connecting-the-dots-january-february-2003 by Modern Reformation

SOFTWARE REVIEW ❘ SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY ❘ KAY ARTHUR INTERVIEW

MODERN REFORMATION Connecting the Dots: Why Systematic Theology Matters

VOLUME

12, NUMBER 1 , JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003, $5.00

C J

O A

N B

T R

E 0

N V

T E

S N

CONNECTING THE DOTS: WHY SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY MATTERS

13 Who Needs Systematic Theology When We Have the Bible? Far from being relegated to the dusty offices of seminary professors, systematic theology has great practical value for every serious Bible reader. While finite men and women will never have God’s eye view of anything, we can gain a “big picture” grasp of the doctrinal teaching of Scripture, leading us to greater clarity and consensus as we study God’s Word. by Michael Horton Plus: How to Honor the Bible as God’s One, Inerrant Word

23 Thinking Systematically about Theology The author shows how systematic theology is a hotly contested issue in contemporary culture because we live in postmodern times where the intellectual impulse is to react against traditional ways of thinking about our world and ourselves. Postmoderns, naturally, view both the Bible and systematic theology as just one possible way of interpreting things. by Richard Lints Plus: Why Must Christian Theology Conform to Scripture?

33 Amateurs All? Christians and Bible Reading As Americans, we naturally seek out the most learned specialists for our legal or medical problems, yet often turn to friends or ourselves for interpreting Scripture. Why do we too often undervalue ministers of the Word, who are part of God’s gracious provision for his people for understanding the Bible? by D.G. Hart

36 Why God Gave Us the Bible While reading the Bible, the writer contends that there are three ways to stay on track reading the Bible: looking for God in its pages, finding ourselves in the story, and learning to learn. by Carolyn Custis James COVER PHOTO BY

CORBIS

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton

Theology on the Road

n issue on systematic theology may be especially grating to some of our subscribers. After all, isn’t it bad enough to appeal regularly to humanly devised systems in the first place without spending an entire issue extolling the value of

it all? While we make no apology for addressing the growing need in the church for a vigorous systematic theology, we do recognize the danger in addressing a topic that demands more effort than we normally expect from our patient readers. It would be easy for us to ignore an issue which requires significant effort to understand and appreciate the sometimes fine distinctions that systematic theology makes, but one of our stated editorial goals is to encourage theological thinking among our readers. As former executive editor Ben Sasse put it in our January/February 2000 issue, “Thinking theologically requires work for fallen humanity, new readers should know that [MR] will require some work.” Sadly, we are not accustomed to having to work at our Christian thinking. In our age, it is very easy to know a little bit about quite a lot of things, but it is often very difficult to know a significant amount about anything. It is not surprising that this malady has even affected the church. But it should provoke Christians to reevaluate the importance of thinking systematically about their beliefs, ensuring that such beliefs are formed by conviction rather than apathetic acceptance. Who needs systematic theology when we have the Bible? Editor-in-chief Michael Horton tells us that it is those who love the Bible best that need theology most. In light of current academic discussions and our

Next Issue March/April: We Believe…in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Are you part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church? Is there such a church to be found? Paul Lim, Hywel Jones, and Mickey Mattox examine the Creed's definition of a true church.

2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

postmodern context, Presbyterian theologian Richard Lints addresses the pluralistic impulse in reading and doing theology. Historian Darryl Hart asks how to understand the Reformation’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers with the need for authority and expertise in Bible study. Writer and speaker Carolyn James finishes our discussion with a reminder of why God gave us the Bible and the inestimable riches of embracing Scripture’s one message. On the MR website this month you’ll find a review of the Study Bible genre by staff writer Brian Lee. Renowned evangelical preacher Haddon W. Robinson recently sat down to talk with us about how theology informs the preacher’s task. A clip of that interview will be posted in February. You’ll also find study questions keyed to articles in this issue for use with a Sunday school class or home group. Log on now to www.modernreformation.org for all of this and more. An issue like this does far more than satisfy our supercilious longings. It connects the dots in our own thinking. It plumbs the depths of our understanding of our shared faith. It enables us to stand with the church throughout history in affirming the essential doctrines of Christianity. It stretches us. It prepares us for the journey ahead by instructing us in the doing of pilgrim theology. This is, as it were, theology on life’s road. Systematic theology gives us the tools to embrace all of life. It informs every aspect of our Christian walk. And, like everything else in this life, grappling today with the church’s task of doing theology also prepares us for the day when we will know even as we are also known (1 Cor. 13:12), when we see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

Executive Editor Mark R. Talbot Managing Editor Eric Landry Alliance Council Gerald Bray ❘ D. A. Carson Mark Dever ❘ J. Ligon Duncan, III W. Robert Godfrey ❘ John D. Hannah Michael Horton ❘ Rosemary Jensen Ken Jones ❘ John Nunes J. A. O. Preus ❘ Rod Rosenbladt Philip Ryken ❘ R. C. Sproul ❘ Mark R. Talbot Gene E. Veith ❘ Paul F. M. Zahl Department Editors Paul S. Jones, Preaching from the Choir Brian Lee, Ex Auditu Benjamin Sasse, Between the Times D. G. Hart, Reviews Staff ❘ Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Assistant Editor Diana S. Frazier, Contributing Editor Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Celeste McGhee, Proofreader Katherine VanDrunen, Production Assistant Contributing Scholars Charles P. Arand ❘ S. M. Baugh Jonathan Chao ❘ William M. Cwirla Marva J. Dawn ❘ Don Eberly Timothy George ❘ Douglas S. Groothuis Allen C. Guelzo ❘ Carl F. H. Henry Lee Irons ❘ Arthur A. Just Robert Kolb ❘ Donald Matzat Timothy M. Monsma ❘ John W. Montgomery John Muether ❘ Kenneth A. Myers Tom J. Nettles ❘ Leonard R. Payton Lawrence R. Rast ❘ Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie ❘ David P. Scaer Rachel S. Stahle ❘ David VanDrunen Cornelis Van Dam ❘ David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals © 2003 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 ModRef@AllianceNet.org www.modernreformation.org ISSN-1076-7169

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

Eric Landry Managing Editor

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $22 1 YR $15 1 YR $25 1 YR $40 1 YR $45

2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $75 2 YR $85

is far better than yours where frowning is contrasted with shining. Ken Strickland Orange Park, Florida

Michael Horton’s essay, “Providence and Common Grace” (September/October 2002) was much appreciated. The quote from Calvin demonstrates the gratitude a Christian ought to have for the positive contributions of unbelievers and a willingness to learn from them when appropriate. In contrast, there is an assumption in some Reformed circles today that we are forbidden to learn anything from the unbeliever. It would appear that the doctrine of common grace has largely been forgotten. It is a needed counterbalance to the evangelical stone-throwing often seen in the culture wars, especially in regards to science. The methodological naturalism of modern science has done much to undermine the truth claims of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas. It is a real battle. But rather than dismissing the scientific community as a bunch of “arrogant” scientists we ought to keep the words of Calvin close at heart. If Calvin’s theology of common grace were taken seriously the evangelical community might be producing its own Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, or at least those who are recognized authorities in their fields. David Neel Zionsville, Indiana

The line you misquoted from William Cowper’s Light Shining Out of Darkness (“Speaking Of” September/October 2002) should have read: “Behind a frowning providence he hides a smiling face.” Cowper’s contrast of frowning with smiling

Thank you for Mark Talbot’s “God’s Providence Over All” (September/October 2002). While it is nothing new for Professor Talbot to bless the readers of Modern Reformation with his insightful writing, this article is especially fine. It is personal, pastoral, philosophical, and—most of all— theologically and scripturally accurate. A wonderful piece! I especially liked the (often unrecognized) connection between open theism and free-will theism. Talbot reminds us once again that open theism is ultimately a radically different theism—both in its theoretical positions and its pastoral handling of personal problems. Alan Carter Faith Presbyterian Church Birmingham, Alabama

That was an excellent sermon by William Cwirla (July/August 2002). It was awesome! That is what I like about preaching the viva vox Dei instead of merely expositional sermons. While there was outstanding exposition, the sermon reached my heart, too, not just my mind. I can only wish that I had him as my local pastor. Jorg Stevenson Via email

I was left somewhat disappointed and surprised after reading the Free Space interview with Dr. Dallas Willard (July/August 2002). I was disappointed at his defensive posture and terse responses to your questions (not to mention his low view of the means of grace). However, I was surprised that Dr. Willard did not mention (and MR did not add) a key spiritual practice taught by our Lord—prayer with fasting (see Matthew 6:1618 and 9:14-17). Perhaps this was an oversight. It is important to note that both Martin Luther and John Calvin promoted this practice as being integral to the life of the church. For many years I [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 7 ]

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

E A

N F

E F

X R

C E

H R

A E

N O

by Delbert Hooker

Let’s Shake Hands

n Here We Stand, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals boldly proclaimed its purpose to the watching evangelical world: “The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church…to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word … and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life.” In my life at least, the

Interested in contributing to Open Exchange? Send your name, address, and essay topic to: Open Exchange c/o Modern Reformation Magazine 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 or contact us by e-mail at OpenExchange @AllianceNet.org

Alliance (and Modern Reformation) has been very effective. Council member R. C. Sproul’s Ligonier conferences, books like James Boice’s Romans, and Michael Horton’s insights into law and grace are an absolute delight, like a fresh Colorado breeze cooling off a hot stuffy room in the middle of a Kansas July! But is that enough? To be genuinely effective, must the Alliance and Modern Reformation demand more? It seems so, for in a recent article for Modern Reformation, an Alliance Council member stated “Baptism is performed once, applying the eternal, once-and-for-all, life-giving benefits of Jesus’ death and resurrection to his people” (“By These Means Necessary,” July/August 2002). Does the Alliance and Modern Reformation really mean this? Am I to assume that Modern Reformation would have me answer James Kennedy’s question “If you were to die and appear at the gates of heaven and God should ask you why he should let you into his heaven” my answer should be “baptism applied the eternal once-and-for-all life-giving benefits of Jesus death and resurrection to me?” I don’t think so. Language like this is perilously close to Roman Catholicism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Through baptism … we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the church and made sharers in her mission …” and “By baptism all sins are forgiven….” It seems that the situation in which the Alliance finds itself is strikingly similar to the circumstances surrounding Spurgeon’s controversial sermon on “Baptismal Regeneration.” Spurgeon had many evangelical friends in the Church of England. But, he felt they were inconsistent in their

4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

evangelicalism. They professed to believe in salvation by faith alone in Christ, though they taught (using The Book of Common Prayer) baptismal regeneration. As recorded in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Spurgeon’s response was simple. “If baptism does regenerate,” [or to paraphrase, “If baptism really does once-and-for-all apply the lifegiving benefits of Jesus to his people” then] let the fact be preached like a trumpet tongue. . . .” Some of us who are Calvinistic in our theology do not think that baptism applies any benefit at all to God’s people. It is simply a confession of faith. It is only an act of obedience on the part of the believing Christian. It is an ordinance, not a Sacrament. It does not convey grace. So what is the real nature and purpose of the Alliance and Modern Reformation? To call the church back to its roots in theology and worship or, beyond that, to insist that all accept the “Sacraments” as means of grace? Insisting on baptism and communion as Sacraments, ranks right up there with making a particular view of the end times or the rapture a test of orthodoxy and fellowship. Debate is divisive and pointless. Thesis Five of the Cambridge Declaration states that “We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God, and for his glory alone.” Both sides in this controversy think that they do. Let’s leave it there. The core issues of Reformation theology are not bound up in disagreements over the Sacraments. Isn’t it time for the reformers to shake hands with the Anabaptists? Can we leave disagreements over the [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 5 1 ]

E E

X X

A O

U H

D -

I T

T D

U M

Exodus 19:1–6

Learning our Identity in a Sacred Encounter

hree months after the Red Sea crossing the Hebrews came to the base of Mt.

the mountain, and a blast of a trumpet so loud that all the Sinai where they made camp. Here they were about to have a terrifying service people who were in the camp trembled. Moses brought of worship. Worship is always scary business. the people out of the camp to meet God” (Exodus 19:16). Like the Hebrews, when we worship we are Every time this church camping at the base of a holy mountain. At the top invites you to come and take From of this mountain is your Creator, the one who your place at the holy table of M. CRAIG BARNES parted the waters of the Red Sea, the one who is Jesus Christ, be clear that we holy and righteous and who expects a little holiness are calling you to meet God. and righteousness from you. The call to worship is The invitation to this sacred given in our text today: “You have seen what I did encounter begins the same Meneilly Professor of to the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagle’s way it did for the Hebrews. Leadership and Ministry, wings and brought you to myself. If you obey my “Remember what I did,” God Pittsburgh Theological voice and keep my covenant . . . you shall be a said, “Remember how I bore Seminary you on eagle’s wings and priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:4). brought you to myself. That’s the voice from the top of the mountain. At the bottom of the mountain you and I Remember that it was never about your hard work. tremble because if the point of life’s journey is to Remember that it was I, the Lord God, who learn to obey God’s voice, we don’t think we are changed your destiny from slavery to freedom.” When Jesus instituted this sacrament for us, what getting the point. Not only do we not obey God’s voice, we don’t hear it most of the time. It is were the words he used? “Do this in remembrance drowned out by all the other voices around us, of me.” You can break your back trying to get your voices that tell us we’re on our own in the desert, dreams but that will never save you. So Jesus said, and we’ll never make it to the Promised Land unless “Eat this bread, remembering it was my broken body we try harder and achieve more. Or try consuming that saves you.” You can sweat blood trying to get more things or try a different job and different life just right, but that will never save you. Again relationship. Eventually, we realize we have tried Jesus said, “Drink this cup remembering it was my so many different things to get our dreams that we blood spilled on the cross that saves you.” have wandered a long way from God. Remember. Remember. Remember what God Now we wander into worship and camp for an has done. That is the most important voice you hour at the base of God’s mountain where we need to heed. Because it is only as we remember the finally hear God’s Word read and proclaimed. If we past that we can see how to move to the future. are paying attention, we ought to be a little scared. The light that God gives us, the light you have been “On the morning of the third day, there was looking for out in the desert, doesn’t shine in your thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud on eyes. If it did it would blind you. The light to our

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

path, the lamp to our feet, shines from behind us. That is why in worship we say creeds and read the holy words of Scripture that were written thousands of years ago. And it is why we participate in the church’s old rituals, why we love to sing the old hymns, and why we keep telling the same old gospel story. Because the greatest danger to our future is that we will not remember our past. The past proclaims, “I know you’re confused about how to get to the Promised Land. Don’t worry, because it was never about you. It has always been God who has carried you on eagle’s wings. That was true when you saw it and when you didn’t. God has always carried you, and he will carry you all the way home.” All you have to do, according to Moses, is obey the voice of God. Notice that this covenant is conditional. In other words it is an “if...then” contract. If the people obey God’s voice, he will carry them all the way to the Promised Land. It was then that God gave the people the Ten Commandments. The law was a way of remembering that the people who were once slaves have been transformed into “a priestly kingdom.” By obeying the law they remembered what God had done, and they remembered to honor their part of the covenant. But this brings us back to our deepest fear in worship. Because, like the Hebrews, at the base of the holy mountain we remember that we have not remembered. That is why worship begins for us with the prayer of confession. Today we prayed, “We have tasted that the Lord is good, yet we sin, and turn from the way of salvation. Forgive us, O God, help us remember ….” We confess this at the base of worship, because in telling the hard truth about ourselves, we can then hear the deeper truth of the gospel: “In Jesus Christ we are forgiven.” We are never going to climb the mountain to find God. This table proclaims that in Jesus Christ, God has climbed down to us because in Christ, he was dying to forgive us our sin. The author of the book of Hebrews is fascinated by how the coming of Jesus Christ has transformed our relationship to God. He writes: “The days are surely coming says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; not like the covenant I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern with them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord: I will put my laws

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

in their minds, and write them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. And they shall not teach one another or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Hebrews 8:8-12) You will notice that what is missing in this new covenant is any “if...then” language. Hebrews is quoting from the prophet Jeremiah who promised that a time will come for a new covenant that is based not on our obedience, but on the mercy of God. In Jesus Christ, that is what we have found — the forgiving mercy of God. Accepting that mercy will change your life with gratitude. In the words of Augustine, “the law that was once written in stone has now been written on human hearts.” At this table we remember that we obey God not because we are terrified of what will happen to us if we don’t, but because we are grateful for what has already happened on the cross of Jesus Christ. Gratitude is expressed in obedience, and not just obedience to more laws, but obedience in accepting your vocation. That calling is the same that the Hebrews heard long ago: to be priests proclaiming mercy to a world dying to find it. In Christ, you are finally able to fulfill your calling. This table doesn’t proclaim that the broken body and poured out blood of Christ gives you a second chance to get your life right all by yourself. No, it calls you to commune with Christ. That means dying to the old dreams and the old resolve of getting what you want, and being raised with Christ to a new life as a cherished, beloved son or daughter of the Father. Is it not always at the family table that children learn their identity? At the table they take their place with other family members, hear the family stories, and learn who they really are. That’s what happens at this holy table as well. Here the Spirit of God meets you and lifts you up to take your place in the holy family of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here you listen to the great, old gospel story again and again. Your part of that story is where we remind you that you were not the firstborn member of this family, for that honor belongs to Jesus, but you were adopted by the Spirit into the Son’s own beloved relationship with the Father. As you mature in that relationship you understand that you have a role to play in the family business. So you accept your calling to the royal priesthood. Do you see how this has changed the whole

notion of what it means to approach God? As the author of Hebrews continues, “You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them” (Hebrews 12:18-19). Notice that the mountain is no longer to be feared. No longer do we have to cower at the presence of God because of our sins. “But you have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). “The sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” You remember Abel, who was killed unjustly by Cain. For the last year, our nation has been focused on the blood of Abel that was unjustly spilled in the World Trade Towers and at the Pentagon. It was the blood of victims. We are longing to believe that is not the last word, and we are afraid that all September 11th means is that no matter how hard you work at life, some crazed terrorist can take it all away from you. At this table we remember, the sprinkled blood of Jesus Christ is a better word than the blood of Abel, and that victimization is not all there is. We remember that in Christ we belong to the triune communion and that if we belong to the God above us, we will not fear anything or anyone around us. So we stand in the chaos of fallen towers and fallen illusions about life as priests who make the bold proclamation that when Christ came down the mountain, he also brought the beginning of a new kingdom that cannot and will not ever fall. “Therefore since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28). The kingdom of God cannot be shaken by any act of terror. That’s the kingdom that we have received by the blood of Christ. Therefore, we give thanks, which according to Hebrews means we worship with awe and reverence because “God is a consuming fire.” Consuming fire? Maybe you thought that the New Testament offered a kinder, gentler God than the Old Testament. No. What has changed from the old to the new covenant is not God, but you. In Christ, God has come to you and offered Holy Communion. To receive even a taste of that is to

become a new creation, with the consuming vocation of being a priest who proclaims mercy. By your grace, O God, lift our eyes above the spilled blood of Abel to see the sprinkled blood of Christ behind us, and above us, and before us that we may become your own priests of perfect hope. Amen.

