitlement came not because of their righteousness (Dt 9:5). Central to the relationship between God and his people is their special status as the "people of God": "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be

modern REFORMATION

your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Gn 17:7; cf. 26:3). The people of God also have a hope and a purpose. In the reality of adversities in life, the godly put their hope in the Lord's promise that he will "tabernacle" among his people.

participation can be best expressed by the word "integ rity" (cf. Gn 17: 1). The people of the covenant are counter-cultural in thattheysubmitthemselvestoGod's revealed will alone, rather than live by the traditions of their culture (cf. 18: 19) .

Promises God promised to be with Abraham and to increase his family, to be with his offspring, to protect them in the land ofCanaan, and to make them a source ofblessing to the nations (Gn 12:2-3). He promised to protect and to deliver his subjects (Gn 15; 17). The Lord bound himself to the family of Abraham to be their Protector. The promise of his protection is further augmented by the promise ofhis blessing. As the promise was God's word to deliver his people, the blessing was his promise to ensure their prosperity, happiness, and security. His presence is the guarantee that he will protect them from adversaries and is the assurance ofhis blessing. God en ters the world as the Deliverer (Divine Warrior) of his own people. This dimension is further developed in the tabernacle/temple in the Old Testament, in the experi ence ofIsrael's Exodus and Conquest, in her existence in Canaan, in Israel's restoration from exile, in the coming ofJesus Christ, in the ministry ofthe Holy Spirit, and in the biblical hope ofthe glorious coming of our Lord. God's protection goes beyond the indi vidual. The Lord confirmed his promises and covenant with Abraham's descendants: Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel. God is the transgenerational God, "the God ofAbra ham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Ex 3:6). As such, the covenant privileges are open to the family of Abraham. More than that, implicit in the promises is a promise that includes the fami lies of all nations: "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations" (Gn 17:4). This clause gave protection to all non-Israelites who sought shelter with the God of Abraham during the Old Covenant, and it foretold the cosmic perspective of the New Covenant.

The New Covenant: The Special Grace ofGodfor All the Families ofthe Earth. Space does not permit us to explore the covenants with Moses and with David. Each of these is a nuanced ex pression and development of the Abrahamic covenant; each is an assurance of God's grace and promise. Con trary to popular opinion, the Mosaic covenant is an assurance ofgrace, but is overshadowed by the threats of punishment. The Davidic covenant is an assurance of God's presence and protection through the rule of his messianic king. The inspired sages, psalmists, and prophets ofIsrael develop the hope ofthe One from the offspring ofAbraham and David who will live with integ ritybeforeGod, remove the "curse" ofthe law, renew the covenant, establish a kingdom ofjustice and righteous ness, and rule with equity over all nations. The New Testament confirms that this One is the Lord Jesus. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ has opened up a new administration. All ofGod's covenan ts come together under one administration: in the New

God is the transgenerational God, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"(Kl3:6). As stich, the covenant prhileges are open to the family of Abraham. More than that implicit in the promises is apromise that includes the families of all nations: -'As for me, this is my covenant \vith you: You will be the father of any" nations"

Living Faith Whereas family relationship opens up the benefits of special grace, real participation in the covenant is condi tioned by the work ofthe Spirit in one's life and results in a personal expression offaith in the covenant Lord. Faith is an expression oftrust in the Lord. Abraham had such faith: "Abram believed the Lord, andhecreditedittohim as righteousness" (Gn 15:6). Living faith also includes an active dimension, demonstrating love for the Lord through obedience to his will. The lifestyle of covenant

Covenant. Jesus is the "radiance of God's glory" (Heb 1:3), the Son (3:6), and the high priest-mediator (4:15; 5:5; 8: 1-2; 12:24). He is the good shepherd who gave his life for both Jews and Gentiles On 10:11, 16). He was faithful to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant (Mt 5:17), completed his ministry on earth, bore the curse of thelaw(GaI3: 10-13), suffered vicariously, rose from the dead, is presently seated with the Father in glory (Acts 2:31-36), and rules over the Church as well as all of creation (ColI: 18-20). The sacrifice of his life for his own ended the era of sacrifices, the temple, the priesthood, and ceremonies. All who belong to him share in the New Covenant, of

MARCH/APRIL1995

which Jesus spoke shortly before his death: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Lk 22:20). The Church as the new community of God participates in the New Covenant of grace, which may be defined as "a sovereign administration ofgrace and promise in which the Father calls people to himself, renews them by the regenerating and sanctifying pres ence of the Spirit, justifies and adopts them as being children ofGod in union with his Son, and seals them for the day of t~eir glorious redemption. " As Paul declares, "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glori fied" (Rom 8:30, cf. vv. 20-21). The redemption ofthe saints will also signify the liberation from bondage and the resto; ation ofthe created order: "The creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom ofthe children ofGod" (8:21). Jesus is Lord ofthe New Covenant. His is the sover eign administration over the Church and over creation.

Christian families make a difference in God's world! On the other hand, the Lordship of Jesus extends beyond the Church (Eph 1: 10). Thewhole ofthe cosmos is held together by him and belongs to him (Col 1: 17). The happiness and vitality, which our non-Christian neighbors enjoy, is Christ's gift. They live because ofhis gracious benefits. However, he will also hold them ac countable when he comes to establish his sovereignty, then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25-26). In conclusion, Jesus Christ does not only relate to us as individuals. Christ is the sovereign Lord who invites individuals to be members ofhis covenant. Each Chris tian is a member of the covenant fellowship that embraces all Christians throughout the created order. As sovereign Lord, Jesus assures us ofGod's grace, ofthe reality ofGod's presence with us, ofthe application ofhis grace and promise to the members ofour fam ily' and of the glorious future that awaits us with him. But, the Lord Jesus expects to see that our lives reflect a zeal for God, a passion for our family, a love for humanity, and a con cern for his world. Jesus' lordship also extends to the whole created order through common grace. His sovereignty extends further than the local church or one's denomination. This broader understanding ofthe covenant helps us to un derstand that God's grace extends beyond the Church to the whole world. An empathetic approach to the world at large can promote a spirit ofcompassion for humanity and an intercultural readiness to build bridges to people in need ofthe Savior. After all, they are recipients ofthe benefits of God's common grace. Their pain is a re minder that they, too, may find saving grace in the Lord Jesus! ~

Ours is the responsibility of living godly lives before our children, so that they may see how our familiesdiffer from families \vhere JeSllS is not kno\vn. Christian families make a differen(~e inGod's world! On the one hand, the members ofhis Church are greatly blessed (Eph 1:3). Their blessings are spiritual as well as material. Because 00 esus we experience God's forgive ness, great love, the benefits of being children of God, the presence ofthe Spirit, and the assurance ofthe hope ofglory. Because ofJesus we also enjoy the gifts offood and drink, health and physical life, and the very impor tant gift of children (Mt 6:33-34). As heirs of his grace and of his promises, covenant children are a blessing ("vitality") from God. They are born in the context of God's special grace. They are not outside, but within the covenant ofgrace. Theirs are the promises and the bless ing, "The promise is foryou and your children and for all who are far off- for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39). Their upbringing and education, therefore, are to be viewed from a covenantal perspective. The sovereignty of Jesus has also a bearing on our lives. Ours is the responsibility ofliving godly lives be fore our children, so that they may see how our families differ from families where Jesus is not known. The in junctions ofthe apostles (Eph 6:1-4; Col3: 18-2 1; 1 Pet 3: 1-7) set forth the manner oflife the Lord Jesus expects from Christian husbands, wives, parents, and children. 10

MARCH {A PRIL 1995

Willem A. VanGemeren is professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield , IL. Before coming to Trinity, he taught at Geneva College and at Reformed Theological Seminary. He is a native of the Netherlands and is a graduate of the University of Illinois, Westminster Theological Seminary, and the University of Wisconsin . He has written several books including The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem, Interpreting the Prophetic Word and a commentary on the book of Psalms.

For Further Reading Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter VII.

Longman III, Tremper, and Daniel Reed, God is a Warrior. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1995. Robertson , O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. VanGemeren, Willem A., The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem .. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

-Interpreting the Prophetic Word. Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 1990.

-"Psalms," Expositor's Bible Commentary. Volume 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991 ,

1-880. - "The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ: A Reformed Perspective," in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views. Ed. Wayne Strickland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993, 13-58.

modern REFORMATION

rn Discussion with Tim LaHaye

'rim LaFlaye is the author ofT'he Batt:le f(n the 1;'amily, 'The Battle f()r the Public Schools, llow to Be J1al)/)Y Though l\IIarried, Understanding the lVlale Temperment, The Act oflVlarriClge, an d Spirit-Controlled Family Living. 'rim and his wife Beverly sf)end most of their time dealing 1vith faimily issues through their traveling ministry and radio broadcasts. \Ve met up 'with j\:fr . LaHaye at a recent Christian convention. MR: Mr. LaHaye, is there a sense in which the debate over family values has gotten to the point where what we are presenting to the world is Christian values rather than presenting Christian truth and the proclamation of Christ crucified? LaHaye: No, I think we have to face the fact that we are citizens of America. We are first citizens of heaven, but we have an obligation and a responsibility to be good voting citizens, and I think it is appalling that only 48% of America's Christians voted in the last election. Weare victims of a secularist society, in fact, Pat Buchanan just recently called it a militant secularist society. The secularizers have gone so militant that they not only control the entertainment industry and the media, and through those they control now the government and education. And so what we have is a minority ofliberal secularists leading our country astray and we have to come back as the conscience of the nation. The church has always been the conscience of the nation until the last fifty years when we clammed up. We need to speak out on what is right and wrong in a day when society says there are no rights and wrongs, but this is just madness. We believe there are rights and wrongs so we ought to spell it out very clearly. MR: In the first century, the church faced a much more hostile environment than we encounter today; Christians were often persecuted or even killed for their faith. Can we learn something from the tactics of the early Christians in such an environment, where for example, they did notattempt to infiltrate the govern ment, or reform the arts and general culture, but rather, they focused first and foremost on proclaiming the gospel which saved souls? And interestingly enough, the Roman empire was con verted by and large, but it was because many became Christians, not because Christians enforced their agenda. LaHaye: I think you are comparing apples with oranges. Rome was never built by Christians, whereas America was built by fundamental Bible believing Christians, and that's why it has more Biblical principles in its original founding documents in any country in the history of the world. That's why it has become the greatest country in the world. And they gave us the right to vote; the people in the first century didn't have the right to vote. We have to face the fact that we have a God-given responsibility to our children, to our culture, to our God, to vote and be participating citizens in a dying culture so that we can preserve as much peace and harmony out of this chaotic culture to give us the freedom to preach the gospel. You see, religous freedom is the issue in our country right now. We see many examples where Christians are being stifled in a country that was built for religious freedom . And Christians sit back and say, "I don't want to get involved in

politics." Why not? It is a perfectly good instrument of God. God founded government, it's only when evil people are permitted to get in by abdication that government becomes an evil force. MR: Certainly we would agree that the First Amendment guaran tees the right of religious expression, and individual Christian citizens should be involved in protecting those rights. However, isn't the Church's mission the proclaimation of the Gospel and the conversion ofsouls? LaHaye: Yes, that's the main mission. But if we don't have enough Christian lawyers with enough guts to stand up and fight the ACLU on religious freedom issues, they'll lose the opportunity in the long run to preach the Gospel. So the two are hand in hand. We've got to preach the Gospel, that's the main thing, but it's not the only thing we do. MR: What is your position on prayer in the schools? LaHaye: I think that prayer being taken out ofschool historically has destroyed the schools. Not because prayer is some magic word or something, but what they did is they withdrew from the schools the acknowledgement that there is somebody up there. You know, we get all bent out ofshape about who's going to pray and will it be in Jesus' name, but when kids are permitted to bow their heads and talk to someone up there, at least they know there is a God. Now the secularists have come along and they've taken away the understanding that there is a God.

