keeping-our-kids-may-june-2014 by Modern Reformation

vol.23 | no.3 | May-june 2014 | $6.50

Keeping Our Kids

Know what you believe and why you believe it. BRINGING THE RICH RESOURCES OF THE REFORMATION TO THE HALLWAY OF MERE CHRISTIANITY. C. S. Lewis famously remarked that “mere Christianity” is like a hallway where real conversations between Christians of different convictions can begin and develop over time as we emerge from our various rooms to speak of Christ and his gospel to one another. For twenty years, White Horse Inn has hosted this conversation both on our radio show, White Horse Inn, and in our magazine, Modern Reformation.

TO L E A R N M OR E , O R BR OW SE O UR R ADIO AND MAGAZI N E ARCHI VE S, VISIT US AT WH I TEH ORSE IN N.ORG.

features VOL.23 | NO.3 | MAY-JUNE 2014

18 22 26 30

Parenting in the Gospel BY T E DD T RI PP

Questions of Faith BY SHA NE ROS EN THAL

Fracturing the Body? BY TO M WE NG ER

Style or Substance: A Review of Contemporary Youth Bible Curricula BY BRI A N H. COSBY

Cue the Excitement: Choosing Youth Conferences Wisely

The Long View and the Sure Promise: What to Do When Your Son or Daughter Leaves the Faith

BY DAVE WRI G HT

BY MI CHA E L S. HORTON

COVER ILLUSTRATION BY JESSE LEFKOWITZ

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

WHITE HORSE INN

WEEKEND VAIL, COLORADO

DO WE ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD? Every day voices are being raised in the public square that claim all religions are essentially the same. If you don’t know how to defend your faith, you are in danger of being swallowed up by the “coexist” spirit of the age. Join us for the second annual White Horse Inn Weekend where we will equip you to answer the question, “Do We All Worship the Same God?” R E G I S T E R T O D AY W H I T E H O R S E I N N.O R G / W E E K E N D

J U LY 24-26 2014

departments 04 05 10 14

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR BY RYA N G LO MSRUD

CHRIST & CULTURE ››

Media Ecology for the Family BY T. DAVI D GO RDO N

THEOLOGY ›› Worship God’s Way BY WI LLI A M B O E K E STE I N

THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD ››

“By His Wounds We Are Healed” BY ZACH K E E LE

43 52

BOOK REVIEWS ››

Dropouts and Disciples: How Many Students are Really Leaving and What Can We Do about It?

NI LSE N, Z I MME RMA N, A ND E STEL L E

GEEK SQUAD ›› The Minutes and Papers

of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652 BY K EVI N J. BI DWE LL

BACK PAGE ››

BY E D STETZE R

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Executive Editor Ryan Glomsrud Managing Editor Patricia Anders Assistant Editor Brooke Ventura Marketing Director Michele Tedrick Design Director José Reyes for Metaleap Creative, metaleapcreative.com Department Editors Ryan Glomsrud (Letter from the Editor & Reviews), Michael S. Horton Designers Tiffany Forrester, Harold Velarde, Ashley Shugart Copy Editor Elizabeth Isaac Proofreader Ann Smith Modern Reformation © 2014 All rights reserved. ISSN-1076-7169 Modern Reformation (Subscription Department) P.O. Box 460565 Escondido, CA 92046 (855) 492-1674 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org Subscription Information US 1 YR $32. 2 YR $58. US 3 YR $78. Digital Only 1 YR $25. US Student 1 YR $26. Canada add $8 per year for postage. Foreign add $9 per year for postage.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

LETTER from the EDITOR

RYAN GLOMSRUD executive editor

Sixty percent. That’s the casualty rate in terms of teens and young adults abandoning church. The analogy that comes to mind is the First World War, where most of the casualties didn’t happen suddenly. Trench warfare at places such as the Somme, the Marne, or Verdun introduced a new kind of “war of attrition.” The German and French armies locked in a death struggle, settled in trenches, grinding each other down. They fought not so much to win a decisive victory as to wear down the enemy slowly, mercilessly chipping away at numbers, supplies, and morale. The contention of this issue of Modern Reformation is that unless we are much more strategic about how to keep our kids, we will continue to lose just such a war of attrition to modern culture. The current casualty rate should give us shell shock. In our Christ & Culture article, Professor T. David Gordon suggests a few family practices and habits that can be used to resist the tendency of our age toward distraction from the good, the true, and the beautiful. Next, Reformed minister William Boekestein reflects on the notion that God, not us, should have the first say in how we worship. And in another fantastic installment from Presbyterian pastor Zach Keele, we reflect on the astonishing fact that “Jesus will not stray from the bitter way of the cross.” Like Isaac who carried the firewood for

his own near-sacrifice, Jesus willingly carried his cross to Golgotha. While Isaac went unwittingly, Jesus knew full well what awaited him on the hill outside the gates. In our features section, pastor and wellknown family counselor Tedd Tripp gives us good news: Children aren’t saved by our parental works. That’s a weight that no parent could (or should) bear. Our responsibilities lie in other areas, such as recognizing the reality that we live in a religiously diverse—even chaotic—environment, more exotic than we realize, according to WHI producer Shane Rosenthal. As expatriates know, the connections between faith and family are all the more important in foreign territory. For parents and children, Rosenthal recommends a practice of regular informal questions and answers about faith and day-today existence. What, then, falls to the church for care of our children? This is the question that Tom Wenger, a church planting pastor, considers as he looks at the pros and cons of youth-specific ministry. Does it fracture the body? It can, but not if the goal is to “enfold” these younger sheep into the entire life of the body. To that end, seasoned youth ministry experts Brian Cosby and Dave Wright provide invaluable advice on both youth ministry curricula and conferences. Concluding this theme, Michael Horton uses the Heidelberg Catechism and Reformed baptismal forms to encourage us to “take the long view” and remember “the sure promise.” We won’t win a decisive victory for our children against the powers and principalities of this evil age. Fortunately, that’s a victory that Christ already secured. But until his return in glory, when he’ll make footstools of his enemies, we need to wage this war of attrition with far more thought and care. It’s for the sake of our children.

“IT’S FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN.”

C H R I S T & C U LT U R E

Media Ecology for the Family by T. DAVID GORDON

C H R I S T & C U LT U R E

or over a decade I have taught an introductory course on Media Ecology at Grove City College, and I have written two little books about worship that are profoundly informed by Media Ecology. To write on this topic interests me in a number of ways, not the least of which is the interesting lexical issue: that at the root of the word “ecology” is the Greek word oikos, ordinarily translated “house” or “household.” As someone who also teaches Greek, what could be more fun than to discuss, as it were, “media household-understanding for the household”? I will attempt, after a few introductory comments about the discipline called Media Ecology, to describe the most significant characteristics of electronic and digital technologies that would rightly concern the Christian community, and then suggest a few family practices that might appropriately address those concerns.