Dr. M. Craig Barnes (Ph.D., the Divinity School of the University of Chicago) was pastor of National Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) in Washington, D.C., from 1993 to 2002. He currently teaches at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

Letters

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 3 ]

was very skeptical about prayer and fasting until I read John Piper’s book A Hunger for God. Might not the efforts of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals be strengthened by adding regular days of prayer and fasting to all that it is already doing? I cannot see how we can hope for a modern reformation otherwise. Rev. Dave Sarafolean Midland, Michigan

I recently began a subscription to Modern Reformation. I enjoy it very much because the articles are insightful and well written. I am being reeducated in the faith of my childhood. I find this experience both comforting and challenging. Modern Reformation is much needed in response to today’s psuedo-evangelicalism and in response to the cacaphony being raised by megalomaniac Roman Catholic apologists. For these reasons, I think Modern Reformation is a first rate answer to prayer. Byron J. Babione Via email

Join the Conversation! Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.735.5133 fax ModRef@AllianceNet.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

P R E A C H I N G | F R O M | T H E | C H O I R P E R S P E C T I V E S

O N

M U S I C

I N

T H E

C H U R C H

New Music Resources for a New Year

s we begin the New Year it seems prudent to mention a few sources of practical

the 2003 National Symposium: “Church Music help and encouragement for church musicians, pastors, and congregations. at a Crossroads,” to be held at College Church, Wheaton, IL, Modern Reformation and its contributors do not necessarily endorse any of the June 12–14, 2003. Scheduled keynote speakers are Gene E. following entities in every aspect, but believe these Veith, Patrick Henry Reardon, and Carl Schalk. are resources that can assist you in church music ministry. Contact and ordering information for Hymns of Grace and Glory these resources can be found online at The Free Presbyterian Church began in 1951 in www.modernreformation.org. Northern Ireland and has grown to include churches in Ireland, Great Britain, Canada, and the Church Music National Conference United States. For the last decade, the Free The mission statement of CMNC (formerly Presbyterians have been working on a hymnal for Church Music at a Crossroads) states: “CMNC is their church. This year after much labor, a fellowship of Christians committed to reflecting particularly on the part of editors Joan J. Pinkston the glory of God in corporate worship through and Ed Dunbar among others, the collection Hymns means that transcend popular culture. By of Grace and Glory was published by Ambassador providing biblically sound resources for the church Emerald International. Some distinct characteristics of this hymnal are of Jesus Christ, CMNC seeks to promote musical discernment and excellence in Christian worship.” its collection of psalm settings (not every psalm, The organization’s theological foundation is the but many—one sixth of the volume) and a Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and the five solae of relatively large section of hymns for the the Reformation. CMNC sponsors national Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. A number of symposia, significant performances of historical familiar hymn texts were given new tunes, and and current choral, vocal, and instrumental music, many well-known tunes were retained as well. The hymnal may have benefited from a larger and daylong workshops. The One Day Workshops are designed to musical editorial staff. Pinkston, for example has inspire and train volunteer church musicians contributed more than sixty hymns to the through practical subjects such as basic conducting collection of 740 while there are but five by Luther techniques, teaching the choir to sight read, and and only one harmonized by J. S. Bach, which computer applications for church musicians. An may strike some as disproportionate. Her work is emphasis is placed on biblical ministry and what solid, though, and there are many good tunes the Bible says about music and worship. An among them. For a Presbyterian hymnal, there are excellent resource is the quarterly Journal of the still quite a number of camp meeting hymns of Church Music National Conference, previous copies of other denominations included, which may raise which can be ordered. The journal includes feature some eyebrows. This, however, certainly makes articles on church music and worship, “voices from the hymnal open to wider use, which was one goal the past,” recommended reading, choral reviews, of the compilers. and position announcements. [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 5 1 ] The next major event planned by the CMNC is

8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Speaking of... T

he task of systematic theology is to set forth in orderly and coherent manner the truth respecting God and his relations to men and the world. This truth is derived from the data of revelation, and revelation comprises all those media by which God makes himself and his will known to us men. God reveals himself in all the works of his hand with which we men have any encounter. It could not be otherwise. It was of his sovereign will that God created the universe and made us men in his image. But since creation is the product of his will and power the imprint of his glory is necessarily impressed upon his handiwork, and since we are created in his image we cannot but be confronted with the display of his glory. Therefore what is called natural or general revelation comes within the scope of the data of revelation with which systematic theology deals. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 1:1

t may be naturally asked, why not take the truths as God has seen fit to reveal them, and thus save ourselves the trouble of showing their relation and harmony? The answer to this question is, in the first place, that it cannot be done. Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot help endeavoring to systematize and reconcile the facts which it admits to be true. In no department of knowledge have men been satisfied with the possession of a mass of undigested facts. And the students of the Bible can as little be expected to be thus satisfied. There is a necessity, therefore, for the construction of systems of theology. Of this history the Church affords abundant proof. In all ages and among all denominations, such systems have been produced…. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:2

y “Systematic Theology” is meant that department or section of theological science which is concerned with setting forth systematically, that is to say, as a concatenated whole, what is known concerning God. Other departments or sections of theological science undertake other tasks. Whether such a being as God exists needs to be ascertained, and if such a being exists, whether he is knowable; whether such creatures as men are capable of knowing Him, and, if so, what sources of information concerning him are accessible. This is the task of apologetical theology. These matters being determined, it is necessary to draw out from the sources of information concerning God what may be known of God, with an estimate of the results of these attempts and their testing in life, is next incumbent on us. This is the task of historical theology. Finally we must inquire into the use of this knowledge of God and the ways in which it may best be applied to human needs. This is the task of practical theology. Among these various departments or sections of theological science there is obviously a place for, or rather there is positively demanded, yet another, the task of which is to set forth in systematic formulation the results of the investigations of exegetical theology, clarified and enforced by the investigations of historical theology, which are to be applied by practical theology to the needs of man. Here the warrant of systematic theology, its task, and its encyclopedic place are at once exhibited…. B. B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, 91

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

The Next Big Church/State Fight? n the last twelve years, the number of American megachurches—defined as a congregation drawing at least 2,000 weekly worshippers—has doubled to over 700. And the pace of megachurch formation shows no signs of slowing. Despite an economic downturn that is pinching most other non-profit efforts, the McGraw-Hill Construction Information Group reports that church building projects are accelerating at a record clip. Not since 1960, with the combination of the Baby Boom, white flightsuburbanization, and Cold War fears have churches built so rapidly. Local residents have traditionally regarded churches as great neighbors but that is no longer a given. In fact, as current zoning fights in San Antonio, Denver, and southern Oregon

demonstrate, many homeowners are screaming, “Not in my back yard.” According to the spokesman for an anti-development group in Oregon, “The impact [of a church] is the same as if a large manufacturing firm moved in and suddenly hired 1,000 employees.” The new megachurch in this community holds events throughout the week, plays loud music outside starting at 7:00 in the morning on weekends, causes traffic jams in the neighborhood, and— not insignificantly—pays no taxes for the many public services it consumes. The exemption from local taxation most angers neighbors given

4,995 SUM + of the = TIME

Dollars that

new Illinois-based company, Life Gem, charges to transform cremated human remains into a half-carat diamond for those

who want to keep a portion of a loved one as near as their ring finger.

1 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

that the need for costly street widening projects is partly driven by the expansion of the churches. But should municipalities be allowed to say “no” to sanctuary enlargements or the relocation of churches into certain neighborhoods, as they regularly do to new, expanding, or relocating businesses? Many believe that religious freedom exempts churches from almost all local regulation. Congress has weighed in on this side of the ledger, passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2000. Critics counter, however, that this is not simply about the free exercise of religion. With megachurch “campuses” now regularly including hightraffic bookstores, day-care centers, health clubs, and restaurants (some with drivethrough fast food), it begs important questions about the definition of religion. Historically, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly have not brought with them immunity from zoning and other regulations for the public good. But many churches are claiming

that any endeavor they fold under their “religious” umbrella effectively neuters local governmental authority. James Kushner, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law, wonders, “What’s to stop churches from being the subdivision of the future?” USA Today, which has been following some of the zoning fights in recent months, predicts that the Supreme Court will soon be called on to determine the constitutionality of Congress’ 2000 religious property protection act. Even if the megachurches maintain their land use autonomy, the movement’s leaders have some important questions to ponder. Christianity is indeed an offense to its neighbors, but what kind of offense?

Forgetting the Vertical ichael S. Rose, a Roman Catholic critic of the megachurch building movement—both Protestant and Catholic—thinks the problems surrounding current congregational construction go well beyond zoning. In

his recently released book, Ugly as Sin, Rose asserts that the architecture of the newer buildings reveals a theological shift. The obsession with making all spaces resemble social halls or gymnasiums “repudiates history,” he argues. And the complete lack of emphasis on the vertical dimension demonstrates the disinterest of many modern church builders in the theme of the pilgrim in this world coming to church for something different, for some sense of “the heavenly Jerusalem.” When one contrasts modern congregations’ elaborate campuses and even more elaborate program calendars with the Reformation’s focus on the simple reading of the Word and celebration of the Supper, Rose’s provocative suggestions about what we should regard as “a secularization of the church” prove worthy of serious consideration.

ÍThrow caution to the wind and self-consciously eliminate any expectations of getting anything on your “To Do” list completed today. Shalom! You are free! ÍRead aloud Luther’s and/or Calvin’s commentaries on the biblical text you heard preached at morning service. ÍWalk in the cemetery. (That “To Do” list will suddenly seem a lot less urgent.)

Cultivating a Taste for Heaven ew aspects of the Christian life bring out the latent debater in the average layman more than a mention of the Sabbath. Instantly everyone gets defensive as if vaguely sensing their Sundays should look other than they do—but not convinced enough how they should look to change anything yet, or even to invest much time thinking about it. Immediately debaters jump from topic to topic, usually asking the next question before attempting to answer the last: Which day should it be celebrated (first or seventh)? What should it be called (Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath)? Which command is it (third or fourth, depending on whether one numbers the Decalogue like the medieval church and Luther or the early church and Calvin)? Is this Old Covenant command even binding on God’s New Covenant

ÍFathers, plan for five to ten minutes per day of breakfast or dinner family worship for the coming weeknights. ÍHave friends from church over for a noon feast. Eat and drink lots, but choose an easy meal like a stew. Leave the dishes until later. ÍGo outside and memorize a question-and-answer from the catechism. Read confessional documents from other Reformational tradi-

children? And most contested of all, how should one draw the lists of what is or isn’t prohibited for Christians? As important as most of these matters are, Sabbath promoters regularly focus almost exclusively on the Law, seeming to neglect the topic’s connection to the gospel. And thus these discussions often displace another set of primary questions. Instead of “What can we not do?”…what about: “What do we get to do? What are we freed from work to do?” Instead of “How are my secular desires restrained?” (e.g., But I really want to watch football!)…first ask: “How are my other-worldly interests stimulated?” Sabbath observance today occasionally sounds like only an obligation to waste an otherwise sunny afternoon in a dreary room pouring over dusty books about death and duty. It is thus difficult for evangelicals even to imagine what could

tions as well. ÍVisit elderly folks from your church that are now in nursing homes. ÍCall Christian friends who have moved away. ÍListen to a tape series such as R.C. Sproul’s overview of the Bible, “From Dust to Glory.” ÍGather family and friends for a Psalm and hymn sing. CDs with accompaniment but no lyrics are easy to find. ÍTalk with orthodox Jews

have driven the anti-Christian philosopher Voltaire to opine, “If you would destroy the Christian religion, you must first destroy the Christian Sabbath.” There is an old joke that American Presbyterians believe in the Lord’s Day but don’t observe it, while continental Calvinists practice it but don’t believe in it. We submit that all Christians, even those unconvinced of any obligation to honor the Lord’s Day, stand to gain much by imitating the habits of wise old believers who have genuinely fallen in love with the Sabbath. To the end of stimulating genuine delight in the Lord’s Day—though certainly not to thereby exclude the many important debates—we offer readers a few Sunday afternoon practices other aliens in this world have usefully employed to awaken their desire to shout, Maranatha!—“Lord, come quickly.”

you may know about what they think the Sabbath means, and look for types and shadows pointing to Christ. ÍRead Marva Dawn’s helpful Keeping the Sabbath Wholly: Ceasing, Resting, Embracing, Feasting (Eerdmans). ÍHave one of the children read aloud the text for the coming evening service before everyone settles in for an afternoon nap.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

CONNECTING THE DOTS | Why Systematic Theology Matters

Who needs

Systematic Theology When We Have

the Bible? ne subject that brings even fundamentalists and liberals together is the criticism of systematic theology. For instance, many of us were reared to suspect that if someone clearly embraced some particular system (e.g., Calvinist, Arminian, or Lutheran), then that would probably lead to the suppression of biblical teaching wherever specific passages didn’t easily fit into a nice, neat doctrinal package. Others reared in more liberal circles heard the traditional systems ridiculed for their alleged dogmatism and parochialism—for their arrogance in thinking that the Bible actually was true, much less clear enough to have what one could seriously call a “system of doctrine.” How presumptuous for an ecclesiastical group to say, in the words of the Presbyterian form of subscription, that the Westminster Confession and Catechisms “contain the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture”! These criticisms rightly warn against specific dangers. First, we should have a healthy fear of ignoring some Scriptures in the interest of maintaining our “system.” During every great shift in Christian theology—take the Reformation, for instance— it is always possible to treat the existing system as unalterable. But for we who are heirs to the Reformation, this would be ironic, since the reformers were rightly criti-

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

cal of the notions of an unerring magisterium and irreformable dogmas. In fact, the Reformation occurred because some biblical passages came knocking on the door of the church; and division resulted largely because the late medieval church simply refused to rethink its interpretation of Scripture in the light of clear exegesis. Never mind that dikaioo (Greek: “to declare righteous”) did not mean the same thing as iustificare (Latin: “to make righteous”) or that metanoia (Greek: “repent”) did not mean poenitentium agite (Latin: “do penance”). Late medieval Catholicism was not willing to be altered in the light of careful exegesis. We, as evangelical Protestants, should resolve never to make the same mistake in the way we appeal to our traditions and their confessional teachings. Second, it is true that the Bible is not itself a systematic theology. It is a diverse collection of writings having both God and specific human beings as its authors. Scripture is God’s inerrant Word but not a mere handbook of doctrine and morals. As Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrote, “The Bible is no more a system of theology than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics” (Introduction to Systematic Theology, 1872). The Bible is not organized according to loci, or “topics.” It is, rather, a collection of narratives, poetry, law, wisdom, and apocalyptic literature. Even its straightforward doctrinal statements are lodged in historical gospels and epistles where a practical intent—reconciling sinners to God in Christ by the Spirit, and leading them in faithful response—dominates. Even while recognizing Paul’s writings as Scripture, Peter writes, “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). Although he attributes these errors to their own ignorance and instability, Peter is acknowledging the point elaborated by the Westminster Confession: “All things in Scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some portion of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Chapter 1, Section VII). So we must be careful to keep our systems open to correction by accurate exegesis, that is, by accurate interpretation of biblical passages. And we must beware of equating our confessional and systematic theologies with Scripture itself. No responsible evangelical theologian has ever attributed final authority to any system. In fact, the Protestant scholastic successors of the great

1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

reformers especially stressed the splendid distinction between archetypal theology (God’s own knowledge) and ectypal theology (our knowledge). Creatures will never attain a God’s-eye view of anything, not even of themselves, but will always possess only a finite version of “the way things are.” Our older theologians used to call this “ectypal theology” theologium viatorum—the theology of pilgrims on the way—to contrast it with the theologium beatorum—the theology of the glorified in heaven. All believers living today are equally pilgrims. Although I am convinced, as a Reformed Christian, that our confession is the most consistently biblical, I realize that it must always be compared with Scripture and that it is only a reliable secondary standard because it is faithful to Scripture and not because either it or the church possesses any intrinsic authority. I may conclude, on occasion, that our community could be challenged to think differently on a particular issue in the light of God’s Word. This challenge may come from my own exegesis, or from that of non-Reformed brothers and sisters, or even from my being challenged to rethink my previous reading of Scripture because of some question raised outside the discipline of theology. Yet these challenges shouldn’t cause one to abandon systematic theology; they simply make its task more urgent. We need to think more, not less, about Scripture’s consistent teaching on the great theological topics. We need to incorporate insights gleaned from our own scriptural study and from that of our other brothers and sisters in other traditions, but this can be done effectively only if we ourselves belong to some community of interpretation. Theology’s Delicate Dance ystematic theology can never stand still. Just as with any science, new discoveries must be consolidated and incorporated into theological systems. Revolutionary periods in science (such as when Einstein’s relativity theories replaced Newtonian physics) are always followed by periods of precise systematization—and this is just as true for theology. The revolutionary epoch of Christ and the apostles was followed by the debates and precise definitions of the church fathers, councils, and creeds; the Reformation was followed by Protestant orthodoxy. In spite of what many scholars believe, these periods of consolidation do not necessarily fall away from the original purity and simplicity of the revolutionary periods. Indeed, they are necessary for the revolutionary periods to have long-term theological significance. Consolidation, at its best, brings order out of the chaos of competing interpretations. When it is

done well, systematization leads to greater clarity and consensus. Both stagnant orthodoxy and “start from scratch” biblicism fail to appreciate the delicate dance between induction and deduction in theology. What does this mean? Inductive reasoning starts with particular facts and moves toward a general conclusion, while deductive reasoning uses a general truth to interpret particular facts. Inductive reasoning goes something like this: One group of cancer patients was given a new cancer medicine, while another group was not; and more cancer patients in the first group improved. Therefore, this new cancer medicine is probably effective in treating cancer. Deductive reasoning, by contrast, goes like this: From what we now know in general about cancer, we can now conclude that inductive studies using placebo-effect control groups are less reliable than we once thought. These two kinds of reasoning complement and correct each other. So who would want science to make a choice between them? We are all better off with both kinds of reasoning working in tandem. Precisely the same is true in our approach to Scripture and theology. On the one hand, we must allow particular passages in Scripture (the scriptural “facts”) to ground our general, systematic conclusions. Close study of individual passages, understood in terms of their contexts in their individual books, their relationship to the rest of what that author wrote as Scripture (for instance, all of Moses’ writings or all of Paul’s writings), as well as their relationship to all of the rest of Scripture, remains the catalyst for theology. Fresh studies of specific passages will always lead to new insights into God’s Word. Yet no one ever comes to the Bible and simply begins by inductively studying a particular passage. Inductive Bible study leaders may give the impression that they are setting aside their prejudices and simply reading Scripture, but this is not really the case. Baptists tend to read the Bible as if it teaches adult-only baptism, noncharismatics as if it teaches that there is no longer an office of prophet, and Calvinists as if it teaches unconditional election. We all read expecting to find specific things. And this is what we should anticipate. After all, we are Baptists or noncharismatics or Calvinists for the reason that we believe that our position—whichever it is—is biblical. In other words, we never see Scripture through completely fresh, unprejudiced eyes. We read particular passages in the light of what we already know—or think we know—of Scripture’s general teaching. So we both deduce how to interpret particular Scriptures from our general knowledge of the whole of Scripture even as we inductively

examine the particular parts of Scripture in order to reach general conclusions about the whole of it. It is never completely clear when we are doing the one task or the other. This delicate, back-andforth dance that strives to get closer to the true meaning of Scripture is called “the hermeneutical spiral.” When systematic theology does its job well, it is well aware of this spiral, knowing that a system without parts and parts without a system are equally useless for Christian preaching, faith, and practice. We are not free to impose a system on Scripture (which would be a purely deductive approach), but we are at no greater liberty to assume, rather arrogantly, that we are the first to read the Bible just as it is at face value (which would be a purely inductive approach). Imposing a system on Scripture makes the Bible a slave of tradition, while assuming that we are the first to read it just as it is at face value renders Scripture a slave to unacknowledged personal prejudices. Good systematic theologians, regardless of their differences, always strive to approach Scripture as students rather than as masters. They also seek to gather together whatever Scripture says anywhere on the same topic and thus interpret the particular parts in the light of the whole, even as they once again test their conclusions about the whole in the light of what they find in Scripture’s particular parts—and so on. This dance never ends on this side of Glory. Significantly, the reformers and their successors—and especially the much-maligned “Protestant scholastics”—were simultaneously superior exegetes and systematizers. In our day, scholars are ruled by the university’s over-specialization; consequently, they usually are only Old Testament exegetes, or New Testament exegetes, or historical theologians, or systematic theologians. In contrast, the great reformational thinkers usually possessed a command of all of the biblical and theological languages, including Aramaic and Chaldean. They were pioneers of biblical scholarship. But they were also the great system writers, organizing the exegetical fruit of the church fathers, the reformers, and their own labors into a coherent whole. We have not seen their like since. Today, even in evangelical circles, exegesis (the parts) and systematics (the whole) frequently go their separate ways. Today, biblical scholars often echo the pietistic claim, “No creed but the Bible,” as if they have no reason to give heed to other laborers in the Lord’s vineyard. Some biblical scholars who are masters of the biblical languages exhibit appalling ignorance of the historical, philosophical, and systematic precedents or implications of their work.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