~It isn'tgoingto destroy aBaptistchildto

hear aJew pray to YlRlll, or to hear a Monnon pray, however they end their prayers, but they in their hearts would knO\V that there is D, God~" Tim LaHave " MR: But isn't there a danger in presenting to our children an "unknown God" without any Christian definitions? This was Paul's criticism of the men at Mars Hill in Acts 17. His claim was that they were too religious because they prayed to an unknown God, and what Paul did at that point was to give them a definition of who God was, and how he had finally revealed himself in the person and work of Christ. Isn't there a danger in watering down

Continued on Page

MAR C H IAPRIL 1995

~ 11

God's Grandchildren:

The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism by MICHAEL HORTON

has no grandchildren." That statement, attributed to illy Graham, was a maxim I well remember from my outh. To this day, I have a great appreciation for the Baptist emphasis on the importance of one's personal relationship to God in Christ, and now that I run in predominantly paedobaptist (infant-baptism) circles, I see the biblical wisdom in the evangelist's words. All too often, I meet young people in Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican circles who do not appear to have any personal interest in the things ofthe Lord, and yet to suggest that they may not be genuine believers would be perceived as a great insult. Others cling to their infant baptism, not as God's means of conveying the promised grace, but as a superstitious rite that automatically guarantees their sal vation. Exercising presumption in baptism rather than faith in Christ, many sever the sacrament from its pur pose-to seal the children in God's gracious promises-and assume that to have the former renders the latter superfluous. To be sure, there are dangers in the paedobaptist position. Nevertheless, there are also dangers in the Bap tist view. First, it is just as easy for men and women to place their faith in the extrabiblical rite of "making a decision" or responding to the invitation during an "al tar call." Human nature is forever looking for ladders to climb into God's presence and favor, and unbiblical "sacraments" are no less prone to this use than are bibli cal ones. At the end of the day, abuses must never be allowed to cloud our vision ofthe biblical data and to that data we must ultimately submit, regardless ofthe practi cal consequences. As important as one's personal relationship to God surely must be, is it true that "God has no grandchil dren"? 12

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

Noone questions the fact that a grandfather is a person who is the father not only ofthe next generation of his children, but also offuture generations as well. In the sacrament of the rainbow, God announced to Noah, "This is the sign ofthe covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign ofthe covenant between me and the earth" (Gn 9:12-13). This Noaic covenant was not salvific (saving in nature), but was a covenant of common grace. It was made between God as Creator and his whole creation, not between God as Savior and his redeemed people. And yet, the principle was already es tablished: As God had been a "father" to the human race in the beginning, he was even still committed to the pres ervation of the human race and of the natural world. It was"a covenant for all generations to come." When we come to Abraham, however, another cov enant is enacted-or rather, re-enacted, since it was actually inaugurated with the first couple after their dis obedience in Eden. God directed Abram's attention to the stars and promised him, "So shall your offspring be," and "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" (Gn 15:5-6). Thus, Abram was justi fied by grace alone through faith alone and God established his covenant not only with Abram, whose name was now changed to Abraham, butwithhisdescen dants. God has always condescended to our weak faith, and when the patriarch asked God how he could trust this promise, God commanded him to sacrifice a heifer, a goat, and a ram, along with a dove and a pigeon, instruct ing him to cut each in half (vv. 9ff). What was all of this about? It was a legal agreement that announced to both parties what would happen if the covenant was broken.'

modern REFORMATION

In effect, God was saying, "May the same happen to me if! do not keep mypromise to you-may I, too, be cutin half and may the curses of violating the covenant fall upon my head." Butthe same was true for Abraham and his descendants. Ifthey did not keep the covenant, they too would bear the full brunt of its curses. . Not long after, God solemnized this covenant with Abraham and his descendants in the sacrament of cir cumClSIOn: Abram fell face down, and God said to him, «As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations .... I will establish my covenant as an ever lasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (Gn 17:3-5,7).

Even in the change of his name from Abram, meaning "father," to Abraham, "father ofmany," we see the cov enantal theme coming into sharper focus. There are three things we notice immediately from this passage: It is an "everlasting covenant,» it is established by God and notby Abraham, and it incorporates Abraham's de scendants.

and the writer to the Hebrews warns believers against making the same mistake: Forwe also have had the Gospel preached tous,justasthey did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Nowwewho have believed enterthat rest. .. (Heb4:2-3).

Simply being a physical descendent ofAbraham was not enough, as the prophets warned-a theme picked up especially by Paul: A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew ifhe is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code (Rom 2:28-29). For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.... In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring (Rom 9:6-8). Ifyou belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29).

This is especially difficult to grasp for those of us who have been raised in Dispensationalism, with its division between Israel and the Church, but these passages (and many like them) lead us inexorably to the conclusion that the "true Israel" consists of all-Jew or Gentile who are "children of the promise," and there is no "everlasting covenant" with any but these.

(1) It Is an Everlasting Covenant Because it is everlasting, this covenant cannot be inter preted as being limited to the patriarch's time and place or even to a particular point in history. Influenced by Dispensationalism, however, many evangelicals today confuse the shadow with the reality, awaiting a promised land that is ultimately earthly rather than, with Abraham, "longing for a better country-a heavenlyone" (cf. Heb 11:8-16). Thiseverlast <WHILE ,..';;,;:" ing covenant begins, in fact, in the Garden of Eden, when God promises a Seed to Adam and OTHER REASON$,~' MY Eve who will redeem them in the future and seals the covenant by covering them in the skins AS of animals he himself has sacrificed (Gn 3:21). ,',<...t

OTHERS~;ttAY

DISSENT FROM THIS VIEW FOR PROBLEM WAS THAT 1 VIEWED

~~PTISM

11i:oWN "SACRAMENT:' MY\ovv1,fAGT OF ' ~P.i~NCE IJ{WHICH IbECLARED MY . R~~Qt~~T6 . JEstJs'J~ How .'

/' ~:~

,'-'."

(2) It Is Established by God · POiLOW COULD A CHILD ·Ac:KNOWLEDGE) Since it is established by God and not by Abra ~ HAVE DECIDEQ;,~TO FOLLOW J"~ ESUS ~ ham, it is unconditional in the ultimate sense. As Paul declared, "If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself' To wax biographical for a moment, when I first (2 Tm 2:13), although "If we disown him, he will also disown us" (v.12), since the participation of individual encountered the Reformed doctrine ofinfant baptism, I Abrahamic descendants is conditioned on faith in the was immediately put offbythe concept because I misun promise. This is why an entire generation was barred derstood the radically God-centered, unconditional from entering the promised land centuries later under character of this ((everlasting covenant." While others Moses because they had disowned the promise ofChrist, may dissent from this view for other reasons, my prob-

"I .

MARCH/APRIL 1995

J6hn €alvin'ori Infant Baptism ' f ,rom.Calvin's Commentaries

"Let the little.:,ehildren come ·t~ me, and ao not l'1in(Jer them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to'such as; ~hese" (Mt 19:14). ,

, ",' Jhisnarr~tive is highly useful; fiQ'r it shows\that Ghrist r~~¢ives not onlytnose who, moved by'hoJy ciesire and faith, freely approach to him, but those whoa-re not yet of age to know how much they needhis grace. ;,And n~4wonder;f0r ~stnGe the wRo1e race of Adatn is shUt upunder ~rH€ sentence of death, all from the least even to the greatest must perish, except those who are rescued .by the only Redeemer. To exclude from the grace ~f redel1)ption ~hose who' are of that ag~\vould btl too Gruel; and therefore it is nbt without reason that we employ this passage .lils a shield against the Anabaptists. They refuse baptism to infants, because infants are incapable of understanding that lTlysteryw,bich i~denc>~d , ~ , by ft. WelO'F'l th~ 9tiberh~:nd, maintain tnat,'51r3.6€ baptism is " the pledge and figure of the forgiveness of sins; likewise of adoption by God! it ought not to be denied to 'infants t . whom God adopts ancJ washes w:it~Jne hlood,t;Qfhis Son':.' ', TNeir objectiQn, tbat repentab,~~ and neWl1essof I~fe ,e a denoted by it, is easily answered. hlfants ,are renewed: by the Spirit of God, accordrng to the capacity of d'eir age/ti1l ' that power which was GOl)cealed within them . w~roK d~§rees.. ,an~become~)!llly' mani~est at the proper time~0'~: •Again, when they argue that there is no other way in whiGA we are reconciled to God; and become heirs () doption, . tJqan by faith, we admit JOtS as to adults" but~ resf)ect to , in,fants, thisp>assage demonstrates it to be fal .' Certainty,. the laying oil of hands ,was not a trifling or empty sign', and the prayers of Christ were not idly wasteclin air. BU,t ,h ec0uld not , present the i{l'fants so'lemnly to God withoutg them

. purity . . AndJ~r what did be pray for them, 0 at tney ,

. might be re<;eived into 'the number of the children of Go~?

. Hence it foHows, that they were renewed by the Spirit to the

hope of salvation. In ~~0rt, by embracing them, he testi

.that if they were partaKers 6f the spi'ritual gifts, which are .

'representedby Baptism, it'is unreasonable that they should

,be depriv,ed of the outWard sign. But it is presumption and

,sacri.lege to drive far fr.f)mthe fold of Crnri~t fh<?,sevvhqm :he

cherishesin'his bosom/ and to shut the door, andexdudeas '. : ~trangers those whom he does not wish to be forbidden -to .' ,': come to him: . . ;;:" He includes both little chHdren·and those who resem~le them; for the Anabaptists fodishly exclude children, with' Whom the subject must have. commenced; but at the same time, taking occasion from the present occurrenEe, he i;ntended to ,~xhort hisdisciples to lay aside maJicea,ndpride, :, . ~:uld put on tl1e nature' o,l children. Accordingly, it is addeaby' 'Mark and Luke, that nd :man can enter into thE,ddhgdO'm of

;lleaven unl~ss he be made to resemble a child. Butwe 'rl)ust

attend to Pa'uV,s admonition/not to be children inunder~

' standing, butjn ~r:nalice(lGOt 14:~O). ~

and

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

lem was that I viewed baptism as my own «sacrament," my own act ofobedience in which I declared my resolve to follow Jesus. How could a child acknowledge, «I have decided to follow Jesus"? and make this public profes sion before the whole church? What jarred my confidence in this position, however, was the testimony ofthe Scriptures as to the nature ofthis covenant. Just as the rainbow was a sacrament of divine, not human, re solve, and the ceremony of the halved animals was a sacrament of God's commitment to the covenant, bap tism is God's announcement of his intentions to bring me into his dynasty offaith. Faith was necessary, but faith was promised by God in the covenant through Word and Sacrament. John Calvin observed, «Baptism, viewed in regard to us, is a passive work: we bring nothing to it but faith; and all that belongs to it is laid up in Christ." But how can a child bring faith to baptism? «Those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age," as the seed of faith isplantedin the heart ofthe covenant child. «Infants are renewed by the Spirit ofGod according to the capac ity oftheir age, till that powerwhich was concealed within them grows bydegrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time," Calvin wrote. None of the reformers be lieved that this was an optional sacrament any more than was circumcision in the Old Testament. Calvin stated, «Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples as much as in him lies, upon the blood ofChrist, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore just punishment follows the contempt ofthe sign, in the privation ofgrace ... because the covenant of God is violated" (Institutes, Book 4, chapters 15 & 16) .

(3) It Incorporates Abraham's Descendants In Genesis 17, God changes Abram's name and institutes the sacrament of circumcision. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign ofthe covenant between me and you (Gn 17:9-11).

Someone might say, But Abraham was circumcised after he believed, a point that Paul is anxious to affirm in Romans 4, and that is correct. Paul underscores the fact that Abraham was justified by grace alone through faith alone, not by circumcision. And yet, what did Abraham do with his children? They were circumcised on the eighth day. Why? Becausetheywereheirsofthepromise, children ofthe covenant. Throughout both Old and New Testaments, God'

modern REFORMATION

delights in calling himself the father of future genera tions (see Ex 20:6,31: 13; Dt 7:9; Ps 22:30,31: 11,45: 17, 89: 1,90: 1, 100:5, 105:8, 119:90, 145: 13; Is 51 :8; Lk 1:48; Phil 3:5, 21; Col 1:26). In other words, God is quite cheerful about the notion of being a grandfather.

the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2: 11-12).

Throughout church history, "baptism" has always meant one and the same thing: The sign (water) and the thing signified (regeneration by the Holy Spirit). But in our day, many who otherwise insist on taking the Scrip tures literally and "at face value" will argue that passages such as this one and others, like Titus 3:5 ("He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy

But What about the Differences between the Old and New Testaments? If there is one "everlasting covenant" running from Genesis to Revelation, a ,covenant of grace, and that covenant embraces both Jews and Gentiles whose trust is in the Lord for salvation, we should not invent discontinuities where the text does >"'<IN THEPLD TESTAMENf,) THE CHiLDREN 'WERE not explicitly provide them. There is, to be sure, a discontinuity be INCLUDED IN THE COVENANT AND MADE HEIR~ TO THE tween the manner in which the covenant of grace is administered in both testaments. In PROMISES) I~UT NQW ARE WE TO BE~IEVE" THATGOD the Old Testament, it is promised through WISHES TO EXCLUDE OUR CHILDREN IN THIS types and shadows. In the New Testament, it is embodied as the fulfillment of those OSTENSIBLYBETTJ?R TESTAMENT?" promises in the God-Man, the promised Messiah. Furthermore, in 'the Old Testa ment, circumcision is the sacrament of this covenant Spirit, whomhe poured outon us generously . . ."), refer and it is only performed on male children. Does this not merely to a spiritual baptism and not to water baptism. disqualify a one-to-one correspondence between cir One must beware of a gnostic dualism that separates cumcision and baptism? Not if we recognize the spirit from matter, as ifit is somehow less than spiritual progressive unfolding of the redemptive drama. Joel's for God to bring people into his family through a com famous prophecy declares, mon, everyday liquid. To be sure, there is a danger in attaching superstition to rituals and material signs, but And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. God reveals himself and saves us through matter, not in Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will spite of it. God "became flesh," wrote a book with ink dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on and paper, and confirms it with water, bread, and wine. my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my He does communicate his heavenly grace through the Spirit in those days 012:28-29). earthly creations that he sets aside by Word and Spirit for sacred use. This prophecy is confirmed by Paul in Galatians: This is why the reformers refused to divide what You are all sons ofGod through faith in Christ Jesus, for all God had joined together: the sign and the thing signi of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed fied. Calvin wrote the following: with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26-28).

Even women, who according to ancient custom were not entitled to inherit anything, are, in God's new soci ety, made "sons" -that is, titled heirs. Therefore, they too are entitled to share in the sacrament ofthe covenant of grace, a sacrament that refers to the Spirit being "poured out" on men and women alike. Are there any further discontinuities between cir cumcision and baptism? It does not seem so. In fact, Paul states, In him [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by

Seeing then that these two things [remission ofsins and the gift ofthe Holy Spirit] are accomplished in us by the grace ofJesus Christ, it follows, that the virtue and substance of baptism is included in him. And, in fact, we have no other laver than his blood, and no other renovation than his death and resurrection. But as he communicates his riches and blessings to us by his Word, so he distributes them to us by his sacraments.