TH E NATU R E O F M E DIA ECO LO GY A S A D IS C IP L IN E As a discipline, Media Ecology is neither prescriptive (“You shall…”) nor proscriptive (“You shall not…”), but rather descriptive. In its modern expression, the discipline was virtually founded by Marshall McLuhan, whose most significant work was even titled Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.1 Media ecologists attempt to understand how media shape individuals and cultures, as McLuhan himself said: Today, in the electronic age of instant communication, I believe that our survival, and at the very least our comfort and happiness, is predicated on understanding the nature of our new environment, because unlike previous environmental changes, the electric media constitute a total and near-instantaneous transformation of culture, values, and attitudes.2 Note that McLuhan is referring here to the electronic, pre-digital world of radio, movies,

television, and telephone—“our new environment.” This is why Media Ecology is called Media Ecology. We attempt to understand how shifts in media alter the human environment, as Neil Postman said: In any case…a change in an environment is rarely only additive or linear. You seldom, if ever, have an old environment plus a new element, such as a printing press or an electric plug. What you have is a totally new environment requiring a whole new repertoire of survival strategies. In no case is this more certain than when the new elements are technological.3 I emphasize this descriptive and environmental nature of Media Ecology, because it permits me to disappoint the reader while explaining why I do so. Our discipline is not prescriptive or proscriptive; it does not consist of a moral evaluation of human media (e.g., speaking orally is good; writing a handwritten letter is evil). We evaluate human media environmentally, by understanding how different media alter individual consciousness and neurology, and how they alter cultural patterns and structures. Parents, especially, want us to give them the equivalent of the Ten Commandments of Media (e.g., “You shall not watch television…You shall honor your iPad and your iPhone”), and parents are frustrated when we do not do this (though I will attempt a little counsel later). T HE MOST SI GNI FI CA NT C ONCE RNS AB OU T ELE CT RONI C A ND DI GI TA L ME DI A It is evident that our various electronic and digital media have helped and do help us in many ways. I work with a digital Greek New Testament nearly every day of the year, and it permits me to conduct remarkable grammatical and lexical searches. But since the relevant industries bombard us with commercial messages touting their

benefits, I will not bore the readers by enumerating them all here, for the sake of alleged fairness. Rather, I would like to summarize, as briefly as possible, three of the areas where media ecologists have registered concern, especially pertaining to young people: dis-incarnation, distraction, and the “adolescent ghetto.”

of the Mars Hill Audio series, has frequently cautioned Christians about breezily dismissing incarnation as though it were nothing, suggesting that to diminish our own incarnation (our own presence in the flesh) necessarily leads to diminishing Christ’s incarnation. What if, for instance, in God’s economy, the Father could have done for Christ what Abraham did for Isaac? What if the 1 . D I S -I NCA R NATIO N Father—seeing his eternal Son’s willingness to Electronic technologies, such as the telephone, incarnate, suffer, and die—counted that as good began a process of “dis-incarnate” communication enough, willing to forgive sinners on that score; and that the digital technologies have only exacerbated. what if he then sent some angel (or Balaam’s ass) In oral cultures, for instance, every communicato tell us that our sins were forgiven? Would this tive act has a human who is visibly present; all be the same religion, or even close to it? No bloody communication is face-to-face. tears in Gethsemane? No crown Writing cultures move a step of thorns? No “rich wounds, yet away from this, but only partly. visible above, in beauty glorified”? A handwritten letter still has Recognizing the physical pressome “personality’ in it, in the ence of another is to join God, who sense that some individuals can made us as material beings, in seeat least recognize the handwriting that it was “very good” to have ing of others. Note, however, that done so. In other words, those acts the handwritten letter makes no of courtesy by which we acknowlnoise; the author of the handwritedge the physical presence of ten letter is obviously absent. But another human are also acts T. DAVID GORDON with a phone call, what the recipof piety, whereby we acknowlient encounters is not the entire edge God’s wisdom in making person but an aspect of the perus this way. My elderly grandfason—the person’s voice (though ther always stood when a woman with some signal-to-noise ratio entered the room, even if he had issues). So, is the individual who to lean on his cane to get up. His phones another “present” or rising to his feet, albeit shakily, “absent,” and how do these techwas his way of saying: “Why look Why Johnny nologies redefine what “presence” here; it’s the image of God, and in Can’t Preach and “absence” mean? When we this case, Adam’s great compleP&R, 2009 Skype, we see a video of the perment, without whom creation was son and hear the person’s voice ‘not good.’” Digital technologies (each, again, with some distorcan so distract us that we do not tion), but are we really “present” even notice the bodily presence with the individual? Note the of others, because our attention is interesting dynamic with comdiverted to those who are absent. mittee conference calls, as the 2. DISTRACTION moderator asks at some point Digital technologies appear to be if everyone is “present.” No one Why Johnny similar to the electronic technolreally knows what to say, because, Can’t Sing Hymns ogies that preceded them. After by one definition, nobody is presP&R, 2010 all, is a cell phone really very difent; but, by another definition, ferent from a telephone? Are everyone in the group is present. YouTube videos on a smartphone Ken Myers, host and producer

FOR FURTHER READING

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

C H R I S T & C U LT U R E

or iPad really different from television? Well, yes; they are different in some ways, especially because of their portability. Many, if not most, of the digital devices have alarms and alert messages, notifying the user of incoming texts, e-mails, voicemails, tweets, and so on. Neurologists and media ecologists, however, are wondering about the result of frequent distraction.4 Neurologists are aware of what some call “neurogenesis” or “neuroplasticity,” the brain’s tendency to rewire itself. As the brain handles the many stimuli brought to it by the senses, new synaptic pathways develop in the effort to process the information. Because of this, an fMRI (functional MRI) of one’s brain would not be identical from one year to the next (or, actually, sooner). Neurologists also observe that humans are capable of “executive attention,” which is different from “alarming/alerting” attention. This executive attention is what enables us to ask and answer difficult or complex questions. A brain that is frequently distracted gets better at being alarmed and worse at concentrating; frequent distraction erodes executive attention. And since attention is important to intellectual and social development, parents should be rightly concerned about their children’s attention patterns (and their own). Their concern should not be merely for the content of what their children attend (violence or profanity), but how frequently their minds flit from one thing to another, even if it’s a Christian video or another believer tweeting or e-mailing Christian encouragement. Television programming interrupts itself every five minutes for several commercial messages; this also contributes to the decline of attentiveness (and eighteen minutes of every hour of commercial television consists of the commercials). 3. T H E A D O L E S C E NT G HET TO