Biblical scholar Francis Watson pointedly criticizes this position in his book Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology: When one has the Bible, what need is there for the subtleties and sophistries of theology? In evangelical Christianity, the Bible is typically read with scant regard for the long and intricate dialogue with the Bible that is the history of Christian theology. Many (most?) Protestant biblical scholars are attracted to the field in the first place by an evangelical piety of this kind, and—whatever else is abandoned under the notoriously destructive impact of the so-called “historical-critical method”—the abstraction of the biblical texts from their theological Wirkungsgeschichte [that is, their historical development] is tenaciously maintained. A New Testament scholar or an “inductive Bible study” student who has no use for systematic theology is like a victim of amnesia: every reading of Scripture is like starting all over. Imagine an open-heart surgeon whose expertise was limited to his or her own dissection of hearts, having no relation to any knowledge of the body

as a whole, the circulatory system, or to the collective and accumulated knowledge of the field that can be learned through formal study. Or imagine an architect who had a command of geometry and drafting but had given little or no thought to buildings themselves. We would not trust surgeons or architects like these. Similarly, we ought not to trust systematic theologians who are not (at least to some degree) exegetes or exegetes who are not (at least to some degree) systematic theologians. Exegetical expertise that ignores the “big picture” (served by systematic and historical theology) is bound to confuse old errors with “new insights” and leave preachers and their congregations without a unified perspective on biblical teaching. Ignoring the Bible’s consistent teaching from Genesis to Revelation (i.e., the “system” of Scripture) by focusing merely on detailed exegesis of particular passages or authors is myopic: it is to focus on the trees without looking at the forest. Yet the opposite tendency misses the trees by focusing only on the forest, leaving it uncertain that the “forest” that is being seen has any basis in Scripture. I believe the importance of systematic theology can be defended by appealing briefly to a few areas of common agreement in church history. I will draw my examples from areas of the widest agree-

How to Honor the Bible as

very age, as C. S. Lewis once observed, is especially prone to make specific mistakes; and so we need to try to identify the characteristic errors of our age so that we can strive to avoid them. One of the worst errors among Christians in our time is a tendency to reject systematic theology. As Michael Horton observes, systematic theology is now regularly rejected by liberals and conservatives alike. Liberals reject it because they don’t believe that the Bible is God’s one, inerrant Word. They see the Scriptures as a collection of conflicting and erring human words that can’t be systematized. Conservatives are also inclined to reject it, but for precisely the opposite reason. Because they are convinced that the Scriptures are God’s one, inerrant Word, they are wary of any system of potentially erring human theology being imposed on the inerrant Scriptures. Conservatives often have other reasons to neglect or spurn systematic theology. Reading a book of systematic theology, no

1 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

matter how often it cites Scripture, can still seem to be keeping us one step away from God’s actual Word. So we turn to the Scriptures themselves, often first by reading a “devotional” that opens with one little scrap of Scripture each day. As we mature, we may begin reading through whole biblical books. Sometimes this leads to our studying a whole book inductively, where we try to identify each of its parts and then understand how each part furthers the purpose of the whole book. For instance, I may try to determine how each section of Luke’s Gospel contributes to his goal of writing “an orderly account” of “the things that have been accomplished among us,” so that his readers “may have certainty concerning the things [they] have been taught” (see Luke 1:1–4). Reading whole biblical books inductively makes sense, since God brought his Scriptures into being through inspiring a number of human authors, yet without overriding their normal thinking processes. Consequently, understanding how a biblical writer is thinking is important for understanding what God is communicating to us through that author’s words. For instance, in his first

ment among Catholic and evangelical churches. Critics of historic Christianity charge that each of the following dogmas results from philosophical systems being imposed on the simple biblical text. I will try to show that those who accept these essential Christian claims have no basis for rejecting the possibility of systematic theology. The Trinity ne of the most noticeable features regarding the major dogmas of the Christian faith is that they are among the most philosophical in the sense that they draw heavily on precise and often quite technical metaphysical terminology. Even if the point they make is strictly determined by the biblical text, the language is often borrowed from secular (i.e., Greco-Roman), conceptual “toolboxes.” And why not? After all, no one can communicate apart from some particular cultural-linguistic environment, not even the biblical writers! So the crucial question is never whether some doctrine sounds philosophical or technical, but whether it arises from Scripture or some other source. From the very beginning in the development of our understanding of God’s unity and plurality, secular concepts were inevitably used to communicate

divine revelation. Thus, John the Evangelist writes, “In the beginning was the Word [the Greek word is logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1–3, 14). John’s use of the term logos is important and we would miss an essential point if we simply thought that he was using this word without any regard to the contextual meaning it had for his readers. Good biblical scholarship will remind us how John’s use of logos relates to the Jewish (i.e., Old Testament) understanding of dabar (“word”) and especially to the use of sophia (“wisdom”) in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Yet John, who was capable of using sophia, nevertheless chose logos. In Greek thought, it was often believed that, whatever the source of the universe might be (a god, a plurality of gods, or a divinity that infuses all of reality), it used intermediaries such as “wisdom” or a logos to do the “dirty work” of making material things. John is no doubt subverting this pagan idea by saying what no Greek would have been willing to say about the Logos; namely, that (a) he is a person and (b) he is not an

s God’s One, Inerrant Word epistle John repeatedly tells his readers why he is writing to them—so that they may not sin (1 John 2:1), so that they may know that they have eternal life (5:13), and so on. Knowing his specific goals in writing helps us to put the rest of what John writes in its proper context. Moreover, we need to pay attention to the differing genres and styles of the various biblical books, even though, as I argue in my other sidebar, “Why Must Christian Theology Conform to Scripture?,” every word of these diverse writings is really a word from God. Because Scripture has this unique kind of dual authorship, much of the way that we get closer to understanding God’s word to us in Scripture involves our paying closer attention to the words and intents of its human authors. Consequently, a lot of Christian reading should involve careful study of whole biblical books. And a lot of Christian preaching should be expository in the sense of involving careful, week-in-and-week-out preaching through whole books. But there is also a risk here, for we can get so caught up in seeing the various books of Scripture as separate and diverse and distinctive human productions that we lose sight

of their being part of God’s one, inerrant Word. For instance, I may get so caught up in thinking about what John says about our Lord that I forget to interpret it in the light of what Paul says about him. There is also a temptation here. We can be tempted to think that we have honored the Bible as God’s one, inerrant Word when we are in fact treating it as if it is nothing more than a lot of separate human words. In fact, I think succumbing to this temptation is part of the reason why systematic theology has fallen out of grace with biblical conservatives. When bright young conservatives pursue advanced degrees, they often go to universities where their teachers do not believe that the Bible is God’s one, inerrant Word. Yet these professors may find various pieces of Scripture to be interesting and worthwhile, either as a collection of human words or as something divinely inspired and yet less than wholly and inerrantly God’s Word. So the easiest way for these conservatives to get through their graduate programs is for

b y M A R K R . TA L B O T [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 1 8 ]

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

emanation or intermediary of God but is God himself. In these brief sentences, John utters the incomprehensible: The Word—the Logos—is identified with the Creator of Genesis 1:1; he did not come into being in the beginning but “was” in the beginning. But he not only “was God”; he also was “with God.” So he is God and yet is a distinct person in his own right. He is further distinguished from the creation in that he is himself the Creator of “all things.” John leaves his audience without any ambiguity here. Although Greeks (including Hellenized Jews) were inclined to regard the universe (or aspects of it) as eternal, John emphasizes that “without him nothing was made that has been made.” It is easy for us who have been reared in Christian churches to find here some clear teaching about the Trinity. Yet that was not obvious to everyone in the ancient church. The Alexandrian presbyter Arius (though himself trapped in Greek neoplatonic modes of thought) accused the church fathers of imposing a system on the biblical text. Taking a woodenly literalistic approach to the Bible, Arius concluded (especially from Proverbs and the apocryphal Book of Wisdom) that Jesus Christ was the first created being rather than God himself. Arius was simultaneously rationalistic and biblicistic: How could anyone believe in one God in three persons, and how could anyone say that Jesus is God when Wisdom—remember the links between the Greek word for wisdom (sophia) in the Septuagint and John’s use of logos in his Gospel—is

them to emphasize just the human dimension of Scripture’s dual authorship. They don’t outright deny that the Bible is God’s one, inerrant Word, but they get out of the habit of treating it as such. They no longer have, at the forefront of their consciousness, what Christians have always affirmed—that God is the primary author of Scripture. But if God is Scripture’s primary author, then we must read the Bible as one book. This requires us to read it, as Richard Lints says, as one whole story—one whole drama—with a beginning and a middle and an end. We must read Scripture as biblical theologians do, focusing on its total redemptive/historical character. But we cannot stop even there. When Paul lists the qualifications for church elders, he states that an elder must “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Elsewhere in Scripture it is clear that every Christian is supposed to grow toward doctrinal maturity, so that we can know and proclaim and defend our faith (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Eph. 1:17–20; Col. 1:28; Heb. 5:11–6:1; 1 Pet. 3:15, 16).

1 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

said in Proverbs to be created? Arius’s conclusion was branded heresy. Yet it is amazing to see the similarity of his approach to that of the turn-of-the-last-century historical theologian Adolf Harnack. Harnack argued that all of these major Christian dogmas were merely philosophical versions of pagan thought that replaced the simple piety of a purely human but divinely gifted Jesus. Like Arius, he failed to see how his own thought was governed by rationalistic and pagan modes of thinking as well as how the biblical writers were employing secular categories for the very purpose of subverting secular thought. John’s profound but brief statement does not get us all the way to the Trinity, for it does not clearly say that God is one in essence and three in person. So how do we get there? First of all, there is the biblical claim that God is one. Nothing could be closer to the heart of God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament in the face of the surrounding nations’ polytheism. Many Scriptures justify the assertion of monotheism. (At this point, systematic theology draws upon very detailed and specific exegesis of particular passages.) But that is not all that Scripture reveals. While God is one in the sense that Yahweh has no rivals, Scripture reveals that he is not numerically one in the sense of mathematical oneness. This revelation of God’s one-in-threeness grows organically from the Old Testament to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Angel of the Lord is repeatedly

This requires systematic study of the Scriptures, study that goes through the whole Bible seeking answers to particular doctrinal questions, such as,“ Does God know everything about the future?” or “How are we to think about Jesus as both human and divine?” As Michael Horton writes, “A month of inductive Bible studies is unlikely to lead a person to the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ.” This is where we need to read books of systematic theology that are saturated with Scripture, for rather than keeping us one step removed from God’s actual Word, they actually help us to understand it as one consistent set of truths. D. A. Carson has said that biblical theology is a “mediating discipline” while systematic theology is a “culminating discipline.” Even biblical theology, in spite of its emphasis on the Bible as one story, goes only part of the way to what God intends us to get from Scripture, which includes our getting a systematic understanding of who he is and what he has done for us in Christ. Just as there is a culmination to a great symphony, where all of its

identified as the Lord God himself; and yet it is clear in such passages that God and this divine Angel are engaged in conversation. Similarly, references to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person, and as someone who is sent by God and from God, occasionally appear. In the New Testament we see fuller revelation of the plurality of persons in the Godhead. At Jesus’ baptism, a voice from heaven pronounces his benediction on the one whom he identifies as “my Son,” while the Holy Spirit hovers over the Son in the form of a dove. In the Gospels (and especially but not exclusively in John’s Gospel), Jesus makes obvious declarations about himself that no good Jewish boy would make unless he were either a blasphemer or God incarnate. He repeatedly identifies himself with God, yet speaks of the Father and the Spirit as distinct from “the Son” (as he refers to himself). Especially in John 14–16, he makes bold statements about his being one with the Father, and of his own sending of the Spirit (along with the Father’s sending of the Spirit). The commission to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) is one of the most incontrovertible grounds of Trinitarian dogma. It would have been a gross violation of biblical faith to baptize converts into the “name” of anyone other than God. (Again, exegesis and contextual studies are necessary to support this point.) Other passages make reference to all three persons in the Godhead in a way that lends the doctrine of the Trinity additional support (see 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2).

So the doctrine of the Trinity is based on inductive and deductive reasoning from the biblical text. Exegesis of particular passages—induction—is essential, but what does it yield? It tells us that there is one God. It also tells us that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But then induction fails us. A deduction needs to be made. Initially, it seems that we have only two choices: either we can deduce that the results of exegesis are so contradictory that we must dismiss Scripture’s witness altogether or we must side with one set of passages (leading to unitarianism) or another set (leading to “tritheism,” or three distinct Gods—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Yet there is a third possibility; namely, to deduce that the results of our exegesis give us an affirmation—that God is both “one” and “three”—that is, neither contradictory nor capable of being fully understood. But how is God “one” and “three”? If he is one in the same sense in which he is three, then that is a contradiction and not just a mystery or a paradox. At this point, the church fathers rightly appealed to the technical language available to them—God is one in essence and three in person—not in order to explain the Trinity so that it is no longer a mystery, but in order simply to state it. This is a very important point, since critics of systematic theology often accuse it of trying to “explain away the mystery” of biblical teaching. On the contrary, the church fathers appealed to precise definitions in order to preserve the mystery without surrendering

themes come together and are properly wrapped up, so there should be a culmination to all of the biblical reading that we do, a culmination that includes our coming to understand what the whole Bible has to say about all of the crucial questions of life. We need to understand not only what the Apostle Paul has to say about who God is, but also what Moses has to say and what the psalmist has to say and so on through all of the biblical authors. We need to reach the kinds of conclusions that I reach in my other sidebar on what Scripture says and assumes about itself. We need to reach the kinds of conclusions about the Trinity, the Incarnation, and divine sovereignty and human freedom that Michael Horton highlights in his piece. God made our minds so that they rest when they come to understand, in a systematic way, a whole range of truth. Of course, we may want our minds to rest too soon and thus we may neglect to check our theological conclusions against Scripture as carefully as we should. And of course God means for the Bible to be more to us than just a sourcebook of truths; he means for its

varied genres—for instance, its history, its poetry, and its wisdom literature—also to affect us in various ways. Yet if we want to honor the Bible as God’s one, completely true Word, then we must seek to understand everything that it tells us on every important biblical topic. We will also want to organize these biblical truths systematically so that we can see, for instance, how God’s nature governs what he does for us in Christ. Anything less than this kind of systematic study—and the sort of systematic preaching through the great heads of doctrine that should arise from it—doesn’t complete the task of honoring Scripture as God’s one, inerrant Word.

Mark R. Talbot (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania) is associate professor of philosophy at Wheaton College (Wheaton, Illinois) and vice-chairman of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. He is the author of Signs of True Conversion (Crossway, 2000). Dr. Talbot is also executive editor of Modern Reformation.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

either to unitarianism or tritheism. Although the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 gave a universally acceptable definition of the Trinity, it was the Christological debates that refined our understanding, particularly of the Son’s relation to the Godhead. The Incarnation he same factors are at work in the debate over Christ’s person. On one hand, the Bible clearly testifies to Christ’s full deity. On the other hand, it is just as clear about his full humanity. Rationalists on both sides, who could not live with the mystery, denied one or the other. Again the church, by God’s grace, rose to the occasion and defined what it had intended at the Council of Nicea by declaring that the Son was homoousios (of the same essence) with the Father. Arius and his followers wanted to settle for saying that the Son was homoiousios (of similar essence) with the Father but not homoousios (of the same essence). While it may be true that such terms have their shortcomings, as does all language, they provide very precise guardrails against heresy in both directions. Arians could say that Jesus was divine in some

Trinity and the hypostatic union—the two natures— of the Son because of theological systematization they have inherited from their participation in the church. It is sheer folly to think that we believe in the Trinity simply through an inductive Bible study of Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”), whose explicitly Trinitarian intention is dubious at best. Indeed, most heresies—such as Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denial that Jesus is God the Son—are the result of simplistic inductive Bible study that ignores Scripture’s total teaching on a given subject. It is hard work to hold on to both reins—exegesis/induction and systematization/deduction—at the same time; but if we don’t, then we will most surely veer off of the ridge of orthodoxy into heresy either to the left or to the right.

Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom ith more space, we could analyze other major Christian teachings along similar lines. In the fourth-century debates over grace and free will, the heretic Pelagius lifted certain biblical statements out of context and forced the whole Bible to be read in the light of his rationalistic deduction as to what such statements implied. He reasoned: If Imagine an open-heart surgeon whose expertise was limited to his or her own God commands us to do something, then it must be possible for us to do it. Yet it dissection of hearts, having no relation to any knowledge of the body as a whole, is obvious that God commands perfect obedience. the circulatory system, or to the collective and accumulated knowledge of the Therefore, we must be capable of being perfectly obedifield that can be learned through formal study. ent. sense, just as docetists (from the Greek, dokeo, "to The church concluded that this was flawed not seem," this heresy asserted that the body of Christ only in substance but also in method. Each indionly seemed physically real) and Apollinarians (fol- vidual passage of Scripture must be interpreted in lowers of the heretic Apollonarius who believed that the light of the whole of Scripture rather than forcChrist's manhood was not distinct from his divinity ing the whole of Scripture into one’s interpretation but was, instead, deified, so that he had only one of a part of it. In his Romans commentary, Pelagius nature) could affirm his humanity in some sense, but interprets Paul’s repetition of God’s word to Moses, in exactly what sense? The technical language was “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” like not intended to make simple faith in Christ a meta- this: “This is correctly understood as follows: I will physical puzzle. Quite the contrary, it was meant to have mercy on him whom I have foreknown will be provide razor-sharp clarity. It was crafted for the able to deserve compassion, so that already then I purpose of forcing church teachers either to affirm have had mercy on him.” Pelagius is so dedicated or to deny that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh, to his all-controlling dogma of human liberty that reconciling sinners to himself—which is the core sometimes it seems as if he is arguing with the apostle himself: “If, as some suppose, it does not depend message of Scripture. Simplistic exegesis would have yielded a choice on the one who wills or on the one who runs”—as between the humanity and deity of Christ. A sys- Paul clearly states—then why, Pelagius asks, “does tematic, “big-picture” deduction from both sets of he himself also run, as he says: ‘I have finished the exegetical data was necessary in order to affirm the race’ (2 Tim. 4:7), and why has he urged others to mystery without explaining it away. Those today run, saying: ‘Run so as to take all’ (1 Cor. 9:24)?” Throughout his commentary, Pelagius is clearly who think they do not need systematic theology often forget that they presuppose the truth of the uncomfortable with Paul’s more robust defenses of

2 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

salvation by grace alone on the basis of Christ’s work alone. His commentary runs quickly—and with great distortion—over those passages; and then he regains his enthusiasm when he comes once again to Paul’s imperatives. This separates Paul’s imperatives—his commands for believers to do this or that—from his indicatives—his proclamations of what God has done for us—and so, since the gospel is found particularly in Paul’s indicatives, Pelagius completely misses Paul’s point. In reading Pelagius, it is hard to realize that you are reading a commentary on Romans if you do not keep on reminding yourself of that fact. Scripture affirms divine sovereignty—including God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, predestination, and his overruling freedom—and human responsibility (which involves genuine creaturely freedom and therefore human accountability). Peter justly blames human beings for crucifying Christ even as he asserts that Jesus was delivered up by God’s foreordained council (see Acts 2:23; 3:12–18; cf. 4:27, 28). Scripture includes specific examples revealing God’s purposes even in the sinful acts his creatures freely commit (see Gen. 45:1–8; 50:20; Isa. 10:5–7; Lam. 3:38). Can we provide an explanation that resolves the mystery? Once again, reason risks running headlong into either fatalism or human autonomy. Systematic reflection forces us to integrate the whole of biblical teaching so that we will not exclude any part of the biblical witness. The fact that each major Christian doctrine ends up in mystery—yet without contradiction—is, I believe,

a witness to its truth. Beware any alleged simple resolution of a major Christian truth. Sola Scriptura ne last example comes from the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura). Our Roman Catholic friends regularly remind us that the very words, “Scripture alone,” cannot actually be found in Scripture itself. Of course, they are correct—if we take a strictly inductive, naïve, and biblicistic approach. But the reformers did not demand that a doctrine is stated in so many words in a given verse or set of verses in order for it to be believed. “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture,” says the Westminster Confession, “or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men” (I.vi; my emphasis). Like the doctrines of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom, “Scripture alone” is a “good and necessary” deduction from Scripture’s whole teaching about itself in contrast to purely human authorities.

Every Christian Needs Systematic Theology ow does systematic theology relate to laypeople? Biblical scholars may need to listen to systematic theologians and vice

The Nicene Creed

e believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

The Nicene Creed was adopted by the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) and expanded on by the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). The final form was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.). It was formulated to defend the orthodox faith against the Trinitarian and Christological heresies that ravaged the early church.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

versa, but surely the average layperson can’t be expected to attain the rank of “systematic theologian.” Of course, that’s true. In fact, even a biblical exegete can’t be expected to become a systematic theologian in terms of professional training and specialization. Nevertheless, we all need systematic theology. A month of inductive Bible studies is unlikely to lead a person to the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ. It may raise questions that that doctrine answers, but there is no verse that says, “The same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body.” The rest of the brief Creed of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) reads: Consubstantial with the Father [homoousion to patri] according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us [homoousion ton auton hemin] according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [theotokou], according to the Manhood [anthropoteta]; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures [duo physesin], inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person [prosopon] and one Subsistence [hypostasis], not parted or divided into two persons [prosopa], but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. Every believer needs at least some “big picture” grasp of the doctrinal teaching of Scripture. While most readers would not come away from a Bible study with the sort of refinement exhibited in the Creed of Chalcedon, at least those trained through the teaching, the liturgical ascriptions of praise, the hymns, Sunday school, and catechism classes and sermons can get the most out of their inductive reading of Scripture precisely because they are already engaged in making deductions based on the whole system of Christian theology as they know it. A well-trained believer will come to particular passages that stress the humanity of Christ and yet recall the conclusion that our forefathers have reached by examining all of the relevant biblical data

2 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

and, thus, interpret those passages in the light of the hypostatic union. This does not impose a system on the Bible but, rather, interprets particular passages in the light of the whole teaching of Scripture. In the end, all Christians engage in systematic theology—not at the professional level, necessarily, as those who study full-time to serve the ministers of the Word in their preaching—but as “the faithful.” The question is never whether we will have a systematic theology but what kind of systematic theology we will have. Will it be a tangled ball of yarn? Will we merely inherit it without much questioning or investigation on our part? Will it be based on Scripture as its normative authority or will it rely more on reason, experience, and tradition than on solid exegesis? Many of those who most vociferously denounce “systematic theology” as obscuring the plain reading of Scripture end up being among the most guilty of imposing their own system on the Bible precisely because they do not realize that this is what they are doing. Their unawareness that they have, in various ways, inherited a tradition and been formed by certain communal readings of Scripture keeps them unconscious of their own “big picture” ways of organizing the Scriptures into a systematic whole. All Christians, therefore, are obliged to recognize that they read the Scriptures both inductively (or exegetically) and deductively (or systematically). It is only when we are aware that this is what we inevitably do—and, thus, strive to subject our presuppositions and interpretive frameworks to the light of Scripture— that we can truly begin to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). ■

Michael Horton (Ph.D., Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and the University of Coventry) is associate professor of apologetics and historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido, California) and chairs the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Dr. Horton’s newest books are A Better Way (Baker, 2002) and Covenant and Eschatology (Westminster/John Knox, 2002). In this article, Professor Horton has referred to the following sources: Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 1:1; Francis Watson's Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), page 4; Theodore De Bruyn's translation of Pelagius's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pages 117 and 118.

@ MR RECOMMENDS…

Looking for small group resources? Log on now to www.modernreformation.org for study questions related to this article.

CONNECTING THE DOTS | Why Systematic Theology Matters

Thinking Systematically about Theology oday, especially in academic settings, it is regularly assumed that the Christian Scriptures can no longer be taken at face value, as they were for the first eighteen hundred years of the church’s life. For many, it seems obvious that something about our contemporary experience prohibits us from reading the Bible straightforwardly as a faithful and true witness to God’s redemptive work in history. We find it less obvious to discern what it is about our experience that prohibits us from reading

the Bible in this way. The fact that there are multiple communities of faith, all with different sacred texts, is increasingly seen as a “defeater” for this earlier way of reading Scripture. And then there is the fact that there are increasingly diverse ways of reading the Bible within the Christian churches themselves. No matter what keeps us from taking Scripture at face value, the fact that we no longer do so is momentous. It signals the end for a systematic biblical theology. The Bible may still contain theologies but no unified theology. The sheer diversity of

by R I C H A R D L I N T S J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

The Pluralist Impulse and the Loss of Systematic Theology n academic circles, there is a lot of talk about “postmodernism.” Postmodernism is a contemporary intellectual movement that reacts against traditional ways of thinking about our world and ourselves. Many postmodernists are skeptical about the commonsense assumption that there is a world “out there” that is best described as a set of facts, for instance, “There is a tree,” “There is a person,” and “There are moral standards that apply to everyone.” Reality, for these postmoderns, is not something out there that we bump into like a brick wall. Rather, reality is simply an interpretation to which a particular community commits itself. Reality is thus more like a written text than a brick wall. It involves more how we take things to be than how they “really” are. One well-known postmodern theologian, David Tracy, writes, “Reality is constituted The resulting sad truth is that today’s reader exercises more control over God’s by the interaction between a text, whether book or world, Word than God’s Word does over the reader. and a questioning interpreter.” Diverse interpretations thus “make” diverse realities. Of course, there may be In the past, the church’s sensus fidelium consisted more or less adequate interpretations, but there are of a robust creedal core defined along Trinitarian no “fixed” interpretations—no interpretations that and redemptive lines. Its content, Christians are right for everyone, everywhere, and at all times. believed, had been discovered in times of crisis; Above all, no interpretation describes the world “as and they were willing to die for it. Today, too few it really is.” These postmoderns view the Bible as just one Christians believe in anything they would die for, least of all some fine points of biblical doctrine. To possible way of interpreting things, a way that disour contemporaries, the idea of dying for some fine plays certain profound truths about human compoint of biblical doctrine is ridiculous precisely munities, but a way that can and ought to be corbecause they believe that Scripture can be legiti- rected by the diverse insights of different commumately interpreted in a plurality of conflicting nities. Scripture then becomes malleable under the ways. So for evangelicals as well as for liberals, a pressure of these diverse communities who “see” theology that attempts to be a full systematic different things in its text. Moreover, these comexpression of biblical truth is virtually unimagin- munities not only influence how the text is read; they also determine which texts—for instance, the able. As a means of responding to the challenge of Bible, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, the pluralized readings of Scripture and, thus, of Upanishads—are read as “Scripture” and how these defending the possibility of a systematic biblical texts will affect their lives. Thus for postmoderns, both liberal and consertheology, I want to examine the pluralist impulse. This is the now taken-for-granted assumption that vative, a particular reader’s vantage point, as shaped we cannot read the Bible straightforwardly and sys- by his or her community, indicates what he or she tematically but must allow it to be read in count- will “find” in the Bible,—and, according to postlessly diverse ways that are grounded in countless- modernism, there is nothing wrong with this. ly diverse religious experiences. In particular, I Conservative evangelical readers may garb this want to suggest a way of understanding and read- practice in an appeal to the peculiar illumination ing the Bible that both accounts for that pluralist brought by the Holy Spirit in their unique reading impulse and goes some of the way toward explain- of the text. More likely, they simply assume that ing why it is not finally satisfactory. I want to their own experience gives them the best way to get explain, in other words, why the church still needs at Scripture’s meaning. Those at the other end of systematic theology. the theological spectrum justify their practice by biblical material is taken to prohibit any talk of the Bible’s containing one theological system. And since theological opinion about God and the Scriptures is now so divided, how could anyone claim to have the final truth about either? Although this attitude is especially prevalent in academic circles, it has worked its way into the life of local congregations. It is often hard in individual churches to discover or to develop a common mind on what is or is not essential in Scripture. Consequently, very little of theological substance holds many local churches—let alone denominations—together. In too many churches, opinions about Christian faith are both pluralized and polarized. What earlier eras called the sensus fidelium—a sturdy and stable doctrinal account of our faith— no longer exists.

2 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

declaring that “dominant” (or traditional) readings need to be overturned in favor of egalitarian renderings—or some such thing. Both the conservatives and the liberals assume that diverse perspectives will result in diverse readings, and diverse readings will result in diverse theologies. The resulting sad truth is that today’s reader exercises more control over God’s Word than God’s Word does over the reader. The reader’s control is strengthened by an affirmation of theological diversity in the Bible itself. It is here that the attack upon systematic theology becomes most pronounced. For many theologians today (present company excluded), there are too many voices in the Bible to suppose that one theology could adequately represent them all. No single way of reading the Bible can do justice to this diversity. Consequently, different readers will find different claims in Scripture that support (or challenge) their self-identity, depending on which part of the Bible they pay attention to. The Bible thus loses its authority over the reader because its words are now being subsumed under the socialized world of the interpreter. This opens the door into a virtually new world of pluralized Scripture readings. Every reader can now bring a different “plain sense” to the Biblical text—not the plain sense of what God intended the text to mean, but the plain sense of what the reader intends. One Theology? ronically, an adequate response to this postmodern challenge begins by pushing further the notion that the Bible must be understood within a framework of meaning and interpretation. But, in stark contrast to the pluralist impulse, it is the whole of Scripture itself that must be the framework of Scripture’s meaning and interpretation. Biblical interpretation ought to view Scripture’s own language as the proper framework for understanding the biblical text; and it must be within this framework that the interpreter and his or her social world and experience must be perceived and understood. This way of approaching the Scriptures considers its text, not as a set of descriptions that are “out there,” but rather as a world that is to be inhabited or as a story in which our lives are to be understood. As author Bruce Marshall says, the Scriptures, as God’s Word, are not simply awaiting our interpretation; they absorb us into their reality. Systematic theology’s task is, then, to describe the world into which we are to be absorbed. Consonant with this way of approaching the Scriptures, it is historically an integral part of the Christian church’s tradition to view the Bible as one

divinely inspired Book and not merely as sixty-six books that happened to be published together in one binding. This view has not enjoyed wide acceptance in recent biblical scholarship, nor has it risen to the forefront of evangelical consciousness as evangelicals read the Bible for themselves. So it is worthwhile to ask why the church throughout its formative stages regarded the books of Scripture as organic parts of one whole, even while often being fully aware of apparent discrepancies between the Bible’s various books. In large measure, the overwhelming reason was that the church affirmed God’s authorization of the Scriptures. The story narrated in and through Scripture was construed as one story held together by the fact that God was the narrator behind the story as well as its central character. As Michael Horton has stressed, the drama of redemption is the major plot to the Scriptures and the Triune God is the central actor in that drama. God authorized that the drama be written and enacted as it is recorded in the Scriptures. God’s revelation was not given all at once or in the form of a theological dictionary. It is even written in several different genres: historical narrative, wisdom literature, prophetic challenge, occasional letters, and apocalyptic visions. Yet it is one drama; and it is full of dramatic interest and comes complete with major and minor plots. Reformed theologians have often referred to the dramalike quality of the Scriptures as the redemptive-historical character of Scripture. In other words, redemption progressively unfolds on the pages of biblical history. In this way, the Scriptures have a primary concern, and that primary concern is to narrate the fact and the meaning of God’s redemption of a people across time. Each book has some distinct sense of being party to the actual history of this redemption and of expressing the significance of this redemption for the people of God. Biblical texts do not stand in isolation from each other, only later to find their correlation and linkage in a theological framework of the church. The church’s theology is not the glue that holds the Bible together. Nor is the Bible simply a source from which data is provided for the later construction of alternative theological frameworks. The exposition and enactment of the redemptive plan of God is found across the entirety of Scripture, and thus the Bible is the glue that holds theology together. The Scriptures contain their own principles of organization as they narrate the past, present, and future of this history as well as its meaning as God’s creation and re-creation. Put simply, the Scriptures begin at the beginning (Gen. 1–3) and end at the end (Rev. 21–22). This sense of histori-

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

In Print January/February Book Recommendations First Theology Kevin Vanhoozer This is a book for students, pastors, and teachers who have an interest in the character of God, the nature of Scripture, Christian theology, our approach to hermeneutics, and how they are all necessarily interrelated to the glory of God. B-VANH-3, $25.00 Covenant and Eschatology: the Divine Drama Michael Horton Operating from the conviction that the content of theology should shape and determine the method for doing theology, Michael Horton proposes a redemptive-historical method, an analogical mode, a dramatic model, and the covenant context for reintegrating biblical and systematic theology. B-HO-17, $30.00 The Fabric of Theology Richard Lints After showing that today’s evangelicals have not fared well in the crucible of modern pluralism, Lints argues that in order to regain spiritual wholeness, evangelicals must relearn how to think and live theologically. He provides a provocative new outline for the construction of a truly “transformative” evangelical theology in the modern age. B-LIN-1, $35.00 Knowing God J.I. Packer This classic introduction to Christian theology combines Packer’s unique perspective, penetrating analysis, and pastoral focus, giving all readers—both beginners and seasoned students of theology—a good resource for reflection on the God we worship. B-PAC-2, $14.00 Confessing the Faith Robert Kolb This book explores the implications of the fact that Lutherans have always viewed themselves as “confessional”—and thus “confessing.” The bold confessions of the sixteenth century serve as a model and an inspiration for all contemporary Christians who likewise want to proclaim the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. B-KOL-1, $17.00

To order, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or, use our secure e-commerce catalog at www.AllianceNet.org. For phone orders call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only).

2 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

On Tape From the Alliance Archives THE Systematic Theology… WHITE HORSE INN According to the White Horse Inn! Join Michael Horton, Ken Jones, Kim Riddlebarger, and Rod Rosenbladt—the hosts of the White Horse Inn radio program—to learn about the major topics of systematic theology. You won’t ever think about theology in the same way after listening to their humorous and insightful discussions. C-DOC-S, THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, 3 TAPES, $18.00 C-DOG-S, THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, 3 TAPES, $18.00 C-DCR-S, THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION, 3 TAPES, $18.00 C-DOM-S, THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, 3 TAPES, $18.00 C-DOH-S, THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 2 TAPES, $13.00 C-DOR-S, THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION, 2 TAPES, $13.00

Cambridge Summit Plenary Addresses These eight tapes include the plenary A L L I A N C E addresses of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals delivered in Cambridge, Massachusetts on April 17, 1996. Speakers include David Wells, James M. Boice, Michael Horton, Sinclair Ferguson, W. Robert Godfrey, Ervin Duggan, Albert Mohler, Gene E. Veith. C-ACE-P0A, 8 TAPES, $43.00 O F

C O N F E S S I N G

E VA N G E L I C A L S

Cambridge Summit Sermons In these four sermons, leading Bible teach- A L L I A N C E ers exhort us to reclaim the historic doctrines that both make Christianity distinctive and powerful. Sola Scriptura—Robert Norris, Sola Fide and Solus Christus— Wallace Shulz, Sola Gratia—R.C. Sproul, Soli Deo Gloria— Alistair Begg. C-ACE-S0A, 4 TAPES, $23.00 O F

C O N F E S S I N G

E VA N G E L I C A L S

Foundations of the Christian Faith Any serious study of the Bible will benefit A L L I A N C E from this thorough overview of Christianity’s major doctrines. Understand God’s nature, how he reveals himself, sin and the Fall, and how Christ redeems us. James Boice will lead you through the work of the Holy Spirit in Justification and Sanctification. And he sums up with the work of the church and the meaning of history. C-FCF-1, THE SOVEREIGN GOD (PART 1), 8 TAPES, $43.00 C-FCF-2, GOD THE REDEEMER (PART 2), 10 TAPES, $53.00 C-FCF-3, AWAKENING TO GOD (PART 3), 9 TAPES, $48.00 C-FCF-4, GOD AND HISTORY (PART 4), 12 TAPES, $63.00 C-FCF, SAVE 20% ON ALL FOUR! ONLY $165.60 O F

C O N F E S S I N G

E VA N G E L I C A L S

THE

WHITE Is Theology Practical? HORSE INN Some people think theology is an irrelevant waste of time. Others think it is only for scholars or academic types. In this White Horse Inn series, Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, and Rod Rosenbladt teach us the importance of theology and doctrine, reminding us that the word “theology” itself simply means “the study of God.” C-ITP-S, 6 TAPES, $33.00 THE WHITE HORSE INN

Reformation Essentials In this two-tape lecture series, Michael Horton walks through the essential tenets of the Protestant Reformation. The doctrines discussed include The Scriptures Alone, Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone, and Glory to God Alone. Throughout these two tapes, you’ll get a better understanding of the central teachings of Scripture, and why they need to be recovered in our day. C-RE-S, 2 TAPES, $13.00

Subscribe to Modern Reformation Magazine Six times a year, Modern Reformation will sharpen and challenge you. Why not subscribe today?