The sacrament does not merely symbolize something that mayor may not have taken place, but is truly a « means ofgrace," a manner ofdistributing directly to us that which he promises generally. Is it the most natural reading ofsuch passages, then, to simply read "spiritual, notwater, baptism"whereverit

M A R C H/A P RIL 1995

receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call (Acts 2:38-39).

appears in the text that God is actually doing something in baptism? Such an approach seems arbitrary at best. It is safest, then, not to divide the Word oftruth where there is a seamless fabric. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that we are heirs of an even better administration ofthis «covenant ofgrace. " The New Testament administration ofthis covenant ex cels the Old in so many ways, but does it fall short in this point of including our children? In the Old Testament,

In spite ofthe fact that most candidates for baptism would have been adult converts (as would be the case in any place in which missionaries had just brought the Gospel), there are examples of«household baptisms." In Acts 11: 14, Peter tells how an angel had appeared to some men from Caesarea and announced to them that he would bring them the Good News: «He will bring you a message through which you and all (tOD OF SAVING ENTIRE FAM1LIE S, .. your household will besaved."lnActs 16:31-33 Paul and Silas are asked by their jailer «What must I do to be saved?" They reply, «Believe in A ABOUT the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and THESErl'AYS, AND SOLU110NS · your household." As a result, «immediately he and all his family were baptized." Paul noted IN 'THE, SCRIPTURES FIX 'OUR that although his calling was not to baptize, he "-:/ . ';:',:'. " : .':>:f ,:;;t;fi: ' had bap~ized «the household of Stephanus" (1 EYES ON GHR.lST, THE WHOM GOD HAS .' .-, 'Cor 1: 16). The testimony of the early church

RECONCILED :US TO HIMSEt,p 'ANDtlS TO EACH OTH'ER. fathers is unanimously in favor of paedobaptism, and one wonders how the dis ciples of the apostles themselves could have the children were included in the covenant and made universally embraced the practice without any debate if, heirs to the promises-God was the eternal father of in fact, it had been an innovation. Irenaeus, the disciple these generations, as Abraham was ofthe earthly genera of Polycarp, who himself had been John's closest pupil, tions-but now are we to believe that God wishes to along with Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and other exclude our children in this ostensibly better testament? fathers, referred to the practice as of apostolic origin. iV Church tradition, it is true, is never conclusive, but it is Continuity between the Old and New Testament difficult to understand how it could not have been the on Baptism apostles' custom ifsuch universal claims to that effect did If there is one covenant of grace in both testaments and not spark the slightest controversy. circumcision and baptism are the sacraments ofthe Old But still the most convincing evidence comes from and New Testament administrations of that one cov the biblical text itself. The Old Testament warns, «The enant, the burden ofproofwould seem to fall on the side Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked ... but those ofthose who deny infant baptism. Often, paedobaptists who are righteous will go free" (Prov 3:33;11:21). The are the ones put on the defensive (I know, because I used children of believers were not considered unregenerate pagans, «for they will be a people blessed by the Lord, to beon the offense), and are the ones who must demon strate clear New Testament examples of infant baptism. they and their descendants with them" (Is 65:23). But «Whyisn't there a single command to baptize children?" the New Testament has the same message. Paul assured the Corinthians that one believing parent sanctified the the paedobaptists are asked. children: «Otherwise your children would be unclean, However, ifthe accent falls on continuity (Old Tes tament promise, New Testament fulfillment), there but as it is, they are holy" (1 Cor 7: 14). Those who deny infant baptism do not have a way of would be no reason why the apostles should take great interpreting such passages, it seems to me, since the New pains to argue for a covenantal theology that incorpo Testament no less than the Old distinguishes between rates whole families rather than simply individuals. But, ofcourse, that is an argument from silence. In actual fact, children of believers and the children of unbelievers. the book ofActs provides us with explicit declarations of Once one acknowledges this, the only question left is, continuity. On the steps ofthe temple at Pentecost, Peter «Why should we withhold from the children ofbelievers the sacrament ordained byGod in the New Testament if proclaimed, they received the corresponding sacrament in the Old?" ~' If our children are unregenerate pagans and must be Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will treated as such until they «make a decision" or a publi~

I~ 'iN THEB~INESS

~:,;WE HE~~ GREA~ ~EAL

f~:

"S~\TING THEFA.1IIL1~L,

AM'b ~MORAL i\~'E usu~~f~ ~IND. BUT

p~LiTICAL

. " < '

MEI!IATOR :,B,Y ,.

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

•

~:;':

modern REFORMATION

profession offaith, then surelythey ought not to be given such a great mark ofdivine ownership. But if there is a difference between the "house of the wicked" and the "house of the righteous"-that is, between those who are unbelievers and those who wear the righteousness of Christ-then the sacrament no less applies to our chil dren than it did to Abraham's.

Conclusion Like the covenant itself, baptism implies blessings and curses. For those covenant children who combine the heating ofthe Gospel with faith (see Heb 4:2), baptism is a great comfort in times ofdoubt and fear. Calvin warns us against depriving ourselves of "the singular fruit of assurance and spiritual joy which is to be gathered from it [baptism] ... For how sweet it is to godly minds to be assured, not only byword, but by sight, that they obtain so much favor with the Heavenly Father that their off spring are within his care?" Like the rainbow, this sacrament takes the general promise and particularizes it. Not only does God save sinners, he saves me, and baptism is God's testimony to that fact, not mine. To be sure, many covenant children wander in the wilderness and often the seed does not send out its first blade for some time. It is possible, as Calvin argued, for God to regenerate infants as well as adults, but whatever the case, "God keeps his own timetable of regeneration." Nevertheless, for those who take it lightly or do not combine it with faith, there are inherent dangers in being baptized. Covenant children are more responsible than unbelievers, since they are heirs of the promise. In the covenant of grace, they are hidden from God's wrath because the blood is on the doorpost and Christ's righ teousness covers their unrighteousness. But if a covenant member spurns that blood and rejects the promise, he or she is no longer "under the blood" and will surely be swept away with all unbelievers in the day of God's fury. Therefore, all baptized children of grace would do well to consider whether they have themselves turned from their own works as well as sins in order to be clothed and ruled by Christ's righteousness. The good news in all of this is that God is in the business of saving entire families. We hear a great deal about "saving the family" these days, and moral and political solutions are usually in mind. But the Scrip tures fix our eyes on Christ, the Mediator by whom God has reconciled us to himself and us to each other. While we must be wary ofa smug presumption that leads cov enant children to apathy and ultimately to a rejection of the promise, we must also be careful not to reject the gracious provision that God has made for us and for our children. Sacraments are meant to strengthen our faith, not compete with it, and too often we view faith and

baptism as ifthey were at odds. It is through the means of grace-Word and sacrament, by the power of the Spirit-that faith is born and strengthened, however God in his marvelous and miraculous way chooses to do that. In a day of broken promises, broken dreams, and broken homes, that is no slight anchor to hold us to the Rock. Is this not reason enough to build dynasties of faith and is that mission not sufficient for creating a vision for our families that is large enough to take us through the rough times that inevitably rock our lives as sinful Christians? Finally, this covenantal approach that we find in Scripture requires more from us as parents. In the vari ous Reformation baptismal liturgies, the parents promise God and his church that the children will be raised in the Gospel doctrines and in the command ments of God's Word. The congregation itself adds to the parents' oath its own, to assist the parents in the care and nurture of the child. To what extent in our era of individualistic Christianity is there this sense of mutual responsibility? This solemn sacrament draws the com munity of faith together in a bond of duty-yes, duty, the word that has become so repugnant to our entitle ment society. If we really made those promises in good

f~IS c~fiNANTAL VIEW REQUIRES US TO TREAT OU,~~' CHILDREN AS THE HERIT~GiOETlj~ : LORD, NOT AS CONSUMERS 1'0 J1E to IiEAtH IN YOUTH' GRO:UPS:. "'" ,{;'

~~'~'

E~&~:gTX1NE;D )'f'

~~:1>

,)~y

faith, as parents or as a parish, it means that we will make certain that there are regular periods of instruction for our children at home and in the church. It requires us to treat them as the heritage ofthe Lord, not as consumers to be entertained to death in youth groups, as they are themselves going to pass this heritage down to their children. A great deal ofour present crisis in the church is due to our own laziness, the pace ofour worldly lives, and the failure ofnerve in taking seriously this divine mandate to build dynasties of faith. It is time that Christian fathers take their priesthood in the home more seriously than ever, leading the baptized household into the promised land of rest where Christ, our true Joshua, has already bought us at the cost ofhis own precious blood. ~ Michael Horton is the president of Christians United for Reformation, Educated at Biola University and Westminster Theological Seminary, Michael is a Ph, 0, candidate at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry and is the author/editor of eight books, including The Agony of Deceit, Made in America: The Shaping of American Evangelicalism, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, and Beyond Culture Wars,

MARCH / APRIL 1 <;95

Fathers, Instruct Your Children

Recovering the Practice of Catechism in the Home

by KIM RIDDLEBARGER

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead,

bring them up in the training and instruction

of the Lord (Eph 6:4).

wing up in American fundamentalism, the very word catechism" brought to my mind images of the liberal Ism of mainline Protestant denominations, or some mysterious Roman Catholic ritual that could have no biblical support whatsoever . As a "Bible church" person, I was taught from my earliest youth that "catechism" was at best a worthless practice, if not downright dangerous to the soul. But if you were to have asked me just what exactly "catechism" was, I'm not sure that I could have given you an answer. Growing up with such misconcep tions, I often viewed my friends who attended "catechism" classes as people who could not possibly be "born again" and therefore, in desperate need ofevange lization. For unlike their misguided and dead church, our church had no creed but Christ, and we needed no such "man-made" guides to faith since we depended upon the Bible alone. Whatever "catechism" was, I wanted no part of it! The burgeoning evangelical men's movement, demonstrated by the huge amount of interest garnered

given to them by our predecessors and fathers in the faith were not only based upon a thorough knowledge of Scripture (which Gallup and Barna remind us is sadly lacking in our own age), but additionally, were forged through a kind of wisdom and life experience gained during an era in which Christians were less apt to simply react to the secular agenda and uncritically imitate its glitz, glamour and noise. Evangelical Protestants ofpre vious generations, it seems, were often more careful about confusing the sacred and the secular than our own leaders, and they often dealt with such weighty issues theologically and historically. Inevitably, when we look to the theological wisdom of the previous generations regarding the role ofmen in society, the work-place and the home, we come back to the importance ofthe prac tice of catechism. Catechism (from the Greek word catechesis) is sim ply instruction in the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Instead of replacing or supplanting the role of the Bible in Christian education, catechism ideally serves as the basis for it. For the practice of cat echism' as properly understood, is the Christian equivalent of looking at the box top of a jig-saw puzzle before one starts to put all ofthose hundreds oflittle pieces together. It is very important to look at the big picture and have it clearly in mind, so that we do not bog down in details, or get endlessly sidetracked by some unimportant or irrelevant issue. The theological categories given to us through catechism, help us to make sense out of the myriad of details found in the Scriptures themselves. Catechism serves as a guide to better understanding Scripture. That being noted however, we need to remind ourselves that Protestants have always argued that creeds, confessions and catechisms are authoritative only in so far as they faithfully reflect the teaching ofHoly Scripture. This means that the use of catechisms, which

Cate(~hism (from the Greek word "(~ate(~hesis") is

simply instmction in the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Instead of replacing or snpplandng the role of the Bible In Chl'istian education, catechism ideally serves as the basis for it. by such groups as Promise Keepers, has raised a whole host of legitimate questions about the role of Christian men in society, the work-place and the home. This is certainly an important and indeed, a healthy trend. But I wonder if the answers to such questions are perhaps best found in the wisdom of earlier generations, rather than from among our own contemporaries. Many of these same questions have been asked before and the answers 18

MAR C H {AP R IL 1 995

modern R EFORMATION

correctly summarize biblical teaching, does not negate or remove the role of Holy Scripture. Instead, these same creeds, confessions and catechisms, as summary statements ofwhat the Holy Scriptures themselves teach about a particular doctrine, should serve as a kind of spring-board to more effective Bible study. When this is the case, these confessions, creeds and catechisms are invaluable tools to help us learn about the important themes and doctrines that are in Scripture. The practice of catechism also serves as an impor tant safeguard against heresy and helps to mitigate some of the problems associated with the private interpretation of Scripture. How many times have you been forced to sit through a Bible study in which the goal' was not to discover what the text actually says, but instead to dis cover what a particular verse means to each of the studies' participants? When we remember that virtually every cult in America began with an open Bible and a charismatic leader who could ensure his or her followers that they alone have discovered what everyone else, es pecially the creeds, confessions and catechisms, have missed, we see perhaps the greatest val ue ofcatechism. These guides protect us from such errors and self-deluded teachers. As American evangelicals have moved away from the practice ofcat echism for subjective and experiential modes of meaning, it is no accident that biblical illiteracy has risen to embarrassing levels and that false doctrines have rushed in like a flood. These important safeguards of basic doctrine have been removed, and since Satan is, of course, the father ofall lies, we are most helpless against him when the truth is not known. Protestant catechisms most often take the form ofa series ofquestions and answers developed as summaries ofbiblical teaching. The first question ofthe Heidelberg Catechism (1563), for example, focuses upon the theme of the believer's comfort by asking «What is your only comfort in life and in death?" The Heidelberg Catechism is arranged around the three-fold distinction of guilt, grace and gratitude. The Westminster Shorter Cat echism (1648), on the other hand, seeks to get right to the «big" question concerning the ultimate meaning of life, when it asks in question one, «What is the chiefend of man?" Luther's Larger Catechism (1529) begins by setting forth the meaning of the Ten Commandments, and Luther attempts to set clearly in the catechumen's mind the proper relationship between Law and Gospel from the outset. Indeed, the primary purpose ofall three ofthese catechisms is to instruct new Christians and our covenant children in the basics ofthe Christian faith. For in all ofthese great catechisms we are to learn about the

content oftheLaw and its relationship to the Gospel, the Lord's Prayer as a pattern for our fellowship with God, the Apostle's Creed as a summation of Christian doc trine, and the sacraments as our means of spiritual nourishment. Thus these catechisms are all formulated to introduce catechumens to the basics ofthe Christian faith-things that all of us should know and believe. The practice ofcatechism should ideally have a two fold emphasis. The first of these emphases centers around the home. IfChristian men are wondering about what their primary role should be as a father, in terms of

As American evangelicals have moved away fromthe practice of catechism for subjective and experiential modes of meaning, it is no at~cident that biblical illiteracy hasrisento embarrassing levels andthat false doctrines have rushed In lilie aflood. II

their obligation to be priests oftheir own homes, I sug gest that the practice of catechism occupy a major role. The Scriptures make it very clear that parents, especially fathers, are assigned the role of recounting to their chil dren the mighty acts ofGod in redeeming his people (Ex 13:8 ff) . God commands us to teach his commandments «to your children and to their children after them" (Dt 4:9; cf. also Dt 6:6-9). In Joshua 8, we read that: Joshua read all the words ofthe law-the blessings and the curses-just as it was written in the Book ofthe Law. There was not a word ofall that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including women and children, and the aliens who lived among them (vv. 34-35).