As the Internet pertains to young people, I refer to it as “The World Narrow Web.” Not only are Google’s algorithms tailored to each individual user, various social software have created a

universe for adolescents that is, effectively, adult free. Children rarely overhear an adult conversation, because they are so frequently podded up or lost in their iPad or smartphone—devices that connect them to one another while distancing them from adults (whom they will one day be). Emory University’s Mark Bauerlein puts it this way: A different social life and a different mental life have formed among them. Technology has bred it.…Instead of opening young American minds to the stores of civilization and science and politics, technology has contracted their horizon to themselves, to the social scene around them. Young people have never been so intensely mindful of and present to one another, so enabled in adolescent contact. Teen images and songs, hot gossip and games, and youth-to-youth communications no longer limited by time or space wrap them up in a generational cocoon.5 Professor Bauerlein is not alone. Dr. Christian Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at Notre Dame, has observed the same disturbing pattern: Most emerging adults live this crucial decade of their life surrounded mostly by their peers—people who have no more experience, insight, wisdom, perspective, or balance than they do. It is sociologically a very odd way to help young people come of age, to learn how to be responsible, capable, mature adults.6 While it has always been important that parents devote time to their children, it is even more important now than ever, because the digital technologies tend to connect young people to other young people and not to adults. Parents would be well advised to begin positive, intentional family activities at an early age as a way of establishing habits and patterns that will remain beneficial to their children as they get older.

“RECOGNIZING THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF ANOTHER IS TO JOIN GOD, WHO MADE US AS MATERIAL BEINGS, IN SEEING THAT IT WAS ‘VERY GOOD’ TO HAVE DONE SO.” COUNTE R CU LTU RAL FAMILY P R ACTI C E S In addition to all of the obvious benefits of the digital technologies, they have (at least) these three destructive tendencies: they dis-incarnate; they distract; and they segregate adolescents from adults. The best solutions are positive: to implement family practices and habits that resist these tendencies. For instance, families could consider having times together (several times weekly perhaps) for some activity (watching a movie, reading a book, hiking, and so forth) in which no digital technologies were permitted to interrupt. Similarly, they could (I am tempted to say “should”) banish all digital technologies from family meals. Basic cell phone/texting courtesy could also be observed in the home: no speaking on any phone to anyone absent while others are materially present; ask permission to excuse yourself, and then answer the call (if necessary) in another room (or wait and answer it later). I would suggest also that texting in the presence of others should be regarded as rude, unless

those present suggest/request it: “Susan isn’t here yet. Text her and see if she plans to join us.” Such measures would train young people in the habit of noticing those who are materially present— materially present because God made them that way. Also, by not permitting digital distraction during these times, young people would develop an increasing (rather than decreasing) capacity for sustained attention. Similarly, by having family activities at an early age, young people would regard it as normal to socialize with parents and siblings, and not merely their own group of peers/ friends, and would thus have more ability to resist the adolescent ghetto later. Any activities that would encourage intergenerational communication, and any activities that would enhance the powers of attention, should be encouraged. If an eleven-year-old son learns to play chess with a parent and enjoys doing so twice weekly, this will help him resist the attention-destroying siren song of video games. Playing puzzles or word games would also develop powers of concentration and recognition of the presence of others. Any family that is concerned about dis-incarnation, distraction, or ghetto-ized adolescents could easily think of ways to establish positive alternative habits to those of our digitized culture. In this sense, nothing is new. Christians have always been called to resist conformity to this age (Rom. 12:2); it is just that “this age” in our age is digital.

T. David Gordon is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and associate professor of religion at Grove City College (Grove City, Pennsylvania).

1 Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994). 2 George Sanderson and Frank Macdonald, eds., with an introduction by John Cage, Marshall McLuhan: The Man and His Message (Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 1989), 1; emphasis mine. 3 Neil Postman with Charles Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity (New York: Delta, 1971), 7; emphasis mine. 4 Maggie Jackson and Bill McKibben, Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age (Prometheus Books, 2008); Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes our Future (Tarcher Press, 2008); Winifred Gallagher, Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life (New York: Penguin, 2009); Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, vol. 302, no. 1 (July/August 2008), 56–63; and The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (New York: Norton, 2010). 5 Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes our Future (Tarcher Press, 2008), 10. 6 Christian Smith with Kari Christoffersen, Hilary Davidson, and Patricia Snell Herzog, Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood (New York: Oxford, 2011), 234.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THEOLOGY

Worship

GODâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S WAY by WILLIAM BOEKESTEIN

e live in a place and time of unparalleled individual freedom of choice. We choose how we dress from an almost endless number of options. We decide whether we want our books in paper or digital format. Young people graduating from high school or college enjoy a host of vocational opportunities. Our culture trains us to think that we should be able to have things our way. In the 1990s, Burger King advertised its menu with the slogan, “Your way, right away.” In the 1980s, AT&T advertised itself as “the right choice” for telecommunication and technology needs. Since the 1970s, abortion advocates have referred to their movement as “pro-choice”—an extremely clever move considering societal sovereignty of choice. This emphasis on choice and individual freedom has significant implications for how we view worship. Given the combination of personal mobility and an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord of church flavors, Americans today have almost limitless latitude in terms of how, where, and when we worship. To be fair, these worship options are not necessarily bad, nor are they avoidable. But they do challenge us to sift through the options with biblical wisdom. Sadly, many people seem to weigh liturgical options on the scale of personal preference and emotional attraction: “I like more energetic worship, so I attend church X,” or “I prefer more contemplative worship, so I go to church Y.” Too seldom do people reflect on worship by asking the following kinds of questions: “Does God have anything to say about how I worship? Should something more than my feelings and preferences determine how and where I meet with God? Is there an authoritative guide to Christian worship?” In answering these questions, we are greatly

helped by the second commandment, which, like the others, summarizes what God’s will both requires and rules out. God tells us that he reserves for himself the right to decide how we worship and that he has explained his will in his word. WORSHI P I S STA NDA RDI Z E D BY S CRI P T U RE This thesis makes more sense if we understand how the Ten Commandments are divided. The Reformed and (most) evangelical churches follow the orthodox ordering of the commandments in which the second commandment prohibits worshiping the Lord according to the habit of the nations; that is, by a visible representation of God (Exod. 20:4–6). By contrast, Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches include these verses on images in the first commandment (to maintain the Ten Commandments, they divide “our” last MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THEOLOGY