U.S. One year $22 (MR1YR) Two years $40 (MR2YR) U.S. Student One year $15 (MRS1YR) Two years not available Canada One year $25 (MR1YR) Two years $45 (MR2YR) Europe One year $40 (MR1YR) Two years $75 (MR2YR) Other One year $45 (MR1YR) Two years $85 (MR2YR) To subscribe, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). All subscriptions must be paid in U.S. currency. Subscriptions begin within six weeks of ordering.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7 7

cal progression is the glue that binds all of the books of the Bible together. There are theological patterns that are intrinsic to Scripture even though these patterns are not always obvious. These patterns are not arbitrary creations of some interpreter, but neither are they self-evident to an “ordinary twenty-first century” reader. The intentional irony of God’s wisdom is difficult to grasp but absolutely central to understanding the Bible’s message: “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” “The meek shall inherit the earth.” “The strong shall be weak and the weak shall be strong.” “Mercy is stronger than hatred.” And on the list might go. The Bible’s message turns our world upside down. Put baldly, God’s categories do not fit into our ordinary stories, but we do fit into God’s strange story of redemption. It is this story that is the center of the project referred to as “Biblical Theology,” a project to which systematic theology ought to be integrally related. Theologians often refer to the fourfold division of their craft: exegetical theology, biblical theology, systematic theology, and pastoral theology. This division supposes that exegetical theology concerns itself with the literary analysis of the biblical text, biblical theology with a historical analy-

sis of it, systematic theology with a topical arrangement of Scripture’s content, and pastoral theology with spelling out Scripture’s implications for the church’s life. While much ought to be said about each of these disciplines, I want to focus on systematic theology in its relation to biblical theology. Systematic theology ought to mirror in some important way the structure of biblical theology and thus manifest the redemptive unity of the Bible as a whole. On the one hand, biblical theology has a chronological orientation and asks questions like these: What biblical themes are most important in any particular period of biblical history? and How do these themes relate across Scripture’s different time periods? Systematic theology, on the other hand, looks at the Bible from the standpoint of Scripture as a completed whole. It considers Scripture’s dominant themes as they are emphasized across the entire Bible and considers them less in terms of their historical development than in terms of their finished form. It is topically oriented and asks questions like these: Which biblical themes help us best to understand God? and What are the church’s responsibilities in light of God’s redemption? Biblical theology and systematic theology are mutually enriching; they do not compete. Indeed,

Why Must Christian Theol

hristian theologians have always viewed Scripture as the authoritative repository of true Christian faith. As J. N. D. Kelly, in Early Christian Doctrines, states:

Christianity came into the world as a religion of revelation, and as such claimed a supernatural origin for its message…. God Himself, all the early theologians acknowledged, was the ultimate author of the revelation; but He had committed it to prophets and inspired lawgivers, above all to the apostles who were eye-witnesses of the incarnate Word, and they had passed it on to the Church. Hence, when asked where the authentic faith was to be found, their answer was clear and unequivocal: in a general way it was contained in the Church’s continuous tradition of teaching, and more concretely in the Holy Scriptures. This reverence for Scripture was natural, given Christianity’s Jewish roots, with its own strong tradition of scriptural authority (see John 5:39; 10:35; Acts 17:2, 11). Their reverence for

2 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Scripture was only increased by the distinctively Christian insights that these early theologians believed had been given to the apostolic writers by the Holy Spirit as they wrote the New Testament (see John 16:13; Col. 1:25, 26; 1 Pet. 1:10–12; 2 Pet. 1:19–21). As Kelly observes, this led almost all of the church’s early theologians to view Scripture as “not only exempt from error but [also as containing] nothing that was superfluous;” as “sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes;” and as “consonant in all its parts, and [such] that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole.” Indeed, Scripture was taken as the formal norm of Christian faith so that anyone deviating from it “could not count as a Christian.” These early affirmations of the doctrines of the Bible’s inerrancy, necessity, sufficiency, and clarity represent the historic Christian position because Christians have historically accepted this view of Scripture as the one that Scripture, as God’s written revelation, has of itself. The Bible’s supreme and final authority in Christian thought and life follows from this.

biblical theology provides the soil out of which systematic theology grows. Biblical theology manifests the inherent organic structure of the history of redemption as Scripture reveals it. It keeps a close eye on the unity of the Scriptures as they organically unfold. Systematic theology pays close attention to this organic unfolding and then presents the Scripture’s unity as a completed whole. Both disciplines take seriously Scripture’s unity in diversity—which is no drab uniformity–by not pitting one part of Scripture against another part, as pluralists often do. For example, our best understanding of Christ’s person and work does not come by our trying to combine the scattered details of his life and teaching as given in the four Gospels into a patchwork “harmony” of his life and teaching. We grasp Jesus’ identity far more adequately by first catching Matthew’s full conception of him and then Mark’s and then Luke’s and then John’s—and then by finally combining these four theological narratives, along with what is said about Jesus in the rest of Scripture, into a well-rounded whole. In this way, systematic theology does not reach its conclusions by “picking and choosing” among separate dogmatic statements in the Scriptures but by combin-

ing those statements in their proper order and proportion as they stand in the various biblical books. Thus, systematic theology does not import an artificial order and harmony into Scripture. The Bible’s different books stand in an ordered, harmonious relation to one another because they have one divine author who has brought (and will yet bring) the facts of history into an ordered, harmonious whole. Systematic theology’s unity reflects the unity of God’s redemptive work in history as he reveals that work in Scripture.

The Divine Author, Theological Unity, and the Pluralist Impulse f God has authorized the writing of the Scriptures, then the unity of redemption as it is revealed in the Bible’s pages owes its reality to God’s intentions. Paying attention to God’s purposes across the Bible’s whole breadth illuminates the danger of postmodern talk about “alternative gods” and “alternative redemptions.” Far from capturing the biblical text “as it really is,” pluralized readings of the Bible fail to capture the divine drama as it really is. In particular, they fail to capture the actual relation between creation and

logy Conform to Scripture? Scripture affirms its own authority by presenting itself as being entirely God’s words. This is as apparent in its assumptions as in its outright assertions. Scripture often asserts that “Thus says the Lord” (Isa. 37:6; cf. Mal. 1:4; Rom. 9:14–15; Rev. 1:8) or that someone in Scripture is speaking in God’s name (see 1 Kings 14:18; Zech. 7:4–12). It also asserts that God has inspired all of itself (see 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Yet, more significantly, our Lord as well as other New Testament speakers and writers assume that each biblical word is a word from God. At Matthew 19:5, our Lord places the words of Genesis 2:24, which are not spoken by God in Genesis, in God’s mouth (cf. Mark 7:9–13). In Acts, Peter identifies the words of two psalms as what “the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas” (Acts 1:16, 20 with Pss. 69:25 and 109:8; cf. Neh. 9:30; Acts 4:24–26; Heb. 3:7). He inserts a present-tense “God declares” into a prophecy originally made by Joel (Acts 2:17). And Paul refers to the gospel that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1:2; cf. Matt. 1:22; Luke 1:70; Acts 3:18, 21).

Indeed, some New Testament passages actually obliterate the distinction between God and Scripture. Romans 9:17 finds Paul saying that “the Scripture”—not God through Moses, as found in the original context (see Exod. 9:13–16)—“says to Pharaoh: ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth’.” Here, as John Stott notes, “God says” and “the Scripture says” are functioning as virtual synonyms. At Galatians 3:8, Paul writes that “the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed’” (see Gen. 12:1–3). Scripture here foresees what God will do, although foreseeing is a species of knowing, which is only properly ascribed to persons. Scripture elsewhere affirms that God alone has unerring foresight (see Isa. 42:8.9; 46:3–11; Rom. 16:25–27); and so Paul’s attributing foresight to Scripture probably shows, as F. F. Bruce remarked on this passage, that Paul

b y M A R K R . TA L B O T [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 0 ]

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

redemption as Scripture portrays it. Instead, they highlight the danger of human beings “doing what is right in their own eyes.” Scripture tells us that God created the world by speaking it into being—“And God said, ‘Let there be light’”—and so forth. Thus, divine language created the world but also—and more significantly—the world is absorbed into the Word. God’s active creative Word interprets the meaning of life and the destiny of history. It is the language in which the world “makes sense.” Thus, the world has a theological identity granted to it simply by virtue of its being a “created thing” and its meaning and purpose depends upon its Creator. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the conviction that God is one is profoundly important. The one Creator God not only defines and interprets the world, he also repudiates rival definitions and interpretations. The created order’s moral dimensions are fixed by virtue of their monotheistic origins. Here Genesis’s account of the Fall plays a critical theological role in Scripture, for there we see God’s prerogative to decide what is morally good and morally evil. Whatever else good and evil are, they have a theological character because they are defined by reference to God. The created order’s moral fabric is torn asunder when human beings refuse to center their identity in God. Why Adam and Eve rejected God’s norms is unanswerable. Yet we know the answer to the question, What were the consequences of that

regards Scripture as “an extension of the divine personality.” As B. B. Warfield observed, acts like foreseeing and preaching “could be attributed to ‘Scripture’ only as the result of such a habitual identification, in the mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking, that it became natural to use the term ‘Scripture says,’ when what was really intended was ‘God, as recorded in Scripture, said.’” Our Lord and his apostles assume that we must believe everything Scripture claims (see Luke 24:25–27, 44; Acts 24:14; 28:23–28). Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned and become convinced of, because he has known “the sacred writings” from infancy and these sacred writings—meaning primarily the Old Testament—“are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). He then declares that all of Scripture is “breathed out by God” and thus “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16; cf. Matt. 5:17; Luke 16:17; John

3 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

rejection? It is that human beings bear moral responsibility for it—and human wisdom sharply contrasts with God’s wisdom ever after. Consequently, God removed his presence, and we experience our alienation from him in terms of unfulfilled desires. Our intrinsic desire for significance is unsatisfiable apart from God. Our restless wanderings thus become an enormous burden and one to be relieved at any cost. This search for significance finds its first climax in Genesis 11 with the tower of Babel. This episode in the divine drama begins with the collective yearnings of those on the plain of Shinar, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4). This leads them to attempt to build a tower that will reach to the heavens precisely because only there could a permanent home be found and enduring significance gained. God’s judgment on this attempt to find significance involves not simply the destruction of the tower but, interestingly, the scattering of the peoples and a pluralizing of their language. In this early biblical episode, cultural and linguistic pluralism is part of the curse brought upon the people in consequence of their attempt to define their own significance. Such pluralism becomes a significant thread in the pattern of the divine drama of redemption. The promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15 is very ironic in this regard. God commanded Abram

10:35; Rom. 15:4). Elsewhere it is assumed that Christian faith is to be based entirely in the Scriptures. Paul defends himself before King Agrippa by claiming that he is saying nothing more than what Moses and the prophets had said (see Acts 26:22). Luke commends the Bereans for receiving Paul’s message eagerly and then examining the Scriptures to be sure of its truth (see Acts 17:11; cf. Isa. 8:20). Some Old Testament passages prohibit God’s people from adding to or subtracting from its words (see Deut. 4:1–2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5–6), and some New Testament passages suggest that the same holds for it (see Rev. 22:18–19; cf. Gal. 3:15–22). Additionally, each of the New Testament’s fifty or so instances of the Greek word graphe—translated as “Scripture” or “Scriptures” at places like Acts 17:11, Romans 9:17, Galatians 3:8, and 2 Timothy 3:16—refers to some Old Testament passage. But two of these instances—2 Peter 3:16 and 1 Timothy 5:18—also refer to words or writings that were to become part of God’s New Testament. (In the former passage Peter ranks Paul’s letters with

to separate himself from his family and clan but at the same time promised that the blessing that he would then bestow on Abram would become a blessing to all nations. So here the pattern was established that God would raise up a remnant through whom he will bring redemption to the whole world. Divine exclusivism is the method through which a divine universalism will be ushered in (see Gen. 12:1–3). But the order of this pattern is crucial: God is not first found in the richness and diversity of cultures, but rather through the redemption of a particular people. In a way foreshadowing the life and work of Jesus (see Matt. 10:34–37 with Matt. 28:16–20 and Matt. 10:5–8 with Acts 10:44–48), human community is first torn apart and only then slowly woven back together. Drab uniformity is not what God’s redemptive work intends. Rather, it intends unity in diversity. In the New Testament era, cultural pluralism becomes the “carrier” of the gospel’s radical claim that redemption has come even to the Gentiles. That redemption is rooted in God’s consistently commanding absolute fidelity to the worship of himself as the one true God. Yahweh’s sovereign act of “re-creating” Israel by leading them out of Egypt and through the Red Sea manifested his right to speak to Israel as their God. In this way, he performed another act of creation—the act of creating the Israelites, as the people descended from Abraham, in his own image. The Ten Commandments were the founding

constitutional document of Israel’s corporate existence. In them Yahweh reminded Israel that they were to have no other gods before him. This was not primarily a prohibition against polytheism, although it may have carried this connotation implicitly. Rather, it was first and foremost a diatribe against idolatry. Yahweh was to be Israel’s greatest desire. They were to honor him above all else. They were not to find their fundamental significance anywhere else, for to do so is the heart and soul of idolatry. Israel’s relationship with Yahweh was sacrosanct and had to be protected at all costs. The pluralist impulse could be seen in Israel’s attempt to define their relationship to Yahweh not according to his categories but, rather, according to the categories used by the surrounding nations. This was to be repudiated not because there was no “common wisdom” in the nations, but because absolute religious fidelity was the correct way to respond to Yahweh’s role as Israel’s sole creator and redeemer. Scripture’s divine drama progresses as it records and enacts the story of redemption in Christ, which climaxes in his first advent. After his death and resurrection, Jesus’ followers were no longer to be a sequestered ethnic group (see Gal. 2:11–16). It was no longer in the interests of the spreading of the gospel that cultural parameters would define the spiritual location of God’s reconciling work. As cultural critic Ken Myers has noted, God’s people are now to be found in all cultures, eating and drinking,

“the other Scriptures” and in the latter Paul quotes what was to become known to us as Luke 10:7 as part of what “Scripture says.”) This suggests that the New Testament’s writers were constantly aware of the boundaries of what could be called “Scripture” as well as of the fact that some of their own writings would receive the same status. Scripture, then, presents itself as being, in whole and in each of its parts, God’s own words. This authorizes it to set the bounds of Christian faith. In fact, its divine status implies that disbelieving or disliking or disobeying any of it is equivalent to disbelieving or disliking or disobeying God himself, as Scripture itself corroborates (regarding disbelief of God’s Word, see Luke 1:18–20; regarding disobedience of God’s Word, see 1 Sam. 15:1–23 and 1 Kings 20:35–36; and regarding being disaffected with God’s Word, see Isa. 30:8–14 and Jer. 6:10–11). We who have been born again of God’s Holy Spirit through hearing or reading God’s special revelation are moved by him to take Scripture for what it is—God’s own words, including God’s own claims—and its complete truth-

fulness and rightfulness should become increasingly apparent to us as we hear and read it (see Pss. 119:160; 19:7–11; John 17:17). Indeed, its truthfulness and rightfulness should become axiomatic for us, including whatever it asserts or assumes theologically.

Adapted from Mark R. Talbot, “Does God Reveal Who He Actually Is?,” in Douglas S. Huffman and Eric L. Johnson, eds., God Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002). Used by permission. Mark R. Talbot (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania) is associate professor of philosophy at Wheaton College (Wheaton, Illinois) and vice-chairman of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. He is the author of Signs of True Conversion (Crossway, 2000). Dr. Talbot is also executive editor of Modern Reformation.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

enjoying music and art, and making tools with those who do not yet know the gospel. Indeed, the proclamation of the Christian message now actually helps to break down cultural barriers because it has the goal of building a human community reflective of the divine community—a unity in diversity (see Gal. 3:26–28). The dividing walls between opposing cultures were broken down by the mercy of the gospel (see Eph. 2:11–22). Now even Gentiles and Samaritans could be full members of the redeemed community.

It is thus neither arrogant nor intolerant to affirm that there is one final, systematic theology, as long as that theology faithfully represents the God who created and now re-creates human beings in his own image. At the same time, it is naive and dangerous to assume that just any theology can fulfill that function. Only systematic theology that is tethered to the theology of the Scriptures that God has authorized will faithfully represent him. Paul said “we see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12). In other times and places, it may have been crucial to remember that our eyesight is indeed poor or The intentional irony of God’s wisdom is difficult to grasp but absolutely central to “dark.” But in our day, we must remember that “we see.” understanding the Bible’s message: “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” We see because God has given us eyes to see—as well “The meek shall inherit the earth.” “The strong shall be weak and the weak shall be as ears to hear. Contrary to the skepticism implicit in much postmodernism, truth strong.” “Mercy is stronger than hatred.” And on the list might go. can be apprehended precisely because God has graciously We find ourselves in a similar situation today. given us Scripture as a feast for our eyes and ears. ■ The drama of divine redemption continues to unfold in the outbreaking of divine mercy across historic cultural divides. That drama, centered on Richard Lints (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is profesthe person and work of Christ, is ironically the very sor of theology and apologetics at Gordon Conwell centrifugal force that pushes the gospel outward Theological Seminary. His most recent book is The Fabric across the length and breadth and width of the of Theology (Eerdmanns, 1993). Dr. Lints is an ordained globe. The gospel’s very exclusivity (see Acts 4:12) minister in the Presbyterian Church of America. is the foundation of its universal impulse (see 1 In this article, Professor Lints has referred to the John 2:1, 2). Yet this universal impulse cannot be reduced to following sources: David Tracy, Plurality and the pluralist impulse. Christ’s uniqueness prohibits Ambiguity (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), p. our equating his gospel with many diverse readings 48. Bruce Marshall, “Absorbing the World: of his truth. It is appropriate that there are cultural- Christianity and the Universe of Truths,” in ly diverse ways of obeying this one gospel, but it is Theology and Dialog: Essays in Conversation with George not appropriate that there are culturally diverse Lindbeck, Bruce Marshall, ed. (South Bend, IN: interpretations of it. Across all cultures, we must University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. Michael S. Horton, Covenant and understand that God’s power is expressed in the suf- 69–104. fering of the cross. The universal makes sense only Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville and in light of the particular—the particular person and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002). Ken Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes work of Jesus Christ. Systematic theology finds its central identity in (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1989). being a framework that encompasses the past, the present, and the future of God’s redeeming work in Jesus Christ. Its unity is the unity of redemption. It attempts to give clear and thoughtful expression to that unity while also expressing the organic and ironic character of that unity across time. It strives to represent faithfully God’s revelation of salvation to all nations while remembering how costly it would be to abandon the uniqueness and exclusiveness of that salvation. Theological idolatry lurks around every corner for theologians who have lost their focus.