The prophet Isaiah tells us that parents are to tell their children about God's faithfulness (Is 38:19). In the New Testament, we discover that the young pastor Timothy, had known the Holy Scriptures from infancy (2 Tm 3: 16). Paul recounted how important his own religious instruction had been to him, even before he became a believer (Acts 22: 3 ) . It is Paulwho instructs fathers not to exasperate their children, but to «bring them up in the training and instruction ofthe Lord" (Eph 6:4). Certainly it is important that every dad teach his children about the meaning oflife. Yes, it is important to know who Larry, Moe and Curly are and every properly mannered child should know how to make various Stooge sounds and gestures despite their mother's ob-

MARCH / APRIL 1 995

Seleq~~d QuestionsFrom \:

Th~:Hei~~lberg . ~~~~chism

:~;~;,vhy istlje.S~"~

me~~ihg':;'~avior"?

of G6;d ;c: lled "Jesus" . ( Because he;saves us from our sins.1 Salvatiol'l.?,canl1ot be found in anyone . i~~else; it is futilt to look for any salvation ,.elsew;Q~r~;f:Jt. . .•••. .• ~',;1'J,;Mt 1 :21 She will glVe :b,irth to a son, ada you are to give him the name Jes!.is, b.ediJ~he 'Wi\L~veJlis people from

" $it1~\1 (see also: Rom 5:9, lTm 1 :15). ' : '"".<. :.> ' ...... ' .F.:".· .. \'C".

2. Ae:~;g : 1 2 Salvation is IQ~l)din no one else,for'fh~re is no other name unde r heaven given' to men by .'(Iihtcn.we must be s~li¢!'l'1 (see also : 1: Pt 3:1:B; Heb 9:25,2'8, Heb10:10-14). . "~,,, .,;:",:,>.,\

.wh~1s

he caJ1e4 "Christ,"

~llling "anointed"?

.......;i·~l

B~S~use heh~s;lJ5een ord~i·q,~9 by God the Father andh§ls b~~fJ,a;Apl:nted \j~rth the Holy{~pirit1 to be:<f(i:1r chief prophet and. te~5her?>.wh;Q pef fectly: "'r~vealsto us:thisecretcq;~rsefand will ofGodJqr()LJr. deth;eranc~; our only : high priesti,who has set' u~free by the one sa~flfic~';9f His body, and who , "sontinually p~~~ds ourcalls~ with the Father;4 ahd d~~( et~rnal;;~~,ing5 who 'g0.~erns us by"n~~ Word an&:Spirit, and who guards us:andkee'p~lJ~hn the freegp!TI he has 'vx~:>n for US;6 '" ' ; , , ; . '. 1, Acts'iq::3'8 God ~ n0i n ted Jes~s of Nazareth with the Holy Spi rit,a nd power, and he went around dQinggood and healing all w ho,¥8re under the power of the devil, because God was,'''Yitp,him (see also: Lk 3:21 -22 , Lk 4 : 14 ~ 1 9, Heb 1 :9). 2. ' Heb ' 2 In the past Cgd spoke to ourfo refathers th, r?ugh tb~ prqphets at many times and in variousways, but in these

last dayS'.he,has sPo,ken to .y~ ~y: his Son, wh0m he ap!?,qipted hei~ o,f all things (see also,: Mt 13:57, Mt 21 :11 , Lk 7:16-17,

In 4 :19>:. : " , i ••J/~' . ' .. ;' i ' " ". •

3. Heti~i1 Therefore, holybrofhers, who, shpre in the he1!veRly calling. fix you r tho,ughts on Jesus, the apostle al1dhigh priest

who,,!, yV!;!confess (see a~so, Heb 5: 5, 7 :24~2 7 , 8~:l , 9:11:,;'10: 11 -14, 10: 19-22).

4, Heb:? >25 Th erefQre he is able to save c?mRI~t~ly those who, CQme to God thro,ugh him, because lie always lives to

inte rc.ede ,fQr them (see alsl):' 1)n 2:1 ). '?>::';· , . '. , , :

5.~v19: 16 On his ro,be ~rild on his thigh hehas'this n.a me written : KING OF KINGS AND LORD O F LQRpS($ee also: Ps

2:~ii1J; Mt27 : 11 , J n 12;B;'15, )n 18:36-3:Z; .A.cts,17:7, Heb 1:8, Rv 17:1 4). . '" . ';.'

6.:J~.J 4 :16-17 And I wjl~:ask the Father~ and;b;:yvill give you anQther Counselor tQbe with yQU foreve~-:-,:,the Spirit of truth

(see :~I$Q: Jn 10:28; 2rh~~ 2:13, 2Cor 3 :1 7, .9.~.J.S: 1 ) . .:~/,

Why is he called:God's "()'Illy SO:Il" when we also are God's,<:~ildren? Becaus~ Christa'lc)i)~ fs the eterna:I;:' n,~t4.r~lSon of God. 1 We, however, are adopt~a children ofC'a d-adopted bygtace through Christ. 2 1. In 5 :18 For.this reason the JeW~ ·tried all the harder to kill hi.m; not o nly was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God nis·own Father, IT:)a kin~.himself equal with God (see,also : )n 1:1-3, 14, Heb 1:3-8). 2. Eph 1:5 .. .he predesti ned,usJo be ado pted as his sons,throug.\:l'Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (see also,: In 1 :.12"13, Ro,m 8:15'-.1:7, c:;al 3: 26, Gal 4 :4-7). ' ' c '

do you .cafl"bim "our trir~t ?

Be~~use-not 'vVifh gold or~Hv,~r,'but with his precious'blood 1'..•.':~7 has set

usr~~~ from sin and from the tYranny of the devil,2 a'ndhas~bougflt 'u$, body

ang~Qu,J, tobehisvery own.3 ~~~;, ' ,,, . . ",

Why

1. 1 Pt 1:1s 2i9 .For you knQw;that it was not ,vjth perl~h~bl"ethi~g~ such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of.1Jfe handed dow;n' to'you from your f0refathe ~;;.but witl) the precious blood Qf Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (see also: Acts 20:28, Rv 1 :5). ' ."'.. 2. Coi l :13-14 For he has rE!S~Ue9;us from the dominiQn of d~ ~lless an~ brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we. have redemption, the:forgiveness Qfsins (see aJs6;':R,':9~ 6:22, Heb 2:1 4). 3. Kor 6: 19}0 YQU are. not your. owni you wece bQl,lgh,t"a,t ~ p:[j~\~~ There fore hQnQr God with yo,ur bQdy.

Ho~>~oes the h~lyconceptiol1Clnil birth of Christ benefit you? ,. tie is 'bur medi<;l:tor,1 and with' his innocence and perfectholin.ess he re ';\ /es from <:;6d's sight mys1n'2 -mine since I was c;onceixed;{

1. 1 Fo,r th.e re is one :God and o lile media,t 9r between God and ment theman Ch ristJesus '\s~ealso: H~p9:13)' ,2, . • But when the tjme had fully come; te;.Qd sent his So,n, born of a woman, born under law, to'regeem tHose under law, tha.t:~~ might recE!ive.the full rights of sonS' ($e~~iilso: 2Cor 5 :21 , 1Pt 1: 18-19). .. 3, ·Ps 5t:'~,!,S urely I was sinfl,lL~t birth, sinful from th etj~; my mother cQnceived me. :>;;~:'

.. ..

.,.;~.)~

What d,o you und¢~~tand by the wg~d "suffered ';? '. That ~;~ring his wh~te life on eClrthi':'~~9ut especially at the end, Christ sustaiQ#d in body) md soul the a:l~.;g~r 'Of God against the sin of the whole human';~ace.l Tht~,he didinqrder that, by his suffering as the Q~lyat()ning sacrifi~e, he mightset us freet;pp~y and soul, from eternal con9.~rnnation,2 ang:gain for us {;iod's grac~, fkghteousness, and eternal Hf~}: ':c

s; " ,

1. Is 5}<4-1 0 Su relyhe took up Qur infirm itieS'ilndcarried our sorrows.. . he was crushed,for 0t.1f' iniq,uitiesi the'punishmenr : that bro~ht us peace was upon him ... the LQ.~ p hilS laid on him the iniq"lity of lIs al!.. . itwasthe L()gq;s willto crush him t~ and catls~him to suffer. :~:\:: . ">:' ,. ..'''\' ' 2. RO~) :~r18 Conseq~el)~y, just as the result ofQ:r:l, e.:t~espass was condemnation for all merl,$q also the1'~su.ltof8)'le act of righteousne~s was justification that brings life fQt alt jl)er (see also: Rom 8: 1 Heb 9 :1 5, .Heb 10,14). '.' , ~ .: , ,,\ 3. In 3:36 W.hoever believesif\~he Son has eternalllfe"putwhQeyer rejects the Son wi ll not see life, for Go,d'swrath re,p1ains Qn him (see il,~9: Is 46:12-n t Ji1,3 :16, Jn 10:27, Roni , ~;t?"Rom ,,5:17 , He b 13 :12). '. \,; ,";

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

jections. It is also important for dads to teach their sons why an F-15 is superior to a Mig-25, and to even build a model ofit together ifpos sible. It is a must to know what a "draw play" is, and ifyour child does not learn from your mis takes and grows up to be a Rams fan, they too must learn to live with perennial disappoint ment and heartbreak, a very difficult but valuable lesson. It is important to learn how to tie a ball into a mitt to make a good pocket, to run a lawn mower properly so as to not leave streaks in the grass and to position the firewood precisely so that you get a good hot and clean fire. Butwhileallofthis is important, it certainly pales in the light of eternity, when we realize that our children must also come to know the unspeakable love ofJesus Christ, who declared overtheobjectionsofhisdisciples, "letthechil dren come unto me." There is no doubt that the Scriptures themselves assign specifically to fa thers the vital role of instructing their children in the Holy Scriptures and the great doctrines of the Christian faith. Let us never forget that our children come to Christ, many times, di rectly through instruction received in the home. But how can Mom or Dad best instruct their children in the faith? This can be done very effectively through regular Bible reading and catechism-practices that at one time were the distinguishing mark of a Christian home. The second emphasis ofcatechism centers on the role ofthe local church. Here the role of the pastor and elders, as well as the goal of the Sunday school program, should be to further and support those efforts at catechism ideally begun in the home. Parents should not assume that the church's role is to supply the catechetical instruction that they as parents make little or no effort to provide. Too many times Christians labor under the false assump tion that the church and its various youth programs, will make upfor alack ofinstruction in the home. Just as you cannot expect your children to do well in school without the active involvement ofthe parents after school, so too, parents cannot expect their children to grow in faith as they should apart from concerted effort to provide regular catechism with the family. Sunday schools and youth programs are won derful reinforcements to what the parents undertake in the home. But these can never replace the value of instructing one's children in the basics ofChristian faith. Certainly we are

modern REFORMATION

all too busy, and this seems so difficult to do. But even a little time spent in catechism pays great dividends, and a discerning parent can find plenty ofobject lessons with which to illustrate the truths ofthe catechism from virtu ally every family discussion, newscast, situation comedy, or feature film. One ofthe best by-products of parents taking an active role in catechizing their kids, is that they also catechize themselves in the process! In order to teach your kids and to be able to an swer their questions, which are often more direct and difficult than those asked by manyadults, you must learn the material for yourself. In order to teach, you have to learn! There are surprising practical ramifications that result from the practice ofcatechism as well. Many people who hear the White Horse Inn and are suddenly intrigued by Reformation theology frequently inquire about the best way to learn Reformation theology for themselves. There is no doubt that getting one of the Reformation catechisms, and workingyourwaythrough it, is a great place to start. Too many people assume that the place to start learning the ology is through tackling technical theological writing, when in fact the creeds and catechisms ofthe Reforma tion were designed to instruct novices in the faith. Starting with the catechism and confessions is really a better way to go. There are other practical results as well. When I first entered the ministry, I was quite surprised at how many times I heard from people how the catechism questions and answers they memorized in childhood kept coming to mind when temptation or doubt would assail them later in life. Manywere able to recount how catechism in their youth kept them from joining cults, because they knew enough doctrine to know that you must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, or how catechism kept them from marrying people from non-Christian reli gions, since they knew enough biblical teaching to tell the difference. Indeed, several who were on the verge of leaving the faith altogether simply could not escape what had become such an important part of their subcon scious. The catechism questions and answers they had memorized many years before simply would not leave them when the going became difficult. It was a part of their life history that they could not escape no matter how hard they tried. In conclusion, there is one story that wonderfully captures the importance ofcatechism. The great Prince ton theologian B. B. Warfield, in an article defending the worth ofthe Westminster Shorter Catechism, recounts a wonderful story that demonstrates what he describes as the "indelible mark ofthe Shorter Catechism."