commandment into two: the ninth forbids a man to covet his neighbor’s wife; the tenth forbids him from desiring his neighbor’s goods). The point is that the first two commandments mandate us to worship God alone and only in a way that conforms to his will. In other words, not everything that moves us emotionally (such as an image) is appropriate for worship. The governing question in many modern churches is: “What will produce a stimulating religious impulse?” The question ought to be: “What does God say worship services should look like?” No single church or tradition answers that question perfectly. The problem today is that many churches are no longer even asking the question. Nadab and Abihu should have asked the question. They had been commanded to worship God in a particular fashion. Instead, discontented with God’s instruction, they offered “strange fire” for which God consumed them with his own holy flame (Lev. 10:1–2). The principle—that God regulates worship— flies in the face of much worship today, which is often driven by an itch for innovation and justified by having good intentions. As our lawgiver, God governs our worship with full authority (Ps. 95:2–3, 6–7; Ps. 96:9–10). He still says, “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it, nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32; cf. Matt. 28:20). WO R S HI P I S ST RUCT U RE D BY S CR I P TU R E Not only does the Bible regulate worship, but it also suggests to us the shape that worship should take. First, the Bible teaches us that worship is covenantal. A covenant is a binding relationship between two or more persons. Worship is a formal covenant meeting between the King and his subjects. God drew Israel out of Egypt so that she could meet with and renew covenant with him (Gen. 8:1; Deut. 5:2–4). Contrary to the contemporary status quo, worship is not meant to be an evangelistic crusade. Yes, the gospel must be

preached powerfully with both unbelievers and believers in mind. But the worship service is first a holy convocation between God and believers and their children. It should (though often doesn’t) go without saying that Scripture assumes family integration in worship (Deut. 31:11–13; Eph. 6:1–4). It should not surprise us that God’s commandment regarding the manner of proper worship should contain generational curses and blessings (Exod. 20:5– 6). Our worship services give our children an early, and often unshakable, impression of who God is and how we must relate to him. Services that suggest we can approach God on our terms, governed only by the limits of our imagination, give our children a dreadfully erroneous impression of who God is and how we must find him. Seeker-sensitive worship can even threaten one’s commitment to the biblical Christ, by whose merits alone one can approach God (Heb. 10:20). Second, the Bible teaches us that Christian worship is a conversation between God and his people that draws them more closely together. God is always the seeker of worship (John 4:23). When God calls us, we respond by pledging our dependence upon him (Ps. 124:8). God responds with his greeting (2 Cor. 13:14). We cry out with our needs (Ps. 18:6). He responds with his provision (Ps. 18:7–19). We worship him for his goodness (Ps. 18:49). He sends us forth with his blessing (2 Cor. 13:14). We must be diligent in continually searching the Scriptures and evaluating our worship in light of these principles; we have not yet “built” the perfect worship service. At the same time, we have received a sound pattern of worship from the historic church that we ignore to our impoverishment. WORSHI P I S SATU RATED WIT H S CRI P T U RE Contrary to the practice in some churches, Christian worship is inherently verbal, not visual. To this point, the second commandment

“NOW WE ARE ALL HERE IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD TO LISTEN TO EVERYTHING THE LORD HAS COMMANDED YOU TO TELL US.” explicitly condemns making images of God whereby to worship him. The golden calf was not another god; it was Israel’s attempt to serve Jehovah by visual means (Exod. 32:4–5). By implication, the historic Protestant Church has largely been critical of the use of images of any of the three persons of the Trinity (Deut. 4:15–19)—and for good reason. Images give a biased impression of God based on the artist’s creative abilities and theological proclivities. A beautiful image of Christ could be in contrast to Isaiah 53:2. An Anglo-Saxon image of Christ, apart from being historically inaccurate, can communicate an ethno-centricity. A cartoonish image of Christ runs the risk of stripping the Second Person of the Trinity of the dignity he deserves. No image of Christ can communicate his divinity, and so every image necessarily separates Christ’s two natures. God saw fit to send to earth Jesus of Nazareth as his fleshly image. But then he took this image back to heaven and gave us the Word that must now form our impressions of God. Instead of crucifixes, paintings, or candles, out of loving sensitivity to our physicality, God gives us the sacraments (Mark 1:5; Acts 2:42). When God called Israel out of Egypt to Mount Sinai, it was abundantly clear that he had center stage and that his speech should stop every mouth (Deut. 5:5). Biblical Christians are still convinced that when the church gathers for worship, God speaks (Heb. 12:25–27). We honor God’s word the way Cornelius received Peter: “Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us” (Acts 10:33; NIV). This means Scripture must be read (1 Tim. 4:13), preached (2 Tim. 4:2), and sung (Col. 3:16).

God’s revelation even permeates our prayers (Matt. 6:9–13; 1 Tim. 2:1–2). WORSHI P P E RS ARE S ANCT I FI E D BY S C RI P T U RE Of course, it is no use to have a biblical service if our participation in that service does not please God. Scripture teaches us that our attitude matters deeply when it comes to worship. As God sanctifies us with his word (Eph. 5:26), we are enabled to worship him to his pleasure. First, this means that worship must be interpersonal. We belong to God. We are his special treasure (Exod. 19:5; Ps. 45:11; Isa. 54:5). Therefore, worship is not an abstract experience with the divine. It is an intimate engagement with a triune being. Second, our worship must be reverent, whether expressed in gladness or mourning. Toward this end, our worship services must communicate God’s transcendence. We do not attempt to bring God down to earth; he raises us up to heaven (Heb. 12:22–24). We should have the sense that we are standing on holy ground (even if literally we aren’t). Third, worship must be sincere and simple. God despises duplicitous worship (Isa. 1:15). Simplicity and sincerity are often codependent. The more a worship service resembles a high-tech rock concert, the more difficult it becomes to offer thoughtful, sincere worship to God. Finally, worship must be zealous. The words from Hebrews 12:12 could serve as a suitable call to vigorous worship: “Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees” and worship the Lord! God is jealous for his own worship (Exod. 34:14; 1 Cor. 10:22). Do we provoke God’s jealousy? Should we not instead worship him in such a way that satisfies and pleases him? To do so, his word must be the controlling influence in our services—and in our heads, hearts, and hands—as we meet with our Lord.