3 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

CONNECTING THE DOTS | Why Systematic Theology Matters

Amateurs All? Christians and Bible Reading ost American Protestants, whether liberal or evangelical, are egalitarians when it comes to the reading and study of Scripture. They tend to be committed to the American proposition that “all men”—and women—“are created equal” not simply because they are patriotic or democratic but also because their doctrine of Scripture drives them to it. The logic runs like this: Because the Bible is clear, anyone who can read its words should be able to understand its meaning, no matter what the reader’s education or social status. This egalitarianism has produced some laudable results. For example, it keeps ordinary Christians reading the Scriptures so that they, like Timothy, may thus be made “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Individual Scriptural reading is also one of the means by which God instructs and encourages Christians and thus gives them hope (see Rom. 15:4). Moreover, we, like the Bereans, surely are to be commended when we turn to the Scriptures to check whether what is being preached to us is true (see Acts 17:11). Yet Protestant egali-

b y D . G . H A RT J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

tarianism is also, at the same time, the source of significant errors. One of these errors involves egalitarianism’s failure to recognize that not everything in Scripture is easy to understand and so we need those people who are especially well-trained in the Scriptures to help us avoid twisting them in harmful ways (see 2 Pet. 3:16). The fact is that some people are better equipped to interpret the Bible than others—and so their interpretations, everything else being equal, are to be preferred over the interpretations of the average Peter, Paul, or Mary. The egalitarian error is illustrated by the ethic of those small-group Bible studies where everyone’s insight carries equal weight. But a better example comes from a more prominent corner of the Protestant world where this kind of egalitarianism collides with the hierarchies that most Americans use to negotiate modern life. The phrase “the integration of faith and learning” is a constant source of inspiration and self-examination at many Christian colleges. Administrators stress its importance as a way of attracting new students who, it is promised, upon graduation will be able to think Christianly about themselves and the world. Christian college faculty are required to integrate their own faith and learning in order to get tenure and promotion. Students are also expected to show the influence of these endeavors in their papers and exams. But one of the weaknesses in this ideal, as laudable as it may be, is that the faculty who are responsible for modeling the integration of faith and learning often have only a Sunday school knowledge of the Bible while possessing Ph.D.level training in their own academic disciplines. What kind of integration of faith and learning goes on, then, when Christian college professors have the equivalent of a secondary school knowledge of Christianity but are experts in some academic discipline? I’m not asking this question to suggest remedies for Christian college administrators. I ask it to show the unfortunate consequences of a notion about the Bible’s clarity and accessibility that puts all of its interpreters on the same level. Christian colleges would not hire professors of physics whose proficiency in physics stopped with a high school degree. In fact, most American Protestants who believe in the equality of all biblical interpreters at the same time demand expertise and professionalism in other walks of life. They look for the best surgeon when needing a tumor removed, the best lawyer when going to court, and even the superior ice cream when planning for dessert. But apparently when it comes to the Bible, questions of expertise and proficiency are not essential.

3 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Study to Show Yourself Approved— or Just Average? ne of the favorite proof texts for the egalitarian outlook on biblical interpretation is 2 Timothy 2:15. In this verse the Apostle Paul is instructing his disciple, Timothy, to devote himself to serious scriptural study. To be sure, Christians should study and know their Bibles. Yet this verse comes from a letter written to a minister. So although this particular verse may be instructive for all believers, it actually teaches that Timothy, as a minister of the gospel, should devote himself to the study of God’s Word. Indeed, the fact that this verse is addressed to a church officer, informing him of his official responsibilities, has important implications for thinking about the Bible’s clarity and accessibility. Ironically, these implications run counter to how the verse is generally used. John Calvin saw the ministerial implications of Paul’s instructions in 2 Timothy. His comments correct the egalitarian impulse of American Protestantism. Calvin specifically addressed those who used this passage to suggest that a layperson’s interpretation of the Bible was just as good as a minister’s. For instance, some of them asked, “Since we should be satisfied with the Word of God alone, what purpose is served by having sermons every day, or even by having the office of pastor? Hasn’t everyone got opportunities to read the Bible?” Calvin answered that God assigned to ministers of the Word “the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father, in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread, by cutting it into small pieces.” For Calvin, it was not sufficient for each Christian to read the Bible in private. Instead, “the doctrine drawn from [the Bible] must be preached to us,” he wrote, “in order that we may be well informed.” Individual Bible reading often can be enhanced by hearkening to the sort of expert reading required of ministers. Calvin went on to explain the metaphor of “dividing” or “cutting aright” the Word of God. Unskillful interpreters of the bread of life, Calvin suggested, were like carvers who would cut food in such a way as to leave “the pith and marrow”—or the weighty parts of significance—“untouched.” “Some mutilate it, others tear it, others torture it, others break it in pieces,” Calvin complained, while “others, keeping by the outside . . . never come to the soul of doctrine.” But ministers, according to Paul’s intention in this passage, had a higher standard for their work. They were to exposit the Word skillfully, in a manner that builds up the saints. The implication of Calvin’s reading of this passage is twofold. First, some Christians, namely ministers, are called to interpret and explain the Bible. It is their vocation—or their full-time Christian service.

Since not every Christian is called to the ministry, the work of interpreting Scripture by lay believers is more like an avocation than a full-time occupation. This means that lay believers should most often defer to the experts who study the Bible for a living. This is not to say that ministers’ interpretations are perfect, nor does it deny the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the Word to the hearts of all believers, both ministers and laity. But it is to say that lay believers have good reason to hearken to, and be grateful for, ministers who are devoting their whole lives to “rightly dividing the word of truth.” The second implication follows directly from the idea that the vocation of minister carries with it the idea that a minister is supposed to become an expert in rightly dividing God’s Word. Ministers may be reckoned as persons who are, so to speak, professionals in reading and interpreting the Bible. So their calling and office suggest that there is a hierarchy among the various readings of Scripture. All interpretations of the Bible are not equal. Some are better than others, with the ones stemming from training and professional experience usually ranking higher than amateur readings. In any case, Paul’s instruction to divide correctly the “word of truth” is not an argument for all Christians to be held to the same standard regarding their mastery of God’s Word. It implies that all believers should give greater credence to those who make a living at rightly dividing Scripture. Elitist or Responsible? he objections to such a perspective on interpreting the Bible are significant and not easily answered. As mentioned at the outset, many American Protestants believe that the Bible, because of its clarity, must be readily accessible to all believers. If reading the Bible requires expertise, then it must not be clear. Closely related to this objection is Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers. Some assume that because all Christians have a special standing before God they are equally equipped to mine Scripture’s riches. Then there is the evangelistic mandate of the Great Commission, which also presumes that, since all believers are to follow their Lord’s instructions to teach the nations, they must all be able to understand the Bible well. Yet perhaps the greatest objection is the fear of Catholicism. If we admit that some people may have a vocation to study Scripture and so are better at interpreting it than others, then isn’t this the same as Roman Catholic priestcraft? Lyman Beecher, the New England Congregationalist minister, articulated a form of this argument in A Plea for the West (1834). The growth of Roman Catholicism in

America made Beecher nervous, but he believed that an egalitarian approach to the Bible would solve the Catholic problem. He wrote of the new American Catholics: “If they could read the Bible, and might and did, their darkened intellect would brighten, and their bowed mind would rise. If they dared to think for themselves, the contrast of protestant independence with their thraldom, would awaken the desire of equal privileges, and put an end to an arbitrary clerical dominion over trembling minds.” On this basis, American Protestants have been reluctant to concede that some interpretations of the Bible are better than others—and especially to expect ministers to render the best ones. To admit such a hierarchy is presumably to enslave the average reader. Ironically, however, these same Protestants have little trouble acknowledging the superiority of human efforts in other activities, even religious ones. Congregations call upon experts in church growth to advise on outreach, worship committees consult with professionals on electronics and music to enhance services, and believers look to trained Christian counselors for help with life’s spiritual struggles. When it comes to understanding the Bible, though, it appears to be every believer for himself or herself. Butinsteadofregardingtheproficiencyofthosecalled to study and apply the Word of God as an imposition, why not look at it as a gift from God? Of course, believers may become lazy and let experts do work that they should and may ordinarily perform in the duties of Christian devotion. Moreover, the recognition that there are experts in the study of Scripture should not be used to undermine the Bible’s clarity in those things, as the Westminster Confession says, “which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation” (1.vii). Even so, the Westminster Divines added, on the authority of 2 Peter 3:16, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all” (1.vii). For that reason,itisablessingtohaveministersoftheWordwho,like fathers, rightly cut the bread of life for God’s children. To lean on the insights and wisdom of those more learned in Scripture than we are is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, in fact, part of God’s gracious provision for his people. ■

D. G. Hart (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University), is academic dean and professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido, California), and the author most recently of The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) and That Old Time Religion in Modern America (Ivan R. Dee, 2002). The quotations from John Calvin in this article come from Calvin's commentary on 2 Timothy 2:14,15 and the author's That Old Time Religion in Modern America (Ivan R. Dee, 2002).

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

CONNECTING THE DOTS | Why Systematic Theology Matters

Why God Gav I

n the dead of night, when most people are savoring the final hours of a good night’s sleep, some teenage boys were wide awake and about to experience the final moments of a tragedy. A powerful motorcycle, a bold dare, youthful folly, a dark slippery street, and a tree converged in time to send our seventeen-year-old nephew careening into eternity.

Family and friends who gathered in Dallas for the funeral had more questions than answers about the events leading up to Jesse’s death and many more about the state of his soul—questions we could no longer ask him directly but were left to piece together from bits of information we could recall and from conversations with his grieving young friends. During a candlelight memorial service, his high school science teacher, a committed Christian, read aloud a personal letter in Jesse’s handwriting that revealed a lot about the inner workings of our nephew’s heart—a priceless document in our estimation that we were all eager to get our hands on. One by one, family members poured over that letter, not in search of some memorable quote or to pick up tips for raising teenagers, but to catch a glimpse into a young man’s soul and thus to know and understand him better. Thousands of years ago, the Spirit of God began mobilizing what would eventually become an army of writers to take up parchment and pen to write letters, poetry, biographies, history, and sermons that would eventually be placed into our hands. For centuries, God’s people have poured over these writers’ words in an effort to grasp what would otherwise be impossible to know: God’s

3 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

character and ways. Until the sixteenth century these sacred documents, sixty-six in all, were secured under lock and key, handled only by professionals and experts. If you wanted to know what they said, you had better show up when the priest, the prophet, or the rabbi unrolled a scroll or opened the Bible and began the public reading. Private copies didn’t exist. Memories were fine-tuned, and meditation was indispensable. After listening, people mentally played and replayed the words that had been read earlier. Artists portrayed the stories in stained glass windows, paintings, and sculpture to help people recall what they had heard. Today, a dramatic change has occurred. Battles have been fought, blood shed, and lives lost to give every Christian ready access to the Scriptures. This was a controversial decision, fraught with risks. Many had serious misgivings about what would happen if untrained people got their hands on the Bible. There was talk of heresies, misinterpretations, and abuses of Scripture to come. Sadly, as anyone can corroborate by listening to some of the wild interpretations of Scripture that abound today, far too much of this has come to pass. Yet spurred on by the conviction that the Bible was

b y C A R O LY N C U S T I S J A M E S

ve Us the Bible written for all of God’s people, the reformers pressed their case. With the advent of the printing press, their achievements exceeded their wildest dreams. Today, Bibles abound in private households, on hotel bedside tables, on bookstore shelves, and even in the local Wal-Mart. God’s Word in Our Hands nowing what it meant to read a copy of Jesse’s letter, it isn’t difficult to imagine how God’s people felt when they held God’s Word in their hands for the first time. Now we have hundreds of aids to make these ancient writings user-friendly: modern translations, study Bibles, commentaries, and study helps. With so much at our fingertips, you would expect accurate Bible knowledge to be at an all-time high and our generation unsurpassed in understanding God. What you find is something very different. Although the Bible still maintains its best-seller status, the number of people actually reading it is in decline. In Christian circles, we’ve gotten out of the habit of reading the Bible from cover to cover, as a book with a unified message that we desperately need to understand. Instead, we read in snippets, picking and choosing favorite passages that make us feel good and give us the emotional lift we need. We sidestep sections that seem difficult, boring, or unsettling, leaving vast portions of the Bible unexplored. Sometimes we completely ignore that these writings weren’t initially addressed to us. Without

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

stopping to figure out what the Bible meant to the original readers, we fast-forward to find out what the Bible says to us. By spurning any detailed knowledge of the ancient world, which is so essential to a clear understanding of these ancient writings, we detach the people of Scripture from their cultural moorings, proceeding as though these ancient writers embedded secret messages in their texts to help us to resolve some personal problem or to give us hidden formulas to help us succeed in marriage, parenting, and business. I know of one woman who scoured the Bible for verses to assure her that her marriage would recover from a disastrous beginning and of a businessman who discovered promises that the value of his investment portfolio would skyrocket.

tious and spiritually passionate. Most are from strong evangelical churches and have a long history of personal devotion and involvement in church, youth groups, camps, and missions. As author Gary Burge has summarized it, these freshmen, “use the Bible regularly—but curiously, few genuinely know its stories. The Bible has become a springboard for personal piety and meditation, not a book to be read.” There are pitfalls at the other end of the spectrum, too. People with a passion for study can easily reduce God’s Word to precepts, definitions, and outlines, forgetting to get personally involved with the truths they are dissecting. They may not get stuck at a devotional level like some Christians, but their understanding is just as stunted if it only proves useful as ammunition for debates or for heady, Like those tiresome individuals with the uncanny ability to redirect any philosophical discussions. In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees conversation to themselves, we have turned the conversation of the Bible back were the ones who seemed to be missing the point. to us. In the process, we’ve lost our way and are missing Scripture’s heart. Admired for their impressive knowledge of Scripture, they had nevertheless reduced it At other times, we treat the Bible like a lucky to a moral code—a list of do’s and don’ts they charm, a magic talisman that, if handled regularly, believed God used to measure the loyalty and obligates God to provide us with a convenient righteousness of his followers. Today, our inclinaparking place at the mall, successful closing of a tion to view Christianity as a self-improvement lucrative business deal, effectiveness in ministry, or program, rather than as a transforming grace relafewer bumps along the road of life—or so we tionship, is a sign that plenty of us have fallen into think. Like those tiresome individuals with the that ditch, too. So, why did God give us the Bible? In the grand uncanny ability to redirect any conversation to themselves, we have turned the conversation of the scheme of things, who cares if we know for sure Bible back to us. In the process, we’ve lost our way who comes first chronologically, Abraham or Moses, or if we can rattle off the apostles’ names or and are missing Scripture’s heart. locate Haggai without consulting the table of conMissing the Message tents? In a world of cancer, dysfunctional families, ooner or later, we may bump into the conse- threats of terrorism, and a wildly fluctuating stock quences of our faulty methods. One woman, market, Bible literacy is the least of our worries. hardly a novice to the Bible, was dismayed to We’re more concerned about finding help. learn she had completely misunderstood a Bible But that is exactly the point. We may rock along verse she had been leaning on for years. I remem- happily without realizing there’s a problem so long ber feeling bewildered and a bit betrayed when I as things go smoothly. But when the bottom falls took the time to look up an impressive string of out—the pathology report comes back with a canpassages that a Christian leader had offered to sup- cer diagnosis, children rebel and go off the deep port a belief I cherished. The further along I got in end, marriages crumble, or an early morning phone the list and the more carefully I examined those call brings the shattering news that a nephew has verses within their contexts, the weaker his argu- been killed in a motorcycle accident—our need to ment seemed. Those verses simply didn’t support know God better is exposed. Sometimes life has a his claim. way of getting our attention and showing us what Recently, faculty in biblical studies at Wheaton really matters. When it does, suddenly we are askCollege raised their eyebrows at the disappointing ing questions that should drive us back to the results they received from a biblical literacy test Scriptures to take a closer look at God. Is he good? that they had administered to incoming freshmen. Is he in control? Does he care about me? If he does, Bear in mind, these students are intellectually ambi- why won’t he step in and do something?

3 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

In crises, our formulas tend to fall to pieces, and we can be confronted by a God we cannot manage and don’t know as well as we should. But until then, we may very well have left God in the margins of our Bible reading, more interested in what he has to give us than in actually knowing him. So the danger for us is far more serious than simply being wrong or scoring poorly on a Bible literacy test. J. I. Packer put it bluntly in his classic book, Knowing God: We are cruel to ourselves if we try to live in this world without knowing about the God whose world it is and who runs it. The world becomes a strange, mad, painful place, and life in it a disappointing and unpleasant business, for those who do not know about God. Disregard the study of God, and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life, blindfolded, as it were, with no sense of direction and no understanding of what surrounds you. How then can we read and study the Bible in a way that avoids our tendencies to get off track? What can we do to keep focused on God? Three simple questions—powerful Bible study tools—can take us back to the main road and help us avoid the pitfalls we’ve been discussing; namely, What does this passage tell me about God? What does it tell me about myself? And what difference does it make for me to know this? Looking for God in the Bible fter publishing his book, The Greatest Generation, author and news anchor Tom Brokaw was approached by dozens of readers from his own generation who thanked him for helping them to understand their World War II veteran fathers for the first time. For years they had wondered about the war and what their fathers had seen, done, and endured. It took an outsider to break the silence and reveal those they had called “Dad” for more than fifty years. In the Bible, God opens up to tell his own story, but not simply to satisfy our curiosity or fill our heads with facts. His intent is to draw us closer to himself, to cultivate his relationship with us, and to tell us the truth about himself, ourselves, and our world. He tells a war story too—a rescue operation where he fights to redeem, reclaim, and rebuild his family. But God has no taste for a one-sided relationship where he does all the work. Just as we long for those we love to take a deep interest in us, so God longs for us to hunger to know him and to make

time to know him better. So he has given us the Bible, a book that literally begs to be studied, where we will get to know him best. Here we discover his passion for us, the lengths he will go to secure our good. Through stories of ancient people, he gives picture after picture of how he parents his children. Honest stories, including upbeat episodes where his people’s faith was strong and their victories great, are placed alongside dark chapters where they were baffled, disappointed, and even angry with him. His ancient people wrestled to understand and trust him, just as we do today. Their stories show, again and again, that he is good. He knows what he is doing and is worthy of our trust. To unearth the message of the Bible, we must always read in search of God. The Bible springs to life when we are looking for him. Well-worn passages we thought we had mastered yield fresh and deeper meaning when we probe in search of him. One woman, awestruck by what she was discovering, remarked, “God is a lot bigger than I thought.” Newcomers to the Bible may think this sounds overly optimistic. After all, the Bible isn’t always easy to understand: ancient Middle Eastern cultures, foreign customs, patriarchs, polygamists, bizarre visions. Often our initial attempts to figure out the meaning on our own turn up little, if anything. Writer Phillip Yancey sympathizes. For years he avoided the Old Testament because it made little sense to him. When forced to read it anyway for a writing project, he discovered he’d been missing out. Looking back, he reflected, “The rewards offered by the Old Testament do not come easily, I admit. Learning to feel at home in its pages will take time and effort. All achievements—climbing mountains, mastering the guitar, competing in a triathlon—require a similar process of hard work; we persevere because we believe rewards will come.” And those rewards do come. As noted pastor and writer John Piper has said, “The time it takes to dig deep into the heart of God is often repaid by striking a vein of gold or an oil gusher. The effort is repaid with joy and power beyond all expectation.” We may have to reach for a dictionary, a commentary, or to consult with an elder or pastor to get there. But our relationship with God is worth the effort. Thankfully, in making these efforts, we are not alone. I’ve heard enough reports of late-night hotel room conversions to be convinced that anyone can pick up the Bible and, by God’s grace, read it with profit. When we despair of understanding Scripture, we grossly underestimate the Holy

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

Spirit’s ability to get through to us about the meaning of God’s Word. But even at the human level, our understanding improves when we work together, pastors and parishioners alike. Moreover, this is not a one-way process where parishioners always remain on the receiving end and don’t have anything to give back to pastors and teachers. It is true that God has ordained the offices of pastor and teacher for our good and that part of the task of our pastors and teachers is to study the Scriptures particularly diligently to ensure that they are not interpreted in inappropriate or harmful ways (see 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 3:16). Yet I never will forget the insights of a deaf man on Jesus’ healing of the deaf man. Aspects of that miracle had completely escaped my notice because I read it as a hearing person. My father, a veteran pastor, floored me recently when he told me he

not to leave off studying until they had taken the message pro me (“for me”). No matter how much we have managed to cram into our heads about God, the message doesn’t really hit the mark until we see ourselves in the story and take what we thus learn to heart. Our understanding of God’s character is always incomplete until we connect the dots between who he is and what is happening in our lives.