We have the following bit of experience from a general officer ofthe United States Army. Hewasinagreatwestern ci ty at a time ofin tense excitemen t and violen t rioting. The streets were over-run daily by a dangerous crowd. One day he observed approaching him a man of singularly com bined calmness and firmness of mien [bearing], whose very demeanor inspired confidence. So im pressed was he with his bearing amid the surrounding uproar that when

Too many people assume that the rlace to start learning theology is thro~h tackling technical theological writ' "when ID fact the creeds and catechisms of the Reformation were designed to illstruct novices in the faith. he had passed he turned to look back at him, only to find that the stranger had done the same. On observing his turning the stranger at once came back to him, and touch ing his chest with his forefinger, demanded without preface: "What is the chief end of man?" On receiving the countersign, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever" - "Ah!" said he, "I knew you were a Shorter Catechism boy by your looks!" "Why that is just what I was thinking ofyou," was the rejoinder. I

Concludes Warfield, "It is worthwhile to be a Shorter Catechism boy. They grow up to be men. And better than that, they are exceedingly apt to grow to be men of God."2 Ifwe want our children to grow up to be men and women of God, one of the best possible ways for this to happen is to recover the practice of catechism! ~

Recommended Catechisms: The Heidelberg Catechism The Westminster Shorter Catechism Luther's Larger Catechism Kim Riddlebarger is a graduate of Cal-State Fullerton, Westminster Theological Semi

nary in California, and is presently a Ph . D. candidate at Fuller Theological Seminary. Kim

is dean of the CURE Academy and is co-host of The White Horse Inn radio program. He

is a contributing scholar to Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What

Divides And Unites Us, Power Religion: The Selling out of the Evangelical Church (Moody

Press), and Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Baker Book

House). He is the husband to Micki, and a proud father of two fairly well-behaved boys,

David and Mark.

1 B. B. Warfield, "Is the Shorter Catechism Worth While?" in Selected Shorter Writings

of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 1, ed., John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and

Reformed Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 383-84.

2 Ibid., p. 384.

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

The Submissive Wife

.. , .

Wives,~ubiJ:zit tb . your

husbanfls 'as tothe

Lord. Forthehus band i8th~~.he~d..of the wife as Qhrisfis the Iieaq of.,ihe . . . church,/hii2body;'of which he is : the ;r-

/>'y

Savior. Now as th'e> church sl.lbm1'ts to Christ, ;8 0 also wiyes should submit to>' their~( busbands in ':'-', y,

everything (Eph 5:22;24). '

by BRYAN CHAPELL

MAR C H / APR ILl 9 9 5

ergie married Andrew we marveled at the days of trysurroundingthewedding, butwhatmostofus ._..u,.~U, H-,~r is a moment when their vows were taken. Fergie was supposed to say to her groom, "I promise to love, honor, and obey... " She did say the phrase, but not without a sideways grin at the Prince that said much more. Her look could hardly have more clearly articu lated the new Duchess's thought: "You gotta be kidding. Nobody really believes those anachronisms about wifely submission anymore, and you had better not!" She re peated the vows, but with a toss of her head Fergie as clearly tossed away the content of those words without any indication of what commitments should or could take their place. In hindsight, that smirk ofbemused lip service to traditions not intended to be truly honored has become a sad illustration of a royal marriage gone awry. But it is not merely royalty to whom the illustration applies. It is my guess that if we strip away party platforms and lip service we too readily give to the official positions ofour ch urches, political agendas, families, or traditions we will also find large question marks remain in all the thinking people about the current responsibilities of women in marriage. Hal Farnsworth, a Reformed Uni versity Ministries campus minister at Vanderbilt, tells me, "It does not matter whether the intelligent women on my campus are liberal feminists or conservative tradi tionalists' ifyou can get them to talk honestly about their deepest concerns most will say that even when they make choices according to one perspective that they constantly wonder if they are right. Deep down they are desperate for a credible authority to tell them what women are supposed to be." Sadly, our churches have not proved to be a credible

modern REFORMATION

enough authority to settle the issue even among them selves. I know ofsome churches that have urged women fed up with abusive husbands to leave their marriages. Others have used discipline to try to force women to submitto husbands guilty ofthe same offenses under the assumption that the abuse is a result of the women not being submissive enough. I hear the resultant confusion among my own relatives as women long committed to marriage and deeply desiring to honor Scripture have after decades ofsacrifice cried out in emotional exhaus tion and spiritual agony, "I know the Bible says to submit, but I can't continue to live this way. I have tried, but I can't keep on. I just can't." From palaces to campuses to churches to our homes and hearts the questions echo: What really is a wife sup posed to love, or to honor, or to obey? I do not have all the answers to the questions this fragmented and broken society demands that I consider. However, I do know that some of the flip answers we often give do not con sider the complexity of our age, the dignity of each person, and the authority ofGod's Word. Many ofthese principles appear in this passage which I cannot read without discovering a rather straight answer to the ulti mate question we have to ask: "What is a Christian wife to be?" The inescapable answer here (for those who believe this Word is authoritative) is stated directly-a Christian wife is to be submissive. However, lest that answer merely be simplistic, we must carefully assess the requirements, nature, and goals ofthis submission.

The Duty ofa Christian Wife The duty to which God calls Christian wives could hardly be more clearly stated by the apostle: "Wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord" (vs. 22). However, as you well know, simply repeating the word "submit" or even giving its Greek origin (which means "to arrange under") does not tell us all we feel we have to know. What does Paul intend for us to understand by submission? Submission Does Not Mean "Nothing" We know that submission cannot be an incidental term without meaning because ofthe comprehensive ways in which it is addressed. If we do not understand what submit means Paul first gives us a comparison analogy. Wives are to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (vs. 22). As all persons should arrange their lives under the righteous purposes of their Lord so wives should prioritize their lives relative to husbands' purposes in God's kingdom. Lest that comparison prove insuffi cient, the apostle then addsamorecompellingexampleof his thought based on the relationship of Christ and the church. As the church submits to Christ as its head, so

wives should submit to their husbands' headship (vss. 23-24). As the church would never think it could fulfill its purposes without submission to the holy will of its Lord, the apostle reminds women that they cannot fulfill their divine purposes if they are not submitting to the biblical purposes of their husbands. Finally, lest we as sume Paul only means these standards to apply to some narrow part oflife, the apostle clarifies the comprehensive extent of his instruction by saying that "wives should submit to their husbands in everything (vs. 24)." These really are comprehensive words.

The Scope ofScripture's Witness As comprehensive as these words appear in this place, however, we might still find a way to narrow their intent if this seemed to be an exceptional passage. Then, our culture as well as our biblical interpretation principles of letting Scripture interpret Scripture and allowing clearer passages to interpret less obvious passages might well lead us to conclude these "submission" words do not really mean anything for us. We cannot draw such a conclusion in light of the consistent commitment of Scripture to these concepts. Note that wives are instructed three times in this passage alone to subject their priorities to their husband's authority. Paul usesthesameorrelated termi nology about husbands and wives in at least five other books (viz. 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and Titus). The Apostle Peter also tells wives, "be submissive to your husbands so that, ifany ofthem do not believe the word, they may be won over without

WE ARE NOT O;BLIGATED BY SOME SIMPLISTIC IMPOSITION THAT<DETERlv1:INES WHO TAKES THE GARBAGE OU1\ WHO WASHES, DISHES,

OR HOW

MANY,HOt(RS Otl!STDE OF THE HOME A SPOUSE MAY WORK OR PLAY WITHOUT CROSSING SOME DEFINITE B,IBLICAL THRESHOLD OF NlARITAL CORRECTNES'S, talkbythe behavior oftheir wives " (1 Pt3:l). This "gentle and quiet spirit" Peter then ties to Israel's earliest history saying it was with such a demeanor that "Sarah obeyed Abraham" (1 Pt 3:4-6). Paul goes back even further in the Ephesians and Corinthians passages by relating this order offamilyrelationships to the events ofcreation (vs. 31). The effect ofthis consistent witness is to spread the instruction for wives to submit to husbands not only

MAR C H / APR ILl 995

over one passage, but across the Pauline material, through the New Testament, to Israel's origins and throughout humanity's history. Submission (so com prehensive in its imperatives, scope, and duration) cannot mean nothing.

Submission Does Mean Something The something that submission means is perhaps most obvious in light ofthe purpose it fulfills. Paul reminds us ofthis when in the same passage he refers to the genesis of the marriage relationship saying, "For this reason a man will leave his Father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery ... " (vss. 31, 32). These words tell usthatsubmis sion is thepouring oneselfinto the completion ofanother. It is the sacrificing ofselfto make a relationship, and those in it, whole. Paul says this is a profound mystery and we can well attest to that. It is so past our explaining (and yet so obvious to us) that God has made those ofus not gifted for celibacy so that we are never quite whole-in our relational maturity, in our personal development, or even in our spirituality-without those he intends to complement and complete us in marital oneness. We will look at another individual (or even at our selves) after a few years ofmarriage and say, "That person has so matured, so leveled out, or become so less self absorbed since marrying so and so." At least, that is what we say ifthe marriage is functioning well. Ifthe marriage is going poorly, we typically recognize that the self-ab sorption, immaturity, or character flaws may be even

«ARRA:NGING UNDER" OF ONE'S:PW~ GIPTS Fq.R :THB GLORY OF -,.

' "

, "

ANOTH~~. SUCH:SUBMISS'lONIS > ' ,

N~'YER AN ABDICATIOij OF' :JtESPON~1BILrrY FOR ';AN6THER~~S W:ELFARE, ~OR :!~S IT /AN :,:>

":<

)

,~.

'-,

,"'

'A,BANDGNMEN,! QF Ol>IE S ' OW:~ GIFTS TO FIJ' A

GPLTYRALLY, DE};.ERM}NE~ , ROtE. more prominent. When the real oneness God intends for marriage does not occur, then the people themselves become less whole. Though this is a mystery it fits pre cisely with the pattern of Scripture which tells us that since God made us such that marriage would make us whole, then the abuse or neglect of that union must damage us. Ultimately it is this knowledge of the way in which 24

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

our lives affect each other that directs our understanding about what the apostle says here about the mutual re sponsibilities of marriage. To the husband is given the authority for the sacrificial responsibility of biblical headship that is designed to lead a family in the paths of God. To the wife is committed the nurture and care to support him so that he can carry out these responsibili ties. Each has responsibility for the other to the end that the family unit as a whole is whole and healthy before God. Note this goal is much clearer than a specific set of behaviors imposed on every couple despite differing personalities, gifts, and situations. We are not obligated bysome simplistic imposition that determines who takes the garbage out, who washes dishes, or how many hours outside ofthe home a spouse may work or play without crossing some definite biblical threshold ofmarital cor rectness. The responsibilities ofmarriage are determined at the deepest levels ofthe Christian heart, and call for the most diligent, honest, conscientious questions of self examination. The husband must not only ask, "Am I leading my family to a better knowledge of God?" but also, "Is my leadership self-serving or sacrificial?" Simi larly, the wife must not only ask, "Do my actions, words, and attitudes enable my husband to lead my family to a better knowledge of God?" but also, "Have I truly in everything submitted my life to this highest priority?" These are questions that cannot be answered by ar bitrary, cultural, or merely traditional role assignments regarding such things as who gets to talk first, who writes the checks, or who gets to drive. The inappropriateness of culturally imposed rules is obvious when we under stand that submission (in addition to requiring the pouring of oneself into the completion of another) in volves the exercising ofgifts for the glory ofanother. This becomes most apparent when you recognize the bal anced construction of the instruction Paul gives wives and husbands in this passage. His instruction for hus bands directs them to use their headship as Christ used hisforthegloryofhisbride, the Church (vss. 25-27). The effect is to remind husbands that they must never abuse their authority so that they rob their wives of"radiance" (cf. vs. 27). At the same time wives are told not to so disregard submission that they rob their husbands of "respect" (vs. 33). Discerning how wives make sure they fulfill this obligation requires us to recognize the impli cations of Paul's comparison of marriage to the relationship ofChrist and the Church. The Church does not honor Christ by dispensing with the gifts and graces God provi,des. Rather she is called to arrange all her energies and abilities under the grand purpose ofglorify ing the Savior. To do less would not be submission; it would be disobedience. By this line ofthought we grow to understand the wisdom of Paul's terminology. Bibli

modern REFORMATION

cal submission truly is an "arranging under" of one's own gifts for the glory of another. Such submission is never an abdication of responsibility for another's wel fare, nor is it an abandonment ofone's own gifts to fit a culturally determined role. Let me indicate at least one reason why humanly prescribed behaviors are an insufficient measure ofbib lical submission. On a church council outside our locale there is a lay leader who asks every new pastoral candi date entering that denomination's churches, "Does your wife submit to you?"This man's agenda is to make each candidate prove to the council that he has control ofhis family the way this official thinks headship should be practiced-meaning the way he controls his own family. However, itwouldbe tragic ifcandidates actually did satisfy this official. Over the years this man's friends have watched as his intelligent, once glowing and buoyant wife has be come increasingly silent, sullen, and dowdy under his "headship.» Sadly, the more withdrawn she has become the more obnoxious, belligerent, and accusing he has become with everyone in his path. The more she retreats from her own gifts the more his faults assert themselves. You need to hearme clearly say that I amnotblamingher for his faults. I am simply noting the marital results of a spouse's suppressed gifts. Yet, despite the obvious dete rioration of their Christian witness both parties in this marriage claim the wife is biblically submitting to her husband because she only talks when he allows, only leaves the home when he permits, only wears what he approves. How sad. By limiting headship and submis sion to a certain set of behaviors they have actually lost sight oftheir true biblical priorities ofpromoting God's glory and, thus, they have diminished each other. I can not prescribe the specific actions this wife should do each day, nor would I pretend to know when certain things should have been discussed between these two people in years gone by. I do know, however, (and their lives confirm this) that submitting one's life to the good of another does not mean abandoning them to their faults , nor abandoning one's own gifts. God does not expect anyone to minimize the gifts he grants for a wor ship response to his own creative character and through which he has designed the character and happiness of a marriage to mature. Submission ultimately is not the sup

this passage. Such an examination may initially yield a shock. Where our translations say, "Wives submit to your husbands" (vs. 22), the word "submit" does not appear in the original language ofthe text. The very word

pression ofgifts but the full expression ofthem in behalfof another.