William Boekestein is the pastor of Covenant Reformed Church (URCNA) in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. He is the author of Faithfulness under Fire: The Story of Guido de Bres (Reformation Heritage, 2011) and The Quest for Comfort: The Story of the Heidelberg Catechism (Reformation Heritage, 2011).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THE

G R E AT E ST STORY EVER TOLD

The New Testament

PART III

“BY HIS WOUNDS WE ARE HEALED” by ZACH KEELE

hy is it that medical professionals seem particularly apt at the skill of underestimation? With that horse needle in hand, they say, “You will just feel a little prick.” That little prick feels like a Bowie knife. The “gentle” scrubbing of your cut tears like a belt-sander. You bite your tongue trying to be tough, but you can’t help thinking that you were just told a fib. At least Mary Poppins added a little sugar to the bitter medicine. Yet, in real life there are maladies that require brutal honesty. We need to be told that the remedy is really going to hurt or taste like cod-liver oil. All the dangers and risks of the surgery must be listed out. The cancer is too perilous to be sugarcoated. Too much is at stake. Likewise, as the Gospels bring us to the final hours of Christ’s earthly life, they honor him by using no sweetener. They serve us well by refusing a G-rating. If you think about it, the Passion narratives are exactly what you would not usually find in a children’s book. They are not the topic of polite society chitchat. But they are precisely what our kids need. There is no better medicine for our souls. Christ’s pain, after all, was inflicted for our crimes. We deserve the wounds he suffered. His agony was his becoming sin for us. Without a doubt, the sting of Christ’s humiliation began with the splinters of the manger, but the pressure cranked up as his end approached. He could see the pain charging right at him. A few days before his death, as Jesus entered Jerusalem, the looming cross stabbed our Lord’s soul. He raised his eyes to heaven crying, “My soul is troubled” (John 12:27). Reclining at the Last Supper, Jesus could sense the sands of his life ebbing. He knew Judas would betray him with a kiss, and he spoke about the rest deserting him. PHOTOGRAPH BY MARCO, IMAGE BRIEF.

Loneliness pressed in on him, laboring his breathing. Jesus asked his best friends for the smallest favor of saying a little prayer, but they fell asleep. In the shadows of Gethsemane, the boulder of loneliness struck him; even his Father turned away his face. The cup of wrath had to be drunk. No wonder his sweat dripped red. But then it really began to get brutal. An armed battalion seized Jesus like a common criminal. Witnesses lied about him; scribes mocked him; priests spit in his face and backhanded him. Jesus’ own people, those he attempted to gather under his wings, abused and tormented him. And through it all, Jesus was silent. He did not retaliate but willingly endured. The priests charged him as a political revolutionary and then handed our Lord over to Pilate. It did not take long, though, for Pilate to realize the charge MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

T H E G R E AT E S T S T O R Y E V E R T O L D

was rubbish. He declared Jesus innocent, but the priests would not have it. A political arm-wrestling match began between Pilate and the priests, and Jesus was the whipping boy in the middle. Pilate offered to release Jesus, but the priests selected Barabbas. Pilate then flogged Jesus in order to persuade the priests that Jesus was harmless (John 19:1). Our Lord’s back was laid bare. The cruel whip chewed up his flesh. Bones that are not meant to be seen were seen. And the soldiers laughed. It was a game for them. Here is a purple robe and here a bunch of thorns for a crown. The soldiers created a caricature of a king. They ridiculed him as the “king of the thorns.” Again and again, the soldiers taunted, “Hail, the King of the Jews,” and then slapped him across the face (John 19:3). But what is remarkable is that Jesus let this happen. Jesus did not lessen the pain. Jesus would not stray from the bitter way of the cross. Therefore, Pilate ended up losing to the priests. Their chants of “crucify him!” won out over Pilate’s “I find no guilt in him.” So Pilate handed Jesus over to the executioners. At the very hour when all the people were heading into Jerusalem for the Passover, while all the lambs were being sacrificed, Jesus walked outside, bearing his own cross (John 19:17). The cross was the symbol of guilt and sin. It was the verdict of the broken covenant of works—all sinners shall taste the curse of death. Like the boy Isaac who carried the firewood for his burning, so Christ willingly bore the wood for his sacrifice. And the weight of this cross was not measured in pounds of timber but in the spiritual tonnage of our sin. Our rebellions, our lies, our lusts, our selfishness were stacked like lead on his cross. Jesus lugged this cross outside to the Skull Place, and in between two bandits Jesus was crucified. Nailed to the tree, our Savior was mocked with the sign overhead: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” But the agony was not yet finished. At the foot of the cross, the soldiers gambled for his clothes, even for his tunic (John 19:24), which meant Jesus hung there naked. The last common grace, his clothing, was taken from our Lord. The

“JUST AS THE SHAME OF BEING NAKED WAS THE FIRST SIGN OF THE FALL FOR ADAM AND EVE, SO LIKEWISE JESUS BORE THE FULL DISGRACE OF OUR SIN.” Son of God was publicly executed naked. Just as the shame of being naked was the first sign of the fall for Adam and Eve, so likewise Jesus bore the full disgrace of our sin. Finally, in order to fulfill Scripture, Jesus said, “I thirst.” But the soldiers did not show him pity even here. Water was not given to him—only vinegar. Imagine having a dry and cracked throat and having to drink vinegar. Its acidity would sear your throat. This is what was offered our Lord and he drank. He drained the cup of wrath down to its dregs. And with this he declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30). He completed the work given to him by the Father. Jesus had fulfilled all righteousness, so he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. He willingly died. John tells us that Jesus loved his own to the end (13:1). This is him loving us, bearing the full agony of our sin, suffering the full judgment due us. What can we say to such a survey of Christ’s cross but “love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.”

Zach Keele is pastor of Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Escondido, California.

features 18

PARENTING IN THE GOSPEL

FRACTURING THE BODY?

QUESTIONS OF FAITH

STYLE OR SUBSTANCE

CUE THE EXCITEMENT

THE LONG VIEW AND THE SURE PROMISE MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

ONS ISSI TH M YOU

VAC ATION ATI ON BBIBIB LE SCC HOOL H OO OOLL

I T S I HR

IO D A NR OV L U N

PARENTING IN THE GOSPEL

FA L L R ET R EAT

TEE R I N G

S U N D AY SC HOOL

by TEDD TRIPP

TEEN

YOU C

CHR ISTI

TH C

HUR

AN S CHO OL

FA L L YOU YYO U TH RETR RETREAT EAT

HR I S T I NM U S IC

AF M I

V E D LY

A TO I O N

STUD

Y BI

BLE

ll Christian parents desire the spiritual well-being of their children. We want our children to be Christians, to get saved, to know God; however we express it, we want our children to be part of the company of the redeemed. We yearn for the blessing of God’s covenant grace to be on our children. This longing to see one generation follow another in knowing God motivates the training and instruction of our children. Psalm 78:3–7 (ESV) captures it: Things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done. He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and teach to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments. We declare God’s mighty acts to the next generation (Ps. 145) because we long for our children to know the grace we have known. We teach God’s ways so that our sons and our son’s sons will follow God (Deut. 6). Moved by this passion, Christian parents also long for assurance that their children will grow up Christian. I have been asked hundreds of times all over the globe, “If I do all the things you teach in Shepherding a Child’s Heart, will my children grow up to be Christians? Doesn’t the Bible teach that if