The Power of God’s Word in Our Lives ut it doesn’t stop there. Martin Bucer, John Calvin’s mentor and a founding father of Reformed theology, reminds us that what we learn about God and ourselves inevitably spills over into our lives and relationships. It’s an outcome we are actively to pursue. True theology “is not theoretical or speculative, but active and practical. For it is directed toward action, a godly life . . . that we shall Today, our inclination to view Christianity as a self-improvement program, rather ever more firmly trust in God and live a life that is increasingly holy and more servicethan a transforming grace relationship, is a sign that plenty of us have fallen into able in love toward our neighbor.” that ditch, too. In the blazing light of God’s holiness, we see the was learning from me. The point is, of course, that depths of our sin and are drawn to him in repenwe need each other to understand Scripture’s rich- tance. Clinging to Christ’s redemptive work with es. Pulpit and pew, men and women, young and renewed tenacity, we learn to forgive those who old, hearing and deaf—we all have blind spots oth- have wronged us. His sovereignty, wisdom, and love shed the twin lights of hope and purpose on ers can illuminate. the struggles that may be dragging us down today. Finding Ourselves in the Story Knowing God multiplies our reasons to trust, obey, friend of mine was assembling a family and worship him. Understanding his heart for the photo album for her parents’ anniversary. widow and the orphan mobilizes us to care for She meticulously arranged photos of rela- them. His character defines our calling as his tives for hours, making sure every cousin was image bearers who are to reflect his likeness in our included. Thumbing through the finished product, world. she discovered to her chagrin that she had left out Learning to Learn one of her own children. God’s book doesn’t leave out any of his children. ne of the most unforgettable moments Our stories are bound up in his. J. I. Packer has said the week of Jesse’s death was seeing his that “the breathtaking truth is that Holy Scripture older brother silently absorbed, studying in its entirety is the Word of God directed person- his little brother’s scrawl. If anyone knew Jesse, it ally to everyone whom it reaches in order to set up, was his brother. Yet no matter how well he knew deepen, and enrich a personal love-relationship him, he was hungry to learn more. between the divine Sender and the human recipiOld Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke, a ent.” By looking first for God in its story, we see man who knows the Bible extremely well, calls our own story in a clearer light. himself “a learner.” He doesn’t conceal his enjoyJohn Calvin expressed it this way, “It is certain ment of opportunities to interact with students, that no man”—or woman—“ever achieves a clear admitting, “I learn a lot from my students.” knowledge of himself unless he has first looked Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many Bible facts upon God’s face, and then descends from contem- we know or how many weighty theological terms plating him to scrutinize himself.” Martin Luther we can explain. When it comes to knowing God, emphasized the same point by urging his students each of us has only scratched the surface.

4 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

The Bible is in our hands. More than a responsibility, we have a golden opportunity to plunge ourselves into the riches of our Heavenly Father, to know, enjoy, and follow him. Let us follow in the footsteps of St. Augustine who opened the Scriptures and received salvation upon hearing the counsel of a little child who—across a garden well—was chanting, “Take and read, take and read.” ■

Carolyn Custis James (M.A., Dallas Theological Seminary) is a writer and speaker. She lives in Orlando, Florida, with her husband and teenage daughter and is the author of When Life and Beliefs Collide: How Knowing God Makes a Difference (Zondervan Publishing House, 2001).

SPEAKING OF

conclude—you

must

translate every bit of your Theology into the vernacular.

This is very trouble-

some and it means you can say very little in half an hour, but it is essential. It is also of the greatest service to your own thought. I have come to

The quotations in this article come from the following sources: Gary M. Burge, “The Greatest Story Never Read: Recovering Biblical Literacy in the Church,” Christianity Today, Vol. 43, No. 9 (August 9, 1999), p. 45. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 14, 15. Philip Yancey, The Bible Jesus Read (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), p. 21. John Piper, The Pleasures of God (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1991), p. 101. J. I. Packer, Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996), p. 205. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), I.1.2. Martin Bucer as cited in H. J. Selderhuis, Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. XLVIII (Ann Arbor, MI: Thomas Jefferson University Press at Truman State University), p. 356. Augustine, Confessions, translated by F. J. Sheed (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993), p. 146.

@ MR RECOMMENDS…

the conviction that if you cannot translate your thoughts into uneducated language, then your thoughts were confused. — C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, 98

Looking for small group resources? Log on now to www.modernreformation.org for study questions related to this article.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

We Confess… A

nd who is this Mediator—true God and at the same time truly human and truly righteous? Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was given us to set us completely free and to make us right with God. How do you come to know this? The holy gospel tells me. God himself began to reveal the gospel already in Paradise; later he proclaimed it by the holy patriarchs and prophets, and portrayed it by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; finally, he fulfilled it through his own dear son. The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day Six, 1563

he whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, 1647

e deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Corinthians 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn wisdom concerning invisible things by means of wisdom concerning visible things, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 1:21, "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isaiah 45:15 says, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself." So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: "Show us the Father." Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, "Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father" [John 14:9]. For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 [John 14:6] "No one comes to the Father, but by me." "I am the door" [John 10:9], and so forth. Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, 1518

4 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

An Interview with Kay Arthur

Line Upon Line At last year’s National Religious Broadcasters convention, Michael Horton sat down with Kay Arthur to discuss Precept Ministries and the Inductive Bible Study method that Jack and Kay Arthur have taught to thousands of people every year, since the 1970s. This interview is excerpted from the original interview, which was recorded for the White Horse Inn radio program. The text has been edited slightly for publication. MR: What exactly is the inductive method?

KAY ARTHUR

Co-founder and Executive Vice President Precept Ministries International

KA: The inductive method is a method that teaches you to observe the text for yourself and find out what it says. To interpret it in the light of what it says, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, because Scripture interprets Scripture. So that you understand what it means. Understanding what it says, and what it means, then leads to the third process that keeps happening as you observe and interpret, How does this apply to me? How am I to live in the light of that? What am I to believe? Not all application is necessarily action. Application can be a change of mind, you know. And so it’s saying, “Oh, I believe this. Now this is the truth. I will change my mind and embrace that doctrine, that teaching.” All of that leads to transformation. Now what did Jesus say through the Apostle Paul in Romans? He gives the gospel in the first eleven chapters. He lays it out—how it affects Jew, Gentile, everybody. And in Romans 11, he closes by saying “from him, through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever and ever.” This is salvation. MR: Are you saying that by using the inductive method there will be only one interpretation of that passage? KA: Yes! And you know what is so neat—what is so absolutely neat—is we teach all different denominations. We’re all across Euro-Asia. And we teach charismatic and noncharismatic. There is Precept in some Russian Orthodox churches. There’s Precept in Catholic churches, and Protestant

churches. And the thing is that we don’t go in to teach our doctrine, but we go in to teach them how to study. And as they begin to study, they come—if you handle the text with integrity—they come to the same conclusion, because God means to be understood, you know. And the problem is—what we do is we get our systematic theology, normally, from our denomination. We read their statement of faith. And the statement of faith says this is what we believe about Jesus’ first coming, Second Coming, or we don’t believe that. Or this is what we believe about redemption. So then we put on those theological glasses. You have on glasses, OK. If I put those glasses on, and I tried to look through them, you know, everything would be blurry. But even when we put on our own theological glasses, we read the Word of God and we say, “Oh, that must mean this.” Instead of “this is what it says, this is what it means.” So we need to take off our theological glasses. We need to observe the text, find out what it says, what it means. And when we see what it says, interpretation falls into your lap. Even in difficult passages like Hebrews chapter 6—if you study the whole book of Hebrews you know the purpose, you know who the author is talking to, you know the circumstances, you find out everything he says about the believers in there, then you don’t have that problem with Hebrews 6. And eventually—and if you do, you leave it alone—because eventually all throughout the Scripture—Scripture never contradicts Scripture—so that’s why you should study a book of the Bible, not just topically. You should study the Bible book by book. And then you see that they integrate, and then you’re going to come up with

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

the same interpretation. We see it all the time. MR: What would you say to those who said, “Well, we all come to the Scriptures, of course, with glasses on—you can never really take the glasses off—especially if Scripture interprets Scripture, and if the system of Scripture arises out of the process of interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture. Every Calvinist, every Lutheran, every Arminian is going to say that “our” interpretation is the one that anyone just normally reading the Bible is going to come up with. Is there a danger in saying that—because this isn’t a church—the interpretation that we can come up with through a method such as inductive Bible study will be without presuppositions? Can that really happen? Don’t we end up having a theology, even if we are not trying to impose it on the Scriptures? KA: I think that it can only happen if we are willing to let the Scripture speak for itself. So, for instance, before I began studying inductively I was once taught a doctrine about a separate Bride of Christ. I, in turn, taught it so well that some scholars were really questioning whether I might be right. Because I was taught it well, I studied it through those theological glasses. I grabbed Scriptures, and one of the things I taught was that you can lose your inheritance. I mean, I was known for being able to teach this and teach it well. I was studying the book of Romans. I got to Romans chapter 8. Now,

We don’t need to be taught, “OK, now this is God’s view on Israel.” You know, there are so many views on Israel. What does God say? You go through and mark every reference, let’s say, just to the land. You mark every reference to the land of Israel. You make a list of what you’ve learned. It’s not a political issue in Israel. It’s not an Arab issue. It’s not a Jewish issue. It’s not whether Israel is pleasing God or not. It’s what does God say? “The earth is his, the fullness thereof.” He has marked out the boundaries. This is his land. He gave it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants as an everlasting possession. Now that’s what it says. MR: Now of course there are different interpretations of how that promise is fulfilled. If you interpret the Old in light of the New, instead of the New in light of the Old, that’s a pretty big hermeneutical difference.

KA: But you know what? All you have to do is take it and mark it through the Bible. Take and mark Israel, all the way through the Bible. Make your own list, and see what it says. I’m not saying forget theology, but I’m saying this: God did not give truth just to theologians. God gave every believer the mind of Christ—1 Corinthians chapter 2. I have the mind of Christ. I can know the things of God. And people begin to say, “Oh, that’s a theologian. I can’t debate a ou’re to know the Word of God. I’m not to answer for anybody else’s theologian.” You’re to know the Word of God. I’m not to theology. But I’m to answer for how I handle the Word of God and answer for anybody else’s theology. But I’m to answer for how I handle the Word of that’s why I am to study, to show myself approved unto God. God, and that’s why I am to though, I was studying it inductively. I realized I study, to show myself approved unto God. I am to had taught it wrong. Now, I have a choice: my ego, be put to the test, and found approved—“approved or pleasing God by handling God’s Word unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, accurately. I stood up and said, “I have taught you handling accurately the Word of God.” That improperly. And I discovered that I was wrong. No means cutting it straight. You know, I am to cut it Christian can lose their inheritance.” And I saw it straight. And I’m going to answer for my work. there in the Scriptures. So I had to change that. People will say to me, “you’re Calvinistic.” Then In 1970, Kay Arthur co-founded Precept with her husband Jack. when they hear my prophecy, and they say, “What Precept began as a fledgling ministry for teens but has grown into are you? You’re a mongrel.” And I say, “My a worldwide ministry whose goal is to establish people in God’s systematic theology has come from the Word of Word. As Co-founder and Executive Vice-President of Precept God because I study it book by book.” I don’t Ministries International, Kay is an internationally known Bible know what Calvin taught. I’ve never studied teacher, author, conference speaker, and host of national radio and Calvin. But I have studied the Word of God. And television programs. Kay also writes Precept Upon Precept Bible I know the Bible teaches that we’re chosen. I know studies for classes held in all 50 states. A prolific author, four of that the Bible teaches that God chose me before her publications have received the coveted Gold Medallion Book the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1 says it. Award: Lord, I Need Grace to Make It; His Imprint, It’s very clear. 1 Peter 1 says it. I don’t understand My Expression; The International Inductive Study it all, but I stand in awe. So, no I’m not Calvinistic. Bible; and A Marriage Without Regrets. She is also the I don’t even know what he taught. But I know what national spokesperson for The International Inductive Study Bible the book says. And so that’s what we have to know. and serves on several boards worldwide.

4 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

BOOK | Seeker Churches: Promoting Traditional Religion in a Nontraditional Way

Megachurches Under the Microscopes of the Academy

n 1996, Atlantic Monthly ran a story on the most recent novelty within American

churches had begun a “Second Reformation” by launching a Christianity: the so-called “megachurch movement”. Here is part of what caught the Atlantic new way of worship, restructuring the reporter’s eye and explains the popularity of such churches: “No spires. No crosses. organizational aspects of church life, and carrying No robes. No clerical collars. No hard forward the first Reformation’s teaching on the pews. No kneelers. No biblical priesthood of all believers. So impressed by these gobbledygook. No prayerly rote. No new congregations was the USC professor that he fire, no brimstone. No pipe organs. No believed that mainline Protestantism, the faith with dreary eighteenth-century hymns. No which he identified, would survive only by following forced solemnity. No Sunday finery. No the lead of seeker churches and returning the collection plates.” The logic behind the ministry to the people while facilitating experiences megachurch movement, inspired of God in “life-changing ways.” dramatically by the success of Willow Kimon Howland Sargeant adds to Miller’s study Creek Community Church, located in and nuances it in important ways with his own detailed the Chicago suburbs, is that of investigation of Willow Creek in Seeker Churches: evangelism. By abandoning the trappings Promoting Traditional Religion in a Nontraditional Way. The of traditional Protestantism that are subtitle of the book is at the heart of the author’s foreign to unchurched men and women, concern and actually functions more like a question megachurches attempt, in the words of the Atlantic than a description: Is it possible for these churches, story, to provide “new, contemporary forms of that claim to represent traditional Christianity, to promote a traditional faith in a nontraditional way? Seeker worship and belonging.” Churches: One of the first scholarly treatments of this Although Sargeant’s study is based upon his Promoting phenomenon was Donald Miller’s Reinventing American dissertation in sociology at Princeton University, it Traditional Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium, a 1997 does not avoid answering this question by hiding Religion in a book on what the author called “new paradigm behind academic objectivity. In fact, the book churches.” In Miller’s case, he examined what was demonstrates that critical scholarship does sometimes Nontraditional close by, the churches of Calvary Chapel and the lend support to religious truths. What is especially Way Vineyard movements that emerged in southern revealing about Sargeant’s research is a survey he by Kimon Howland California near where he taught at the University of conducted with ministers linked to the Willow Creek Sargeant Southern California (USC). But he did place Willow Association, a sample that included 600 responses. Rutgers University Press, 2000 Creek at the forefront of “seeker sensitive churches” Although the form of worship practiced by these $20.00, 252 pages, Paperback that are “attempting to design worship services that seeker churches has often drawn the most attention, appeal to those who do not usually attend church.” both from critics and emulators, Sargeant’s study Miller went so far as to claim that the seeker shows that Willow Creek’s model of ministry is far

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 5

more significant than what its “seeker-sensitive worship” does to traditional Protestant forms. One significant problem that the Willow Creek paradigm has created concerns the best way to preach to the unchurched. For instance, Sargeant quotes a sermon from Rev. Bill Hybels on divorce where he says “there is not an ounce of judgment in my spirit for those who are going through or who are recovering from a divorce” (104). What is interesting to see, according to Sargeant, is not so much whether Willow Creek and its models preach law or gospel—an important concern, to be sure—but whether the seeker model itself, by appealing to the choices and self-expression of unchurched, cannot “create unambiguous moral boundaries for the purposes of judging people’s behavior” (105). This means that it is very difficult for seeker churches to establish an identity for believers that is at odds with modern expectations for self-fulfillment. As such, following Christ comes with few costs. One explicit theme of Sargeant’s book is how the methods of seeker churches like Willow Creek end up dictating the content of ministry. He concedes that this is not the intention. Bill Hybels and those who follow him think of themselves as both evangelical and conservative; they are committed to historic Christianity. But as Sargeant observes in the chapter on small groups, a point that also speaks volumes about the seeker-church model in general, “The innovative forms of the seeker church are not simply neutral containers into which the Gospel message is poured; these forms also shape the content of what is taught. In other words, how Christianity is conveyed may influence what kind of Christianity is developed” (181–82). Another way of putting this is to say that methods of church growth beg questions. In this specific case, Willow Creek’s rendering of the church as a shopping mall carries the assumptions of efficiency and rationality, presuppositions that affect the message. “The seeker church movement,” he writes, “recognizes that forms make a difference—that is why the movement has developed new forms—but may underestimate other effects of changing forms. Changing the method cannot only change your results; it can also change your message” (130–31, italics his). The net effect of Sargeant’s compelling study is to answer the subtitle in the negative. The book gives the clear impression that nontraditional ways end up promoting a religion that is not traditional. As is often the case with sociology, common sense usually precedes the efforts of sociologists to quantify and analyze. But in Sargeant’s case, his support for the intuition that something is seriously awry with the seeker church is a welcome addition to the study of contemporary evangelicalism. His

4 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

scholarship may not prove that traditional ways are best. However, Sargeant’s expertise does raise questions about nontraditional Protestantism that church growth experts will need to answer. Dr. D. G. Hart Westminster Theological Seminary in California Escondido, CA

Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism by Randall Balmer Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002 664 pages, (hardcover), $29.95 What would it take to produce a 3,000-entry encyclopedia of a movement as diverse and ephemeral as American evangelicalism? A lot of ambition and more than a little audacity. In other words, it would take Randall Balmer. Balmer is a religious historian at Barnard College who has authored several books on American evangelicalism, such as his travelogue, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America (1989). But he is most popularly known for hosting the PBS television series based on that book, where his rugged, chiseled facial features and blow-dried blond hair earned him, in the words of a friend of mine, at least a shot at the title of the handsomest man in Christendom. Balmer’s sojourning continues in the production of this encyclopedia, in which he toiled not merely as the editor but as the sole compiler. Balmer has an eye for the colorful and the unusual, and American evangelicalism provides plenty of both. The United Reformed Churches is not listed here, but you will find Cowboys for Christ as well as the Christian Jugglers Association. You will also discover evangelical practices (remember sword drills?) and taboos (like dancing and divorce) and technologies (from flannelgraphs to the Internet). Balmer captures the good (he tends to puff the evangelical left), the bad (televangelists), and the kitschy (artist Thomas Kinkade and Samuel Butcher, creator of Precious Moments). Even some “outsiders” (Frederick Buechner and C. S. Lewis) and erstwhile evangelicals (Bob Dylan) find their way into Balmer’s universe. The temptation in reviewing a work like this is to quibble about what’s in and what’s out. Arguably, Balmer has made a few questionable calls. There is a vague whiff of presentism, especially with some contemporary Christian music artists whom history may eventually classify as one-hit-wonders. Of course, sports celebrities are part of the evangelical subculture. That justifies

the inclusion of Kurt Warner. But Trent Dilfer? There are also some autobiographical biases; Trinity College and Divinity School (Balmer’s alma maters) are featured excessively along with their faculties. And surely Clarence Balmer would not rate an entry were he not the author’s father. There are more curious irregularities. While Balmer devotes space to the 1996 Cambridge Declaration, he omits the controversial document that partially prompted that gathering, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” There is a long entry for D. James Kennedy and an especially disproportionate one for Kennedy’s Knox Theological Seminary (ironically described as a school dedicated to recovering Old Princeton). Yet there is none for Luder Whitlock or Edmund Clowney. Reformed and Covenant Seminaries are absent, and Westminster Seminary exists only as a cross-reference to its founder, J. Gresham Machen. One might conclude that Balmer simply got it wrong here, and badly underrepresented evangelicalism at least in its Reformed-leaning branches. But that won’t do, because Balmer is more than just a pretty face. He is a cultural historian who has traveled extensively and observed carefully. So what makes or misses the cut in his book bears significance. This encyclopedia is a helpful indicator of how conservative Protestants are being perceived, and it suggests that Reformed evangelicals are less significant than they imagine, which ought to ratchet down their claims about influence within the movement. And what is an evangelical after all? Balmer’s collection offers little help in refining a definition since he appears to be more interested in celebrating the movement’s diversity than in keeping close reins on the faith once delivered. As in his other works, he sees it as a broad umbrella term, a patchwork quilt that is elastic enough to include fundamentalists, Pentecostals, charismatics, and the holiness tradition. The effect of this compilation is more boundary-blurring of a movement already porous. With its occasional idiosyncrasies and biases, this is a fun read that could prompt hours of evangelical trivial pursuit. It might frustrate readers who are looking for a standard encyclopedia, however, and it is no substitute for Inter-Varsity Press’s Dictionary of Christianity in America. Instead, consider it more travelogue genre and shelve it next to Balmer’s earlier works. Mr. John R. Muether Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando, FL