Each person is to submit whatever gifts, rights, or au thority he or she has to the good of another for the building up of Christ's kingdom. The reason this structure confirms the dignity of a Christian wife is that it proves that her submission does not lessen her value or diminish her place in the king dom. All Christians are to submit themselves to the good ofothers whom God has placed in their lives. Although

The Dignity ofa Christian Wife It is this expression of gifts in behalf of another that further defines submission not only in terms ofduty, but also in terms of dignity. To see how biblical submission grants dignity you must examine the precise wording of

IN CHtI,IST;

;~lNGDO~"SUBMISSIO~';~OES NOT

\\;:",'\&; ,

>;!~it?:,;. ,!!~ )~~~~~;~, CONFI RM,~ ":;'~.~t.

LESSEN BELIEVERS 'STANDING/ 21i: ,.,.THEIR PLA€E. ,

To 'CONCLUDE O~HERWISE IS T~:~' ~i .'.( . . " •.. .....<:~

REASON tHAT C Hin ST BECAME. 'AN INFERIQR'\'lN ',

THE

GdrmEA~.~FlEN HE ~~I~;ITTED H~~ ';

TO THE EATHER,.,9:~ THAT.TFlE,; S PIRIT

'<'.<~;':~>

'~DESERVES 'i ESS GLO~Y BECAUSE "'H~ FULFILLS '; :,::_

~~~"~,-,,

4:'

i~:\", ,

'::/.

"<4.{

THE·Pt1,RPOS;ES OF .THE>S ON. we are so ready to debate is not actually present-in this verse. Interestingly its absence not only underscores the necessity ofsubmission, it is also confirms the dignity of a Christian wife.

The Value ofa Christian Wife The place the word "submit" does appear is the preced ing verse where the apostle concludes his instruction on being "filled with the Spirit," by saying we should all "Submit to one another out of reverence to the Lord" (vs. 21). The instruction to wives then follows as only the first constituency among Christians to whom the sub mission mandate applies. Next will follow husbands, then fathers, then children, then slaves, then masters. The construction of the passage, thus, unfolds with the following impact: Submit to one another ... Wives, to your husbands as to the

Lord (5:22-24, 33); Husbands, by giving yourselves for

your wives, as the Lord gave himself for the church (5:25 33); Children, by obeying you parents (6:1-3); Fathers, by

not exasperating your children (6:4); Slaves, by obeying

masters properly from you hearts (6:5-8) ;and, Masters, by

treating slaves with respect and fairness since you are slaves

of Christ (6:9).

M AR C H IA PRIL 1 995

the apostle clearly assigns differing purposes to husbands and wives, he just as clearly exempts no one from the requirement ofhaving the attitude that was also Christ's who made himself nothing and became obedient to God's call for selfless sacrifice (cf. PhiI2:5ff.). In Christ's

way some people live. The vileness and violence so many ofthe families around us considered normal were shock ing to us. Most curious was the minister's family below us. Most of their fights were about who was the better witness. We usually tried to ignore the shouts and slaps Kingdom submission does not lessen believers' standing, it until he started choking her so she could not respond, confirms their place. Christians' responsibilities vary, and then we would have to find some way to intervene. It their value does not. To conclude otherwise is to reason was awful. But as Kathy and I would night after night try to close our ears to the conflict as it built, we would sometimes turn to one another and t say, «Why does she taunt him so? She knows " ISi'TO;US£ TIl,i . he is going to hit her." We did not know then what we have now learned about abusive POWER OF POSITION :A,ND PHYSIQUE TO~>E'NFQ:~C' E homes: that as often asa man will trytodomi . ·;;tIGTAJ:ORIAL S nate a woman with his strength, a woman will try to control a man with shame. TEMPTATION IS 10 USE THE POWER QFWORDS A.ND Even if violence is not a part of your , , , ::: home you must learn by listening to the ways EMOTIONS TO DIMJNISH A HUSBAN~S]NFLUENCE SO spouses try to get their way even in Christian

THAT SHE HAS CONTROL OF THE HoME.~ P AUL ALLOWS marriages. With intimidation or intransi

'" " " .i~ , ,'. gence that are both expressions of power,

NEITHER , POWER PLAY, BY COMMANDING MEN TO men often exert their control. Women by a look, a cutting remark, an accusation, or LOVE THEIR WIVE£ 'S.A,CRIFICIALLY some embarrassing reminder, may seek to WOMEN WHO RESPECT THHUfHUSBANDS. diminish a man so he becomes less sure of himself and, thus, more controllable. Sadly these factors often, then, turn cyclical as inse that Christ became an inferior in the Godhead when he cure men react to their sense of being diminished by submitted himself to the Father, or that the Spirit de becoming more dominating, which only gives a wife serves less glory because he fulfills the purposes of the more opportunity to needle and shame, which subse So n. By his Trinitarian nature our God has made it ab un- quently triggers more abuse. When this cycle is in effect dantly clear that an equality ofvalue does not require an to any degree each party in the marriage is vying for identity of roles. power, but note Paul is crusading for love (cf. 5:1- 2). Love permits none ofthis grappling for spousal control. To Respect Her Husband A Christian husband has no privilege to intimidate or Paul concludes this address to husbands and wives with ignore his wife; a Christian wife no right to diminish or the instruction for men to «love" their wives and for shame her husband. wives to «respect" their husbands (vs. 33). Here the apostle seems to be dealing with each gender at the weak The Glory ofa Christian Wife points of our relational tendencies. Often a man's great The dignity ofa Christian wife is not only spelled out temptation is to use the power of his position and phy in the comparison ofher duty with others' tasks, but also sique to enforce dictatorial rule or to indulge passive in the glory of the purpose God grants her. To under self-absorption. A woman's comparable temptation isto stand the dignity of this purpose it may be helpful to use the power of words and emotions to diminish a compare it to the role current society sometimes advo husband's influence so that she has control ofthe home. cates. Such a comparison is available in author Phoebe Paul allows neither «power play," by commanding men Hobby's January, 1994 review of current books ad to love their wives sacrificially and commending women dressed to women (as itappeared in Halper's magazine) . who respect their husbands. Hoban writes that in the past feminism has been about Something in us instinctively knows the power ofthe power and money. Now, however, she concludes, forces the apostle is seeking to curb. When Kathy and I «Feminism is no longer a battle for equal opportunity in a were first married and living in an apartment in a low male-dominated society, but a kind of 12-step recovery income part ofthis city, the paper-like walls and floors of program for wounded women. There is an endless appe the complex gave us an ear-opening perspective on the

OFTEN A~N~~&~M'l'iTEMPTATION ~,~"">""

, >,'1.

His

RU~§}~WOMAN) CO~~~ll,lhE ':(j:C"'~'

ANl) '2Q~MENDING

MARCH I APR! L 1995

modern REFORMATION

tite for self-help books. They do not offer women still struggling in an unfair world any clarion call to arms. Instead they urge women to redefine their inner lives."

I remind you these words are not my assessment, but rather are the observations ofa secular advocate ofmod ern feminism. Howsad (and revealing) that a movement with such altruistic rhetoric and so often correct pleas for justice, equality, and dignity now finds at its end that it was but another journey into me-ism. Whether this cause returns to the direction of getting more external affirmation of status or stays focused on inner healing, the result ofthe movement as it is currently framed is the same-a path for women that is butthepouringofone's life and demands into the vain, cloying pursuit of "what's-in-it-for-me." Whether it be a man or woman, we find nothing so detestable as a person driven by selfishness, and nothing so ennobling as a life given in service and sacrifice for others. If you can see this in the comic book life of a Donald Trump who gains power and wealth at the ex pense of our respect, and sense it in the life of a Mother Theresa who has the honor of the world and its rulers though she has nothing, then perhaps you can begin to gauge the dignity God grants to the wife who submits herself to the good of her husband and family. The Bible says that they will rise up and call her blessed (Prv 31:'28).

Heaven's Cheer I sensed some of this divine pleasure at a social I attended a few days ago. There I took much delight in listening to an older couple sing their own version of "Do You Love Me" from the musical, Fiddler on the Roof At the point ofthe song where the stage characters are supposed sing, "After twenty-five years it's nice to know," this couple substituted their own marriage's stats and sang, "After 48 years it's nice to know." In a church dominated byyoung marriages that have not yet stood the test of years, and in which we had just that evening heard previous stories from some in troubled relationships battered by cultural influences, the endur ing love ofthis couple was more than endearing. It was inspiring. When they hit the last notes the room ex ploded in astandingovation aswe cheered for a love that had so powerfully encouraged us and had so radiantly persevered in them. We were about to discover there was more for them to endure. Just a few minutes later their 41-year-old son also went on the stage to tell us about his current battle with cancer and the hope he still claims as a result ofhis parents' life offaith. After the social when I spoke to the parents privately in a remote hallway ofthe church, I told them I was surprised to hear the cancer report. They said

the report was only days old to them as well. There had been no history or warning signs to prepare them-just an out-of-the-blue telephone call: "Mom and Dad, I have cancer." As they told methis account oftheir beloved son, the recentness of the news with its shock, grief, and fear welled in the couple. Theman, usually so stoic, could not keep tears from his eyes. When his wife saw that pain and the embarrassment of his tears, she touched his arm. It was such a simple and subtle gesture, and yet you could almost see the strength flow from her as he, then, col lected himself and spoke again of their faith in God's care. The wife, I am sure, wanted to cry as much (if not more) than her husband wanted notto cry. Knowingher as I do, tears would have been far more typical ofher , and shehadnolessaneed to be comforted by him. Yet, in that moment he needed her strength and in that reassuring touch she sacrificed the expression of her own grief to minister to his pain. In their oneness she knew just how to help him, and how to preserve his respect in the midst ofher own hurting. The gesture was a duty ofdeep love, a dignifying of him that dignified her, and a desire to serve another nurtured through a lifetime of serving God. Who witnessed this wife's giving of herself in that caring touch in the hall? I did, and maybe one or two others, but for her I again heard applause-another standing ovation exploding this time from the portals of heaven as its hosts rejoiced for a wife who in those mo ments submitted her right to grieve to her husband's need for support. I hope with her spiritual ears she heard it, too. I pray that on that day she sensed heaven's regard

I~~E PR~MITS NONE OF THIS GRAPPLING FOR S~POUSALCONTROL.

A CHRISTIAN

HUSBAND '

~U~~}'!~ ! I'RIVILEGE TOINTIMIDATE OR IGNORE FHI'~' W~fE; A CHRISTIAN WIFE NO RIGHT TO , PI1yII~'ISH OR SHAME HER HUSBAND. <~-~;-~

{

/ ~'i:L, ~.~",----",,, ~~

_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _~~~~_----.:..~

for the beauty ofher service; and, I pray that on this day she, like you, will know and claim the eternal value and scriptural glory of every wife who submits to her hus band out of reverence for the Lord. ~ Dr. Bryan Chapell is the President of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri and had served as the seminary's Executive Vice-president and Dean. A graduate of Southem Illinois University, Covenant Theological Seminary and Northwest ern University, Dr. Chapell also is a Pastoral Theology professor. He is the author of In the Grip of Grace: When You Can't Hang On, Standing Your Ground: A Cal/to Courage in an Age of Compromise, and "The Submissive Family: One Home Under God" (audio cassette series),

MARCH IAPRIL 1995

The Key to Social Renewal by DON EBER'LY

·t ly has the nation's debate shifted with such breathtak

speed. Polls continue to show a significant shift in cern from fiscal to social deficits. In spite of its eco nomic greatness, America is increasingly embarrassed in the eyes ofthe world for its social conditions. It is hum bling for the world's richest industrial nation to have a poverty rate twice that ofany other industrial nation and to be singled out by international agencies as a world leader in child poverty and youth homicides. At the risk of oversimplifying complex social prob lems, evidence continues to mount that father absence is the chief cause of most of our costly social maladies: poverty, educational failure, teen suicide, drug abuse, illegitimacy and violence. Consider poverty. A recent study indicated that the poverty rate for children born to mothers who finished high school, got married, and waited until they were twenty to have their first child was 8% compared to a poverty rate of79% for those whose mothers didn't do those three things. The average poverty rate for children of single mothers presently stands at 47% percent; it is 65% for black children.

Sixtyper(~ent of America's rapists, 72% of ndolescellt IDurderel's, nod '10% of long t,erm prison inmates grew up without fnthers. Those who would cast the problem in racial terms need reminding that black two-parent households earn two to three times as much as white, single-parent house holds. Moreover, as pointed out recently on this page, the rate ofgrowth in white illegitimacy is now higher than that ofblacks. Then take crime. When family type is taken into account the relationship between race and crime and low 28

M A R C H / APR IL 1 9 9 5