we raise them right, our children will walk in God’s ways? Doesn’t God’s covenant guarantee they will be saved?” How can we think about these things? Why do some children raised in Christian homes grow up loving God, while others, sometimes from the same home, turn away? In answering this question, we must identify two issues that have an impact on the persons our children become: the shaping influences of their lives and the Godward orientation of their hearts. S H AP I NG I NFLU E NCES Shaping influences are those events and circumstances in a child’s developmental years that prove to be catalysts for making him the person he is. There is clear biblical warrant for acknowledging the lifelong implications of early childhood experience. The major passages dealing with family (Deut. 6, Eph. 6, and Col. 3) presuppose the importance of shaping influences—they include your faithfulness as a parent, the consistency of correction and discipline in your home, your nurture, your teaching MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

of Christian truth, your family times in God’s word, how they respond to your parenting efforts. Two even the ways you demonstrate spiritual vitality children from the same home may respond in very before your children. different ways to the same parenting style. That’s Your children interact with every shaping influwhy it is not possible to provide a guarantee that if ence you provide on the basis of the Godward you get it right, children will respond with faith. orientation of their hearts. Here is what I mean: The desire for such assurances is easily underyour children are covenantal beings. Humanity is stood. From the time your first child is born, you essentially religious; no one is realize you will never have a happy truly neutral—even our children day if your child is unhappy. The worship either Jehovah or idols. parents’ love creates a longing for All of us filter the experiences of their child to thrive and flourish. life through a religious grid. That desire takes on eternal sigIn the book of Romans, the nificance when we think of our Apostle Paul reminds us that children’s immortality. The idea the truth of God revealed in that they could go into eternity creation leaves all mankind without God is unbearable for any without excuse. All human believing parent. So we long for TED TRIPP beings respond to this revelaassurance that there is something tion in creation; they either we can do that will guarantee their worship God or, in the words of everlasting joy and happiness in the Romans 1, they “exchange the presence of God. truth for a lie and worship and I recall how sobering these serve created things.” Fallen thoughts were to me as a young humans refuse to acknowledge father. I realized that as a fallen and submit to the things God man I had passed on to my young Shepherding has made plain in the creation. children a nature that is fallen and a Child’s Heart Paul further observes that when corrupt, but I could not pass on to Shepherd Press, 1995 people know God in the creation them the grace of forgiveness and and do not glorify him, they fall new life in Christ. I remember into futile thinking that leads to thinking that each day as I taught idolatry. my children the Scriptures I gave The Godward orientation of the heart ultimately them truth that would either be their salvation or determines how your children will respond to the increase their accountability before God, for to truth you teach them. If they bow before idols rather whom much is given much will be expected. than God, they will reject your best efforts at training them in his ways. C H I LD SA LVATI ON Proverbs 9:7–10 shows us that there are two difBY (PA RE NTA L) WORKS? ferent ways children respond to correction, rebuke, instruction, and teaching. One is the response of the We cannot save our children. We don’t like to face wise or righteous child. He loves his instructor; he that. We long for some guarantee, some assurgrows wiser; he increases in his learning. The other ance that if we do the right things they will turn fellow—the mocker, the wicked child—responds out all right. But in some ways, it is a relief to face with hatred, insults, and abuse. What accounts for that reality. If you think of it, the idea that we must the difference? “The fear of the Lord is the beginsave them through our good works is a pressure ning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy no parent can bear. It hinges our children’s eterOne is insight.” Wisdom determines how a child nal destiny on our ability to perform. We have responds to correction. Your children are never to be able to represent God in all his glory, teach neutral in response to your parenting but always them adequately, be a vibrant example of true spiractive. Whatever they do with God, whatever they ituality, and we have to do it all flawlessly or our determine to worship and serve, will determine

BY THE AUTHOR

children will be forever lost. The fact is that I failed as a parent. Too often my pride and self-righteousness got in the way. I personalized my children’s sins as if they were sins against me and not against God. I was inconsistent, sometimes capricious, too busy, too concerned about me, too blind to the idols of my heart. WHAT AR E WE TO D O? Then why bother? If I cannot be assured that good biblical parenting will produce saved children, why bother? Why work so hard at the parenting task? Why read books on parenting, why work so hard on the ways we structure family life and the effort we put into things like family worship, faithfulness in church, and careful, timely, appropriate discipline? We do these things because it is our calling as God’s redeemed people. Ephesians 6:4 says we should bring up our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Deuteronomy 6 says that God’s words are to be upon our hearts and impressed diligently upon our children. We do these things out of love for God. It is our delight to obey God and to teach his ways to our children. His grace makes us delight in him and his law in our inmost being (Rom. 7:22). Parents often ask, “What hope then is there for my kids, if I cannot get them into the Kingdom by my faithful parenting? What’s my hope?” Our hope is not our fidelity to the law of good parenting but to the power of the gospel. Our hope is the wonder of grace. Our hope is that God has placed our children in our home and has given us the one true answer for our kids’ most profound needs. God has put them in a family where they are confronted with their sin and the goodness of the One who came into the world to save sinners. Every day I am bringing grace to my children. I have the opportunity to model the grace of the gospel by honestly confessing my own failures and responding to their failures with gracious discipline and discipling. They daily hear the word of God. We know that faith comes by hearing. Each week we gather where the church sings God’s praises, and they hear God’s people pray and listen to the word of God preached. They are confronted with the vibrant reality of the worshiping church, interpreting life through the

“I PERSONALIZED MY CHILDREN’S SINS AS IF THEY WERE SINS AGAINST ME AND NOT AGAINST GOD. I WAS INCONSISTENT, SOMETIMES CAPRICIOUS, TOO BUSY, TOO CONCERNED ABOUT ME, TOO BLIND TO THE IDOLS OF MY HEART.” lens of Scripture. Historically, God has used these means to bring people to faith, and so I pray week by week that God will, through these means, shine his light into their hearts, giving them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). There was a mother whom I was privileged to serve in the church. She prayed for her son’s salvation. She prayed for fifty-eight years without giving way to unbelief, but she died without seeing him come to faith. Within several years of her death, however, God brought her son to see his need for grace and to embrace Christ and his saving grace. Her prayers were answered even though she did not live to see the answer. This hope will seem insufficient to the one who is looking for performance guarantees. But this is a realistic hope that keeps me on my knees before God, beseeching him to do in and for my children what I cannot do myself. It keeps me humble in prayer, asking God to use the means he has appointed. It keeps me casting myself on his grace and mercy. It makes me a humble supplicant before the sovereign God of grace. My encouragement is not that I can get it right but that God is a willing, able, powerful Savior of sinners.