SHORT NOTICES The Dictionary of Historical Theology Edited by Trevor A. Hart Paternoster and Eerdmans, 2000 599 pages, (hardcover), $50.00 Good reference books are like any other good tool, they are as useful as they are well designed and executed. One occasionally sees an advertisement for a new tool which either did not previously exist or is an improvement on an existing one. Some new tools, however, cause the consumer to ask, Why this product? By analogy, when this dictionary came to my desk, I wondered whether this volume would do something that is peculiar to historical theology as distinct from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for example. In answer to these questions, the unique contributions of this volume are not immediately evident. Certainly systematic and historical theologians need excellent reference works, but there are well established biographical and theological dictionaries which cover similar territory in about the same way. Virtually all dictionaries are criticized for inclusions and exclusions, and this work cannot be spared. This dictionary is intentionally limited to 314 entries to allow for longer essays, but it would appear that the editors might have added as many as seventy-five essays without making the volume unwieldy, thereby improving its utility. Since it is a dictionary of Historical Theology, as opposed to Systematic Theology or Church History, one might expect an entry describing the history and methods of this particular discipline, but this is missing. As a North American in the Reformed confessional tradition, I was surprised to find J. Gresham Machen omitted. His historicaltheological importance must certainly rival that of Margaret Mary Alacocque or Erich Przywara. There is no entry for Federal Theology, but there is one for Asian Theologies. One wonders also how to explain the inclusion of separate entries for several seemingly obscure figures and the omission of entries for major Reformed theologians such as Kuyper, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, and Vos, as well as Lutheran theologians such as Calixtus, Calov, and Quenstedt. The dictionary covers contemporary writers such as Pannenberg and Moltmann and larger issues such as Postmodernism, but omits an entry on Radical Orthodoxy. Naturally, the quality of the entries varies. For

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 7

example, the dominant soteriology of Anabaptists is described correctly, but the docetic Christology held by some major Anabaptist figures is not mentioned. Those familiar with the father of modern theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, may find that entry reads more like a promotional blurb than a brief narrative of a revolutionary who turned theology from the accounting of God’s objective, historical saving acts and Word to the accounting of the subjective experience of divine dependence. Fortunately, the entry on Romanticism helps balance this picture of the period. Despite this dictionary’s idiosyncrasies, it is useful to have a single reference, with a comprehensive index, which will tell readers something reliable about a pioneer of Black Theology, James Cone, the German evangelical theologian, Adolph Schlatter and the French philosopher, Paul Ricoeuer. There are a number of outstanding entries which also make this work worth owning. The essays on the Filioque Controversy, Scholasticism, Heppe, the Reformation, and Ratzinger are quite well done. Further, the scholarship represented by these essays as well as those on Cocceius, the Reformed and Lutheran confessions, Nominalism, Duns Scotus, Bullinger, Arminius, and Calvinism is state of the art. In this regard, this volume might be more useful than the larger and much more expensive Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. School libraries will want to add this to their collection. Church libraries and ministers with generous budgets should also find this useful. As with any reference work, students should use this volume as a place to begin, not to end their research. Dr. R. Scott Clark Westminster Theological Seminary in California Escondido, CA

BOOK NOTES The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary by Johannes G. Vos; edited by G. I. Williamson Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2002 614 pages, (paperback), $19.99 Of the three creedal summaries produced by the Westminster Assembly during the 1640s the Larger Catechism is the proverbial odd man out. Most

4 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

western Christians are familiar with the Shorter Catechism, at least its first answer which reads: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Most Protestants who know of a Christian church before Billy Graham likely have some awareness of the Westminster Confession of Faith. But when it comes to the Westminster Larger Catechism, even some Presbyterians have not heard of it. Those who have might be surprised to learn the contents of the Catechism’s 196 questions and answers. This commentary will certainly help to address the neglect of the longer of the Westminster Assembly’s two catechisms. The book’s contents, written during the 1940s by Johannes G. Vos, who was the chairman of Geneva College’s Bible department, originally appeared in the periodical Blue Banner Faith and Life. That series of short studies has been assembled and edited by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church minister, G. I. Williamson, with an introduction by W. Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido, California). The book follows the two-part structure of the Larger Catechism. The first covers “what man ought to believe concerning God.” The second part addresses man’s duty. Each section within these parts follows the questions, answers, and proof texts for the Larger Catechism. Vos’s commentary on each question and answer comes in the form of additional questions and answers, ranging between five and nineteen per answer from the catechism. Some of Vos’s own answers are as short as a few sentences; others fill almost a complete page. All in all, this is an accessible introduction not only to the Westminster Larger Catechism but also to the system of theology that guided the Reformed branch of the Protestant Reformation.

Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord Edited by Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen Fortress Press, 2001 277 pages, (paperback), $25.00 The Book of Concord (1580) is the culmination of sixteenth-century Lutheran developments and the doctrinal standard for Lutheran communions. It consists of 10 creedal or catechetical statements, beginning with the Apostles’ Creed and ending with the Formula of Concord (1577). With the exception of the first three creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian), the Book of Concord is a compilation of Lutheran teaching and apologetics during the debates of the Protestant Reformation. As such, it

is a compendium of Lutheran expression that reflects internal developments within Lutheranism as well as polemics with Roman Catholics and Calvinists. This book provides exactly what its title indicates, a collection of sixteenth-century writings that puts the contents of the Book of Concord in historical and theological context. Some of the documents foreshadow the formal teachings of the Lutheran churches, such as A Booklet for Laity and Children (1525), which was a forerunner of Martin Luther’s own Small Catechism, or Philip Melanchthon’s Disputation: We Are Justified by Faith and Not by Love (1531), which is the background for Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession written in the same year. Other texts come from anti-Lutheran sources, such as John Eck’s Four Hundred Four Articles for the Imperial Diet at Augsburg (1530), to which the Augsburg Confession (1530) was a response. Such a description of this book might suggest a work of interest only to students of the sixteenth century. It is, in fact, a useful collection of important documents relevant to the Protestant Reformation. But it is much more. As the editors explain in their introduction, “Sixteenth-century Lutherans defined their faith and their church by proclaiming and teaching the content of Scripture within the nexus of their own setting and circumstances.” As such, to understand the biblical faith that Lutherans taught and defended in the Book of Concord requires some familiarity with the debates and events that gave shape to Lutheran teaching. This book supplies greater understanding of the Bible by revealing how sixteenth-century Christians grappled with the Word’s own teaching. It is a useful book for Lutherans who may be unfamiliar with their own doctrinal tradition and for nonLutherans curious about the development of the Lutheran churches’ teaching.

SOFTWARE REVIEW Among all the gadgets and gizmos that clamor for our already-strained attention span, there are three software programs that the editors of MR think you should know about. They may not change your life, nor will they solve all your theological problems, but they just might make studying the Scriptures a bit easier for pastors and lay persons alike. A Library in Your Laptop With over two hundred thirty unlocked Bibles

and Bible reference works and free update downloads for life, the new Scholar's Library — Logos Bible Software Series X-containing over $5,000 worth of texts for just $599.95-is a great value for pastors. I was told in seminary to build my library with the idea in mind that I might end up in some relatively isolated locale. That was sound advice and still holds true today. If the user has a laptop computer, having this software is even more advantageous, since you can literally take your library with you wherever you go. Therefore, the Scholar's Library fulfils an important function for the young or isolated pastor. Moreover, young pastors do not always have the space for larger libraries when they first enter the ministry. Once again, the Scholar's Library offers an outstanding solution to that problem. Every time the software is opened, the user is provided with-if he so desires-a prayer list, daily spiritual readings, and a plan to read through the Bible in one year. That, however, is merely the beginning. In my trial of Logos I made use of looking up various texts and found that each time I was supplied with a wealth of material. I also used the exegetical guide to check my findings against the software and found that the software was accurate and helpful. As with every new piece of software, Logos takes a little getting used to. To that end, I found the included Video Introduction to be very helpful in getting me started using the material. Apart from a brief installation guide I did not have any "quick start" type of booklet, which would have been very helpful, especially for the first few times using Logos. Since the Scholar's Library is so loaded with material, there is a wealth of buttons on the taskbar and I had to spend a lot of time in trial and error attempting to learn how to use them. The primary disadvantage to the software is that someone else is choosing your library and your references for you. Moreover, as I looked through the material that is available, I had to admit that some of it was useless while other material was very useful to me. Granted, many of the references are "standards" by any stretch of the imagination and should be included in every pastor's library. Not all references fall into this category, however. In conclusion, I found the system more than adequate for my purposes and for someone who is more of a "power" user than I am the material should prove to be very helpful. The total cost of the Scholar's Library is $599.95 (list price). You can order by contacting Logos by phone at 800875-6467 or online at www.logos.com/scholars. I would recommend this software to seminary

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 9

students, pastors, professors, and serious church leaders. Rev. Ron Gleason, Ph.D. Grace Presbyterian Church Yorba Linda, CA Digital Exegesis Although I’ve used BibleWorks for several years, I never took the time to appreciate all its features until I began testing their newest release: version 5.0. The newest version of this popular exegetical tool is packed with additional features only dreamed of ten years ago when BibleWorks was first released. Perhaps the most helpful addition is the new interface option which allows a user to choose his or her own level of expertise: beginner, intermediate, or advanced. Several new lexical aides, original language texts, reference works, and Bible translations have also been added, bringing the total number of standard, unlocked resources to over 120. I was delighted to see Crossway’s new English Standard Version as a new feature. The two new lexicon modules, the third edition of Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature and The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament can be unlocked for an additional price. The hardcover editions of each lexicon are less expensive, but the ease of use and the correlation with the other search features more than make up for the extra cost. As with any computer program, BibleWorks does have a few weaknesses. First, the usefulness of any program is in direct relation to the ease of learning it. BibleWorks does take some effort and the 400 page manual can be overwhelming. The new help videos will get a beginner up and running fairly quickly, but the experienced user, looking to enhance his or her skills, may get frustrated by the plodding nature of the videos. Frankly, I was expecting something a little more engaging, and was disappointed by the boring narration and visuals. Second, too much new software includes features that most people will never even discover, much less use, but for which they still must pay. BibleWorks does have a few too many bells and whistles for my taste. One is the BibleWorks “Timeline,” which incorporates biblical, church, and secular history in one grand sweep of time. It has a definite predilection for modern Western history. In fact, after the biblical era, nothing of note apparently occurs in the non-Western world—but the otherwise unexplained Italian revolts of 1848 do merit a notation! The value of any software is found in how many ways it makes the task at hand easier. BibleWorks

5 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

5 is a definite value. It is quick, relatively easy to use, and filled with helpful resources. It is a “must have” for pastors and students who have some original language exposure. Lay-persons, without Greek or Hebrew experience, may find BibleWorks is too much of a good thing. A cheaper, simpler Bible search program would probably meet their needs. If you’re serious about exegesis, though, and have been waiting to purchase the right program, contact BibleWorks at sales@bibleworks.com or order version 5 online at www.bibleworks.com. Your wait is over. Eric Landry Managing Editor

A Free Theological Library Are you short on funds? Do you want specifically Reformed electronic books? The Ephesians Four Group (E4) is offering a free Logos/Libronix CD and 35 free books that include the Greek New Testament, seven English translations, topical Bibles, a dictionary, language tools and 21 Reformed resources. If you already own Logos, this CD will seamlessly integrate with your existing library. E4 has created a unique 10,000 subject topical index keyed to every page of every book they offer. This invaluable tool, created by seminary-trained editors, makes the simple word search offered by other programs obsolete. In addition to their free CD, E4 has nine additional CDs. These include three Puritan-Reformed CD libraries, two Charles Spurgeon libraries, an Arthur W. Pink library, and the Jonathan Edwards library. For titles and shipping information, log onto www.FreeBibleSoftware.com. You can also call toll-free to order the free CD: (866) 66-BIBLE. Eric Landry Managing Editor

Preaching from the Choir [ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 8 ]

Music and the Spheres “Music and the Spheres” was a conference held April 18–21, 2002, produced by the Center for Christian Study in Charlottesville, Virginia, and co-sponsored by Image: A Journal on Arts and Religion. Excellent sessions by Ken Myers, John Hodges, J. A. C. Redford and Jeremy Begbie are all available on cassette tape. Plenary sessions included: “Music and the Spheres” (Myers); “Music and the Church” (Hodges); “Music and the Entertainment Culture” (Redford); and “Music, Words and the Word” (Begbie). Workshops included: “Dancing with Images: How a Composer Turns Film into Moving Pictures” (Redford) and “Music, Worship and the High Priesthood of Jesus” (Begbie). International Music Net This new group out of Texas, chaired by Kurt Kaiser and run by Dave Leeman, offers a timely and technological plan for music distribution. It features the music of numerous publishers on its website as downloads for print-on-demand. The music is in printed format (Sibelius) and is read by the customer on free reader software (Scorch). The customer pays by credit card for the number of copies needed and signs a license for making those copies. The customer is able to do a mega-search through an exclusive process called Introit. One can search by keyword, title, composer/arranger, lyric, author, first line/key phrases, biblical allusion/quotation, difficulty level, season, publisher, and by other search criteria. The score can be seen and heard without pause. There is both a text version and an enhanced version, depending on whether the customer has a dial-up or broadband connection. Included is music for children’s choirs, adult choirs, piano, contemporary bands, youth choirs, organ, handbells, orchestras, and soloists. Some of the companies represented include B&E Productions, Featherstone Music, Fred Bock Publishing, GIA Music Company, Kurt Kaiser Music Company, and LifeWay Church Resources, with more listings planned. The Cyber Hymnal Although it is not new (founded in 1996), the Cyber Hymnal is worth knowing about. It is an excellent free web site with more than 3,700 Christian hymns, Scripture songs, and gospel songs collected from many denominations. It is a great resource for any church musician, but may be even more helpful to pastors, Bible study leaders, or church members who do not have a musical background. The site provides text and MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) files that

will play all of the pieces in the catalogue as long as the user’s computer has a sound card. In other words, even if one cannot read music or play it on a keyboard instrument, he or she can become familiar with new songs. Music scores are also available, although specific software may be required to view them. One can search by title, Scripture, meter, name, or topic. When a particular hymn is selected, a page opens revealing information about the author, composer, or translator as well as a picture (if available). These specific persons, in turn, can be selected to give a more thorough listing of biographical details including a complete list of written works and hymns by that author or composer. The majority of the works are in the public domain (i.e., not copyrighted), but those that have copyrights are noted and permission instructions or contact information is given.

Paul S. Jones (D.M., Indiana University) is the organist and music director of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Contact and ordering information for these resources can be found online at www.modernreformation.org. Send your own suggestions for music and worship resources to modref@alliancenet.org

Open Exchange [ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 4 ]

means of grace, which characterized the intraProtestant debates during the Reformation, behind and move on to more important matters? The crucial needs of our culture and the church demand that we do.

Delbert Hooker is pastor of Immanuel Evangelical Free Church in Denver.

SPEAKING OF

od has not taken pleasure in numbers. For nothing ismoremagnificentinGod'ssightas

puredoctrine,andasoulperfectedinthedogmas

oftruth. — Gregory of Nazianzus, fourth century church father

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5 1

O R U M I N A T I O N S

N F R O M

A L L I A N C E

Y O F

C O N F E S S I N G

E V A N G E L I C A L S

N C O U N C I L

D M E M B E R S

D. A. Carson

What to Do If Revival Comes “What to Do If Revival Comes” continues Dr. Carson’s reflection on revival begun in the November/December 2002 issue, “Lift Up Your Voice!”

And what you say is true: my father was a miner, and he stopped cursing and drinking have no idea whether God in his mercy will revive and restore his church in the Western and was a changed man, and the ponies couldn’t understand world anytime soon. But I think I have a pretty good idea of what our priorities should him!” And away she went, story after story, as I probed be if genuine revival does come. with gentle questions, listening to her recall those days when In 1975, my wife and I, seeking a little reprieve the heavens were rent and the Lord came down. from our sight-seeing in southern Wales, stepped After half an hour or so, I asked, “Tell me, please, into a Calvinist Methodist church that was offering what do you do now for spiritual nourishment? afternoon tea to the passing tourists. We paid for our Who teaches you the Word of God? Where do you tea and crumpets, and I took my time looking around find fellowship with converted men and women?” the building. Its posters and literature bluntly She smiled and patted my hand. “I listen every attested that this congregation had long since week to Back to the Bible on the radio, out of Morocco.” It was an inexpressibly glorious half hour, and sacrificed its heritage in favor of classic liberalism. At the same time, I could not help noticing that equally sad. For apart from the fruit of that Revival the woman who served us tea seemed to be in her in the lives of those who were immediately touched D. A. CARSON eighties, and I wondered if she had been around by it, almost nothing was preserved. That Revival during the Welsh Revival of 1904 to 1905. I began started so well but soon became more eccentric and Research Professor of cautiously, asking if she had been in this church a forced. Worse, despite small efforts later in Swansea, almost nothing was done to capture or New Testament long time. Trinity Evangelical “Oh, yes, all my life,” she replied. “I was develop theological schools, multiply Bible teaching, or train a new generation of preachers. Divinity School brought up in this valley.” My interest in revival has not waned with the Deerfield, IL “You must have seen a lot of changes during that passing years. Wider reading, and some humbling time,” I persisted. personal exposure to what God has done in various “Yes, many changes,” she agreed. “And what is the ministry of this church like corners of the world during the past half century, now?” I asked, growing bolder. have conspired to forge an unshakable resolution “Oh,” she said, more cautious now, “the young within me. Should the Lord in his mercy ever pour people seem to like it.” out large-scale revival on any part of the world I decided this was going nowhere fast, so I asked where I have influence, I shall devote all my energy the question that was in my mind all along. “Tell to teaching the Word, to training a new generation me,” I said, “is it true that in the Welsh Revival so of godly pastors, to channeling all of this God-given many miners were converted and cleaned up their fervor toward doctrinal maturity, multiplication of language that the pit ponies that hauled out the Christian leaders, evangelistic zeal, maturity in coal could no longer understand them?” Christ, genuine Christian “fellowship.” Her face lit up. “You know about the Welsh And all of this I should have learned already Revival?” she blurted out, now completely animated. from Acts 2:42; 6:2; 1 Timothy 4:13–16; and 2 “I was converted in the Revival, just a young girl I was. Timothy 3:14–4:5.

5 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G