income and crime almost disappears. While growing numbers now agree that fatherhood has been devalued and are prepared to accept that it has some social utility, few are clear on the actual scale of father absence, why fatherhood really matters, or why its restoration is so central to American progress. To appreciate the scope offather absence, consider that 40% nearly four of every ten-now goes to bed in a household where the biological father is absent, and that one in every two children will spend at least some time before the age of 18 with one parent. Father absence is already competing with father presence for the norm, and the trend is expected to worsen by the turn of the century. If out-of-wedlock births is a harbinger of the future a visit to almost any maternity ward in America, urban or rural, presents a portrait ofa fatherless and Dickensonian America in the year 2010. Free societies can endure a lot of challenges- dra matic economic dislocation and a decline in educational achievement, public health and competitiveness. With the right mix of sound policy and collective resolve, many ofthese problems can at leastbe ameliorated. What free societies cannot survive is widespread crime and disorder, and the fear that violence generates. Who is it that is responsible for the mayhem, and who is it that we fear precisely? It is males, and predomi nantly fatherless males who have not been properly socialized. Sixty percent of America's rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% oflong term prison in mates grew up without fathers. James Q. Wilson reminds us that human progress depends upon the socialization of males, a simple fact that was recognized throughout all recorded human history and only forgotten recently. Neither child well-being, nor societal well-being is likely to be significantly improved until fathers are rec ognized as unique and irreplaceable. Reconnectingthem to children would do moreto restore ahappyand healthy

modern REFORMATION

childhood to every child, and dramatically reduce our nation's most costly problems, than all of the pending legislation in America combined So what do we do For starters recognize the danger of putting too much stock in national policy agendas. While policy changes are welcome, their effects are ultimately marginal. It greater prosperity and broader income distribution were the sole answer to America's social problems American would be on the verge of a renaissance. Consider the experience ofthe 1980's a decade ofsurging economic growth and almost ceaseless family values rhetoric. The impact on the single parent house hold? It grew by 40%. Bill Clinton's welcome interest in the family will meet the same fate if he concludes that policy tools alone are sufficient. There are no revolutionary ideas in politics. The chief ingredients in America's social regression involve factors that are less susceptible to fiscal and program matic adjustments. America's new frontiers lie in the realm of social change. A good many social problems are ex plained predominantly by a shift in social norms, norms which can change again. We have seen profound changes in recent decades in social attitudes on gender race, physical fitness, smoking and our treatment ofthe environment. Americans are more prone than ever to sanction behaviors that are protective of the natural ecology. By contrast, in the realm of social ecology, our language turns to personal choice and expressive individualism. When it comes to human conduct that is most injurious to child well-being, America practices an unfettered Laisse Faire. Fatherhood is predominantly a cultural, not bio logical, institution, which means its functioning requires social support; it dysfunctioning social oppro brium. To suggest, as we have, that it's all negotiable, will only ensure its demise. Recently the National Fatherhood Initiative was launched, with the help of two veteran fatherhood ex perts, David Blankenhorn ofthe Institute for American Values, and Dr. Wade Horn, former u.s. Commis sioner of Children, Youth and Families. Its goal is ambitious: destroy the myth of the superfluous father within American society and restore responsible father hood as a national priority. National Fatherhood Initiative wants to enlist fa thers, because they matter, because most men wantto be

good fathers, and because good fathers need society's support to survive. A rising social consciousness about fatherhood's importance could change America's social landscape. Fathers must be reconnected to their children by rediscovering historically masculine traits ofstrong male nurturance. As author Richard Louv has said, "Men will not move back into the family until our culture recon nects masculinity and fatherhood, until young men come to see fatherhood, not just paternity, as the fullest expression of manhood."

., ne\v sociallDovement must be launched to strengthen parenting, particularly to restore the necessary social norms of responsible fatherhood. Without moral overkill, without, vilifying good single mothers or det~ent men who have been less than perfect fathers, anew ideal for fatherhood must be rese\'l1 into the social fabric. Restoring fatherhood and reversing the decline in child well-being will require social change, promoted predominantly through the value-shaping institutions in the civic sector: churches charities, and civic organiza tions. A new social movement must be launched to strengthen parenting, particularly to restore the neces sary social norms of responsible fatherhood. Without moral overkill, without vilifying good single mothers or decent men who have been less than perfect fathers, a new ideal for fatherhood must be resewn into the social fabric. American's public and private institutions should be called upon to reinforce a simple and consistent mes sage that is heard by all, beginning at an early age: becoming a parent is important business and it requires responsibility, respect and readiness for the care ofchil dren. It is the well-being of children, after all, that must again be our highest priority. ~ Don E. Eberly is the Founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFl), a non-profit, tax exempt organization, the goal of which is the address the issue of fatherlessness in America. Mr. Eberly is also the Founder and current President of the Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, an institute promoting civic, democratic, and economic renewal. Previously, he spent eight years in Washington, D. C. , in various key positions in congress, the White House and directing a think tank. He is the author of Restoring the Good Society: A New Vision for Culture and Politics and the editor of Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the 21st Century. He is a graduate of George Washington University, Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University.

MAR C H / APR lL 1 9 9 5

complicated story about how badly some neighbour has treated her. Though it goes on a long time, we never learn either howit began or howit ended: it is all middle. 'Mother, that's not quite fair,' says the daughter atlast. 'Mrs. Walker never said-" but her father's voice booms in again. He is tellinghisson aboutthe organization ofthe R.A.F. So itgoes on until either the Vicar or his wife says something so pre posterous that the boy or the girl contradicts and insists on making the contradiction heard. The real minds of the young people have at last been called into action. They talk fiercely, quickly, contemptuously. They have facts and logic on their side. There is an answering flare up from the parents. The father storms; the mother is (oh, blessed do mestic queen's move!) "hurt" -plays pathos for all she is worth. The daughter becomes ironical. The father and son, elaborately ignoring each other, start talking to me. The lunch party is in ruins. The memory of that lunch worries me during the last few minutes ofthe sermon. I amnotworried bythefactthat the Vicar's practice differs from his precept. That is, no doubt, regrettable, but it is nothing to the purpose. As Dr. Johnson said, precept may be very sincere (and, let us add, very profitable) where practice is very imperfect,3 and no one but a fool would discount a doctor's warnings about alcoholic poisoning because the doctor himself drank too much. What worries me is the fact that the Vicar is not telling us at all that home life is difficult and has, like every form oflife, its own proper temptations and corruptions. He keeps on talking as if"home" were a panacea, a magical charm which ofitselfwas bound to produce happiness and virtue. The trouble is not that he is insincere but that he is a fool. Heis not talking from his own experience offamilylife at all: he is automatically reproducing a sentimental tradi tion-and it happens to be a false tradition. That is why the congregation have stopped listening to him. IfChristian teachers wish to recall Christian people to domesticity-and 1, for one, believe that people must be recalled to it-the first necessity is to stop telling lies about home life and to substitute realistic teaching. Perhaps the fundamental principles would be something like this. 1. Since the Fall no organization orway oflife whatever has a natural tendency to go right. In the Middle Ages some people thought that if only they entered a religious order they would find themselves automatically becoming holy and happy: the whole native literature ofthe period echoes with the exposure ofthat fatal error. In the nineteenth cen tury some people thought that monogamous family life would automatically make them holyandhappy; the savage anti-domestic literature of modern times-the Samuel Butlers, the Gosses, the Shaws-delivered the answer. In both cases the "de-bunkers" may have been wrong about principles and may have forgotten the maxim abusus non tollit usum (the abuse does not abolish the use) but in both cases they were pretty right about the matter of fact. Both family life and monastic life were often detestable, and it should be noticed thatthe serious defenders ofboth are well

b9SermOn ~ t=

by C. S. LEW I S

Lunch

Editors Note: In reaction, to the culture's attacks on the family, some Christians run the risk ofromanticizing "the Famity." The following is a helpful antidote to "Famiolatry."

lit! so, said the preacher, 'The Home must be the founda ti n of our national life. It is there, all said and done, that aracter is formed. It is there thatwe appear as we really are. It is there we can fling aside the weary disguises ofthe outer world and be ourselves. It is there that we retreat from the noise and stress and temptation and dissipation ofdaily life to seek the sources of fresh strength and renewed purity... ' And as he spoke I noticed that all confidence in him had departed from every member ofthat congregation who was under thirty. They had been listening well up to this point. Now the shufflings and coughings began. Pews creaked; muscles relaxed. The sermon, for all practical purpose, was over; the five minutes for which the preacher continued talking were a total waste oftime-at least for most of us. Whether I wasted them or not is for you to judge. I certainly did not hear any more ofthe sermon. I was think ing; and the starting point ofmy thought was the question, "How can he? How can he of all people? For I knew the preacher's own home pretty well. In fact, I had been lunch ing there that very day, making a fifth to the Vicar and the Vicar's wife and the son (R. A. F.) l and the daughter (A. T. S.),2 who happened both to be on leave. I could have avoided it, but the girl had whispered to me, "For God's sake stay to lunch if they ask you. It's always a little less frightful when there's a visitor." Lunch at the vicarage nearly always follows the same pattern. It starts with a desperate attempt on the part ofthe young people to keep up a bright patter oftrivial conversa tion: trivial not because they are trivially minded (you can have real conservation with them ifyou get them alone), but because it would never occur to either of them to say at home anything they were really thinking, unless it is forced out of them by anger. They are talking only to try to keep their parents quiet. They fail. The Vicar, ruthlessly interrupting, cuts in on a quite different subject. He is telling us how to re-educate Germany. He has never been there and seems to know nothing either of German history or the German language. 'But, father,' begins the son, and gets no further. His mother is now talking, though nobody knows ex actly when she began. She is in the middle of a 30

MAR C H I A PR I L 1995

modern R EFORMATION

aware of the dangers and free of the sentimental illusion. The author ofthe Imitation ofChrist knows (no o'ne better) how easily monastic life goes wrong. Charlotte M. Yonge makes it abundantly clear that domesticity is nopassportto heaven on earth but an arduous vocation-a sea full of hidden rocks and perilous ice shores only to be navigated by one who uses a celestial chart. That is the first point on which we must be absolutely clear. The family, like the nation, can be offered to God, can be converted and re deemed, and will then become the channel of particular blessings and graces. But, like everything else that is hu man, it needs redemption. Unredeemed, it will produce only particular temptations, corruptions, and miseries. Charity begins at home: so does un charity. 2. By the conversion or sanctification offamily life we must be careful to mean something more than the preser vation of "love"in the sense of natural affection. Love (in that sense) is not enough. Affection, as distinct from char ity, is not a cause of lasting happiness. Left to its natural bent, affection becomes in the end greedy, naggingly so licitous, jealous, exacting, timorous. It suffers agony when its object is absent-but is not repaid by any long enjoy ment when the object is present. Even at the Vicar's lunch table affection was partly the cause ofthe quarrel. That son would have borne patiently and humorously from any other old man the silliness which enraged him in his father. It is because he still (in some fashion) "cares" that he is impatient. The Vicar's wife would not be quite that endless whimper of self-pity which she now is if she did not (in a sense) "love" the family: the continued disappointment of her continued and ruthless demand for sympathy, for af fection, for appreciation has helped to make her what she is. I do not think this aspect of affection is nearly enough noticed by most popular moralists. The greed to be loved is a fearful thing. Some of those who say (and almost with pride) that they live only for love come, at last, to live in incessant resentment. 3. We must realize the yawning pitfall in that very characteristic ofhome life which is so often glibly paraded as its principal attraction. "It is there that we appear as we really are: it is there that we can fling aside the disguises and be ourselves." These words, in the Vicar's mouth, were only too true and he showed at the lunch table what they meant. Outside his own house he behaves with ordinary courtesy. He would not have interrupted any other young man as he interrupted his son. He would not, in any other society, have talked confident nonsense about subjects of which he was totally ignorant: or, ifhe had, he would have accepted correction with good temper. In fact, he values home as the place where he can "be himself' in the sense of trampling on all the restraints which civilized humanity has found indispensable for tolerable social intercourse. And this, I think, is very common. What chiefly distinguishes domestic from public conversation is surely very often simply its downright rudeness. What distinguishes do mestic behaviour is often its selfishness, slovenliness,