Tedd Tripp is the senior pastor of Grace Fellowship Church in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

Q UES T I ON S

OF FA ITH by SHANE ROSENTHAL

was raised in a Jewish home without a lot of theology. Okay, to be honest, without any theology really. My father never read or discussed the Bible at home, and he was downright hostile to those who were foolish enough to knock on our door spreading their religious views. There was simply no excuse for that sort of thing. It was just wrong! Why it was wrong we were never told. I was the first to formally abandon ship when I converted to the Christian faith at age eighteen, but in reality I had checked out of Judaism long before that. I can remember being an atheist in the fourth grade, even while I was attending Hebrew school. The true miracle, I had surmised, wasn’t that Moses parted the Red Sea, but along the line it simply dried up. He cannot explain or why, but like my mother, he’s now agnostic that he got so many peo- when about religious questions and assertions, especially ple throughout the world the latter. Of course, my family’s story is not in any way to actually believe all his unique. Just change some of the labels and circumstances around a bit and you’ll discover a familiar made-up stories. and recurring pattern that affects religious adherI’m not sure when my brother ended up checking out. During the first few years of life on his own, he at least made an effort to date only Jewish girls, but he eventually settled down with a nonpracticing Catholic and had two daughters. Early on, he and his wife tried celebrating both Hanukkah and Christmas—but the flames of the menorah eventually burned out, along with all remaining vestiges of his own Jewish identity. My parents lost their faith somewhere across the decades. My mother’s faith was never classically Jewish, but rather an amalgam of American spirituality, reincarnation, and positive thinking. Still, she used to believe in God and now no longer does. My father’s faith was never a deep well, and somewhere

ents of every variety. The fact is that if we are not intentional about our faith, we will all be assimilated into the beliefs, values, and assumptions of our surrounding culture. If not today, perhaps tomorrow or twenty years down the road. But it will happen. The problem is that most of us think of contemporary American culture as the neutral playing field of our lives. But in reality, we live in a place like New Delhi. Think about that as a real possibility for a moment. If you were called to move your family overseas to a Hindu culture, you would likely begin to feel the regular and steady pressure to conform to the values and assumptions of that particular culture the more time you spent there. Since lack of conformity creates controversy, conflict, MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

and sometimes alienation, it would take a certain amount of resolve, rooted in deeply held convictions, to keep you from taking the easy way out if you were to stay in that culture for an extended period. Think also about how difficult such a transition would be on your children. A first grader might not understand the implications of being asked to pray to other gods while visiting the homes of his friends; so as a parent, you would have to be much more intentional in terms of teaching your child about the kinds of ideas and practices he should accept or reject and, more importantly, why he should accept or reject them.

In former days this sort of thing was done formally in a process we all refer to as catechism. The child would memorize questions and answers that would serve to summarize the main tenents of faith, and the child would then need to recite this material during a period of confirmation. My wife was raised in a Lutheran context, and this process was part of her religious instruction growing up. I went through a similar process in my Jewish upbringing as I studied the Hebrew language and memorized portions of the Old Testament in preparation for my bar mitzvah, at which time I was called to read from the Torah and recite various prayers from the pulpit—at age thirteen! It’s amazing to me how different the world is now from the way it was then. It was essentially an adult world, and children were called to grow up into it. We had responsibilities and duties associated with here is a battle to catechize your kids going on out our faith. Today, we’re all aware of there. But if you want to talk about brain-washing fun and exciting youth groups, but indoctrination, it is not churches that are the best how many of us impose formal reliexamples. In The High Price of Materialism (A Bradford Book, gious duties on our children, such 2003), social psychologist Tim Kasser has gathered some quoas requiring them to memorize tations from marketers that should be alarming to parents and Scripture or catechism questions? Christians alike: I believe that far too many of us, myself included, have been so ➨ A marketing professor states: “There are only two ways to influenced by the pervasive “childincrease customers. Either you switch them to your brand or centeredness” of our times that you grow them from birth.” we’ve ended up placing far fewer demands on our children when ➨ The president of a children’s specialty store chain says: “All compared with previous generaof these people understand something that is very basic and tions. Combine this with a general logical, that if you own this child at an early age, you can own distaste for rote memorization, and this child for years to come. Companies are saying, ‘Hey, I want you have a recipe for the sort of bibto own the kid younger and younger and younger.’” lical and theological illiteracy we’re currently witnessing among today’s ➨ A General Mills executive adds: “When it comes to targeting kid religious teens. consumers, we at General Mills follow the Procter & Gamble But, of course, recovering these model of ‘cradle to grave.’ We believe in getting them early and types of “antiquated” duties is not having them for life.” a one-size-fits-all solution, and I believe this is a mistake many ➨ Finally, the president of a leading ad agency declares: Christians in the Reformation tradi“Advertising at its best is making people feel that without tion frequently make. My wife will be their product, you’re a loser. Kids are very sensitive to that.… the first to tell you that her catechism You open up emotional vulnerabilities, and it’s very easy to do experience was less than complete. with kids because they’re the most emotionally vulnerable.” Though it truly helped her to understand the theology of Lutheranism, it was seriously deficient in explaining

OWNING YOUR KIDS

“WE WILL ALL BE ASSIMILATED INTO THE BELIEFS, VALUES, AND ASSUMPTIONS OF OUR SURROUNDING CULTURE. IF NOT TODAY, PERHAPS TOMORROW OR TWENTY YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.” how that theology related to just about anything else. Even as a child she was aware of other denominations and non-Christian religions, but she was never shown how Lutheranism “got it right” when compared with these other perspectives. In other words, she was told what to believe, but rarely, if ever, why to believe it. My experience was similar to this. For many years I was forced to go to Hebrew school two or three times a week, and this after I had already spent the morning and afternoon in public school. During this period I learned a great deal about Hebrew verbs and the traditions of Judaism, but I was never given a rationale for why any of this was important or true. As a result, even while I was in their midst, I had already checked out. In my own case, an obvious problem was the fact that the topic of religion wasn’t something that ever really came up in our family. So while my brother and I had religious duties, we didn’t really have a “religious life.” Synagogue or Hebrew school was the place for that. And this, I fear, is a problem that affects many contemporary Christian families as well. In short, religion has been compartmentalized to a few hours on Sunday, and religious instruction has been outsourced to the youth pastor or Sunday school teacher. In her book Almost Christian, Kenda Creasy Dean referred to Martin Luther’s Small Catechism as an “educational stroke of genius,” because she said it “located teaching out loud in households, not congregations, which had the effect