incivility-even brutality. And it will often happen that those who praise home life most loudly are the worst of fenders in this respect: they praise it-they are always glad to get home, hate the outer world, can't stand visitors, can't be bothered meeting people, etc.-because the freedoms in which they indulge themselves at home have ended by making them unfit for civilized society. If they practiced elsewhere the only behavior they now find "natural" they would simply be knocked down.

If Christian teachel s \vish to recD,11 Christian people to domesticity-and I, for one,believe that people must be recalled to it-the first necessity is to stop telling lies about home life and to substitute realistic teaching. 1

4. How, then, are people to behave at home? Ifa man can't be comfortable and unguarded, can't take his ease and "be himself' in his own house, where can he? That is, I confess, the trouble. The answer is an alarming one. There is nowhere this side of heaven where one can safely lay the reins on the horse's neck. It will never be lawful simply to "be ourselves" until" ourselves" have become sons ofGod. It is all there in the hymn- "Christian, seek not yetre pose." This does not mean, of course, that there is no difference between home life and general society. It does mean that home life has its own rule of courtesy-a code more intimate, more subtle, more sensitive, and, therefore, in some ways more difficult, than that ofthe outer world. 5. Finally, must we not teach that ifthe home is to be a means ofgrace it must be a place of rules? There cannot be a common life without a regula. The alternative to rule is not freedom but the unconstitutional (and often un con scious) tyranny ofthe most selfish member. In a word, must we not either cease to preach domes ticity or else begin to preach it seriously? Must we not abandon sentimental eulogies and begin to give practical advice on the high, hard, lovely, and adventurous art of really creating the Christian family? ~ C. S. Lewis established himself as one of the most celebrated contemporary authors with his more than forty books, including Screwtape Letters, the seven-volume Chronicles of Narnia, and Mere Christianity. He was Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at the University if Cambridge and a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Throughout his career runs the theme of his conversion from atheism to Christianity, leading TIME magazine to describe him as "one of the most influential spokesmen for Christianity in the English-speaking world." 1 Royal Air Force.

2 Auxiliary Territorial Service .

3James Boswell, Life ofJohsnon, ed. George Birkbeck Hill (Oxford, 1934), vol. IV, p. 397

(2 December 1784).

reproduced by permission of Curtis Brown , London .

MAR C H/APRIL 19 9 5

BOOK

)'!~~;Haye.;l!terview €Jpnt. <,.?.~

Christianity to the point that all we want is for people to pray to a vague and general concept of God? LaHaye: Restoring voluntary prayer in the schools is not going to evangelize anyone. We who advocate it don't do it for evangelistic purposes, we do it so that boys and girls would grow up to realize that there is a God. Now, we are allowing our educators, who by the way are the third most influential force in the life ofa child, to say to the child that there is no God, and I think that's worse than giving a voluntary prayer. It isn't going to destroy a Baptist child to hear a Jew pray to YHWH, or to hear a Mormon pray, however they end their prayers, but they in their hearts would know that there is a God. See, this country is in a vicious war between the secularizers who are against God and those of us who believe there is a supreme being. And it is in the freedom we create by being in the majority and setting the tone of our laws that gives us the freedom to preach the Gospel or to worship as we please. MR: It was J. Gresham Machen in the twenties and thirties who feared that prayers and even Bible readings in public schools would eventually undermine Christianity because they would be reduced to their most basic and common elements. Prayers would be offered without Christ, and the Bible would be read merely as a guide for moral living, and would thus be torn from its redemptive core. This Machen argued was the essence of secularism. LaHaye: I have a great respect for J. Gresham Machen and the contribution he made to the fundamentalist movement, in particular, his work on the virgin birth of Christ. But he was living in the twenties and thirties when we still had a somewhat Christianized culture. And I don't think he could really visualize America as it is today; a secularized, God-sanitized culture. And I think ifhe were living today, I really believe he would see that the end result is worse than he predicted. I really don't agree with him on that position. MR: One last question. You mentioned that our culture has become "God-sanitized." CURE'Sconcern is that the evangelical Christian churches are becoming "God-sanitized." There is an enormous pressure to do away with theology (the study of God) , and to focus on values, personal testimonies, experi ences, etc. There is very little content to Christianity these days; the great riches of the Bible are almost completely ignored. In fact, in our own polls at Christian conventions, we have found that most of the people we interview cannot define the gospel or name the Ten Commandments. It seems that there is a vacuum of God in our own hearts and minds as Christians, and this at a time when we are telling the world that they need to have God and the Ten Commandments in the public schools. LaHaye: I would agree with you that some denominations are very shallow in their teaching of the Bible, and they have lowered Jesus. But I work in circles where we still believe that Jesus is number one, that he is the "way, the truth, and the life," and that the Bible has the answers to the problems oflife. ~

REVIEW

""";~:;:... N

M A R C H / APRIL 1 995

i;~n F~thers/Ittlled:

'itami~ Life if! ~~formati6~~urope,

by ,:$teveIl9zment (HaJ1lifa: U niversity Press, i~~j': 238 pp. ) '\~,

;. /

','

" ~ C<!U~cti~'of Luther's lio/l~ seats us in .f~~i~;g

classroom, an~l'we become aSJ,lIiiversity students. A collectlon of C.a1y,in'sS ep.ihons ushers u~ to 'a Geneva)41\l~:ch .~,ew, and we h~~·om~as·.p aiishioners.iMls,{:ollection of~~rly'P'roi~stant tracts, '~.,>l;i6'1-to w~nuals, and pamphlets invite us intO thg,Reformation

h ome, a~Q ,~e;:brcome as littleR~ildre1) . Social histofla>n S*~y~n

_" Ozmentpr~Vidi$it}1ecollection, a:nd ft'ma!<esfor a goQdr~ad;',Y:~\1 ,

might eyen finis15>the book in one sitting 8~ ite its length.

, E~.rly Protesta-n:t ~athers had fl\;~rnsely~s' been rai-sed Catho lic, and nd~ scorned, the faith of their own f~iliers. New~atechisms were,written to h~lp them to inocul,ate,:1f4~lr, chil dren against,~6-,~/,;<,; m an e.}ror. But'~,ilt isn't all, O zmtfut offers wonderful s.amplti]g$ ::t?, from v~rio~s catechisms which :preSent the brighter side" th~ new::~aith to c~ildren. In one::cl4 " ' a father assures h.is d~

r :that~ith Chr;t$tasher brothersII. ',',: a great and powerful,qu~~n m , heaven . What 'ehild would be hor~d with a catechism which

offer:ed~him or l)er a royal title?

The. fathers and mothers of the Reform~tion wereno t me.rely ,

formerCatholics~ they were often'fornier ttiQnks and n uns. Uur~

ing th~;~efop1'li~ion (when a quartet of tl?i:population of Emfope '

lived 'in monasteries) , Pr()test~ul:t ~i~<iching persuaded .m arty

,mon:ks an4uuns to leave the ~9,n'i$teries. Some wel'~~pr ed

by force, ~1!-dforce was used to;fi~fB'them escape. St~v.eti\~' ztn.ent

quores tracts recounting thv Gommando-'like raids tinciertaken to

:;Aeliver worpen from theirin1P0~~;qJ;1ing lives a$,uuns.:, 1:1artiJ1 , "Luthe! wrote·ofone such raid in: la'hguage inspired by the hqpkQf Exodus. One of the escapees later hecame,his wife. ' ,. ' -,; A$i,de froIl! telling us about fatechi~ ,. > d monastery raids, Ozmertt presents primary source accoun s of early Protestan,t ,,,,A attituges to\vards childbirth, sexu~l{ty; ,divorce and rem,~~~a~~;~ :~,J: 1

HisbookischargedwithcompM$fd~;fpr ourancestors 'YJ.i~~~;~ey

wereensnated in ignorance,a,r1a~e:spectfor them wh~ri<theYWere ahead oftheir times (an¢ our'§1) . ~'~ '.~ , " ,':~Famil~Iife is one ~f¢~ wh~re the Reformation~f success can everl'pe felt today. The n16d~rI1 fa:~ily is by-and-l~i~e.jaRr~duct ofReform~tiol1teaching. But'e~e:n w~~}:ejt isn't-hom~swher:~:a ,c fath~r~poesn't;tl:ll,e or rules desp?~i:~ any-this early Pr~test~l1t mateilal has sOj)1ething to offer>IJ.)it~)v,esee people struggHirgto,-",' expr~;$s to the<11;ext generation the' gka~e ofGod which w.as:~~y~~t~d '"1 ' to them in Christ. Many of ()~f r~a:ders-even thoS¥ ]w h9~,were rai$~¢ as evangelicals-arertst generation Prote?~~~tswho won B~ how tp pass the Re,tot;iPation to their ?~ildi:~n.: Although I :{",w.0iIldn't:t ~commend th'e catechisms Ozm'ei1%~uoted as a cure :'~~lLmanyfamilies usedthemcsuccessfullyunde~ t!!tl?:~conditions. . IfitworkecHor them, the effort to pass on anew-FQ!:Ipd faith may succeed even/in our fallen no'fues. ~ ..;"

modern REFORMATION

WO ITIES,

OVES

Two Cities, Two Loves Conference When the great Saint Augustine published his ground-breaking Christian philosophy of history, known as the City of God, in the early fifth century, the Roman empire had collapsed and the barbarians were sweeping over Europe. It was a time like ours! Saint Jerome saw the fall of Rome as an unmitigated tragedy and worried how the church could possibly survive. Augustine saw it as an opportunity for the church to be the church, carefully distinguishing between the city of man, which is doomed to perish, and the glorious City of God, which is eternal. "Two Cities, Two Loves," the theme of the 1995 Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, will try to do for our time what Augustine did for the church of the fifth century: recall believers to the Bible's teaching about the two cities and to an ever stronger faith in God. All six taped messages by conference speakers Dr. James Boice, Dr. John Richard de Witt and The Reverend Michael Scott Horton, will help you learn to live biblically in a secular age. C-P95-POA $30.00

Two Cities, Two Loves Pre-Conference Steadfast Shepherds in a Decadent Age Pastors and other leaders are pulled in dozens of directions in our day because of conflicting ideas of what the church and its ministry should be. Is the bottom line church growth? Expanding budgets? Penetration of today's power structures? The culture wars? This tape series focuses on the solid biblical priorities of preaching, teaching and pastoring, and arguts that the need for these three essentials has never been greater than in our time. Geared toward pastors, teachers and other churches leaders, this series is helpful for anyone concerned about the church. Dr. Boice speaks from a background of nearly thirty years in the pastoral ministry. Mr. Myers speaks from the perspective of his long interaction as a Christian thinker with culture trends. C-95-PCOA $25.00

Two Cities, Two Loves Seminars These three seminars explore important elements of the main conference theme on Two Cities, Two Loves. â&#x20AC;˘ The Babylonian Captivity of the Church-Dr. John Richard de Witt

Beyond Culture Wars-The Reverend Michael Scott Horton

The View from Mars Hill-Mr. Kenneth Myers

All three messages will help you as you face the challenges of living biblically in a secular age. C-95-S0A $15.00 x $30.00 =______ # _ _ Two Cities, Two Loves Conference # _ _ Two Cities, Two Loves Pre-Conference x $25.00 = _ _ _ _ __ x $15.00 =______ # _ _ Two Cities, Two Loves Seminar Total _ _ _ _ __ Method of Payment:

D Check 0 Discover Card D Visa D American Express 0 MasterCard

Acct. # _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Exp. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Street _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ City_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ StatelZip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

SnIPPING & HANDLING REGULAR DELIVERY Up to $5.00 ....................$1.50 Regular delivery takes 2-4 weeks

$5.01 to $14.99 ..............$2.00 from the time your order is shipped

$15 to $29.99 .................$3.00 FAST DELIVERY

$30 to $44.99 .................$3.50 (add to b~e cost at left)

$45 to $74.99 .................$4.00 UPS 2-4 Day est add $3.00

$75 to $99.99 .................$4.50 UPS Second Day add $6.00

$100 and up....................$6.00 Overnight, add $14.00

CllfUJda andforeign orders, please add 15% oftotal sale All orders require three days handling time.

Mail to: The Bible Study Hour Box 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103

ff 215-546-3696 â&#x20AC;˘ FAX 215-735-5133 (M-F 8:30 am-4:30 pm ET) Acq: SA06

"McGrath gives us a wide-ranging and wellinformed assessment: ... Evangelicals and nonevangelicals alike should read it; they will be struck, as I have, by its honesty, wisdom and confidence."

"This is a hopeful, helpful book. It is invalu able for those who are trying to chart a course for evangelicals in the next century."

JAMES MONTGOMERY BOICE

JOHN R. W. STOTT

"A purified evangelical ism, McGrath suggests, could extend its mtellec tual and spiritual high ground throughout Western civilization."

"Bold, fresh, timely and practical. This superb book from a leading evangelical thinker captures both the promise and the peril of evangelicalism."

CARL F. H. HENRY

OS GUINNESS

"A ri~ging manifesto full of hope, sanity and biblical balance."

"Proposes strategies that will avert the collapse suffered by the mainline liberal Protestant denominations."

RON SIDER "Outstanding. Evangelicalism & the Future ofChristianity . .. is exemplary in its combination of buoyant faith and constructive critical assessment."

CARL E. BRAATEN "'Must' reading for anyone who wants to understand where we are and where we are going."

209pages, cloth, 0-8308-1694-1, $16.99

MICHAEL HORTON Available at your local Christian bookstore orfrom

INTERVARSITYPRESS DOWNERS

GROVE,

I LLI NOIS

CHRISTIANITY TODAY