of locating Christian formation in the intimacy of families, where children drew direct connections between religious instruction at the dinner table and the lives of people that loved them.” The simple fact of the matter is that parents are the most formative influence on the life of any child, and if they are not going to be involved in passing on the faith, it’s more likely that their faith will be “passed by.” So, though I believe parents need to take a more formal role in the religious formation of their children, there’s something else I believe is even more important in our time: Christian parents themselves need to be so deeply rooted in their faith that they can regularly make use of informal opportunities to talk about crucial topics such as who God is and the difference between things like truth and opinion. We need to be able to contrast the Christian worldview with an opposing perspective that we watch in a film or listen to in the lyrics of a song. I believe we should ask our kids provocative “catechetical” questions such as, “What do you think was the basic message of that commercial we just watched, and how do you think it was trying to persuade you?”—along with an occasional, “What Bible passages come to mind when you think of this issue?” If you really want to push the envelope, you can even begin asking your kids (if they’re old enough) tough questions they’re likely to get later on in life, such as, “How do you know this is true, since there are a lot of people who have a set of beliefs different from yours?” Or “why should I trust the Bible?” In doing so, you’ll be preparing your kids to articulate answers that may be useful, not only as they interact with others, but also for doubts that may arise in their own hearts sometime down the road. You’ll also be communicating to them that your faith is serious and that it speaks to everything in life. Finally, you’ll be doing it all in a way that’s relevant, since you’ll be addressing issues that come up naturally throughout the course of everyday life. But remember: in order to do any of this well, you need to “always be ready to give an answer to the one who asks, to give a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).

Shane Rosenthal is executive producer of the White Horse Inn national radio broadcast.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

FRACTURING T H E BODY ? by TOM WENGER

fter a decade of college and young adult ministry, I am currently in the throes of planting Trinity Presbyterian Church in Annapolis. This is a word and sacrament church and will avoid â&#x20AC;&#x153;age and stageâ&#x20AC;? ministries and programs, opting instead to keep the body of Christ together in worship and study. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that in doing this I am concluding that my ten years of ministry to young adults were a waste and an unbiblical mistake. On the contrary, I think those years fulfilled a biblical command to teach, guide, and admonish those who are young. THE CHA L L E NG E The significant difference in my work over the last decade versus my choice in moving forward in a different direction revolves completely around church size. Prior to my planting a church, I worked in two large Presbyterian churches (one with over a thousand people and the other over two thousand). In scenarios like these, the potential for sheep of any age to wander out of the fold or unwittingly choose malnourishment is quite high. It is easy to hide and never really commune with the body of Christ. Without proper church authority providing discipline and guidance, and without the fellowship of

other believers providing encouragement, it is easy to fall away or starve because no one knows you. Once we account for the college or young adult factor, with all of the struggles that accompany this stage of life, the tendency toward drifting away from the church and/or feeding poorly increases exponentially. Since most are on their own for the first time, away from family and home churches, the need for the shepherding of elders and the fellowship of other believers is great. Amid larger congregations like these, how should churches seek to enfold their sheep? It is often hard in larger churches to have any kind of real connection with more than a few dozen people. The likelihood that the average congregant is even aware ILLUSTRATION BY KAMIL VOJNAR

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

of new people who need enfolding is frequently (and sadly) quite low. Even when congregations work hard to offer a warm welcome to new people (something that characterized both churches I worked in), there are only so many people you can connect with on a Sunday morning. Therefore, it is wise to create space within the congregation where newcomers (especially college students/young adults) are invited to gather. In an age where far more people begin their hunt for churches through the Internet, we found that the majority of those who joined our churches from this age group found us specifically because they noticed we had a place designated for them so they could find connection in the church right away. But where this mentality goes wrong so easily and quickly is when churches, intentionally or not, cave in to the pressure to cater to the sinful human desire to avoid associating with people we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t like or who are not like us. The goal of these ageoriented groups must be to enfold the sheep into the life of the entire church, to commune with the whole body of Christ. It cannot be (as is most often the case) to simply provide a place for them to be together, because itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more convenient than having to interact with people who are not just like them. THE HO PE One of the gracious blessings I have enjoyed over the last ten years is watching the amazing work that the Holy Spirit has done in the lives of these young people as they matured into adults who thrive in the body of Christ. One of the key reasons this has occurred is because God providentially blessed these two churches with a mentality that sought to teach and enfold their young, rather than coddle them. I have had the wonderful privilege of meeting these young people, watching them grow in their understanding of the gospel, seeing them (and sometimes helping them) meet their future spouses, performing their weddings, and baptizing

their children. I have seen many of them become phenomenal Sunday school teachers and Bible study leaders. Several have gone on to be elected as church officers, and some are now forming the core group for the church plant mentioned above. In this short time, I have watched the Lord call nearly a dozen young men to attend seminary, several to the mission field, and multiple churches planted, all from the ranks of these young adults that he enfolded into his church through the efforts of college/young adult ministry. Alternately exciting and sad is the fact that so many in this age group are hungry for this enfolding and feeding. It goes without saying why this is exciting, but what is sad is how much of this desire on their part is being ignored in so many scenarios where the focus remains on entertaining them and keeping them quartered off from the rest of the body so that theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re never made to feel uncomfortable. T HE P ROP OS A L In both of the large churches where I worked, I assumed it would take a while to convince these groups that they needed to be fed and involved in the life of the whole church. I could not have been more wrong. They were already hungry and receptive. At one of these churches there had never been a pastor designated specifically to minister to college/young adults. The church noticed a growing number of them in attendance, and, seeing a need to reach out to them and enfold them, they hired me. When I first arrived, I met with as many of them as I could and asked them what they needed most from their new pastor. I knew what my agenda was, but I wanted to gauge where they were. It was as if they had all memorized the same script (years later, I asked them if this was prearranged

and they assured me it wasn’t). They essentially gave me the same five requests:

T HE QU E STI ON

1. Don’t call us (or focus on us as) “singles.” 2. Don’t talk to us about marriage and dating, because that’s all people seem to think we need or want to hear. 3. Don’t schedule a bunch of social activities (we do that on our own). 4. Teach us the word of God. 5. Help us build relationships with the elders and elders’ wives.

After ten years of this, why am I planting a church that will not include such a ministry? Because creating these age/stage groups in a church where everyone can already easily connect and know one another would only fracture such a body. It would add an unnecessary barrier to enfolding people. So many people simply assume that every church must have a specific ministry for men, women, college age, youth, children, empty nesters, retirees, and so on. But why? Where does Scripture ever dictate such a mind-set? Nowhere is the church ever told to give people what interests them most. Rather, God clearly calls the church to give people what they need, regardless of what they want (John 6:65–66; 2 Tim. 4:3), and he assures us that this will not be a popular option. Because it is not natural or intuitive for us to seek these things, the Spirit graciously moves us to seek such food through the word as it is fed to us by his shepherds. And this is why it is so important that pastors and elders bend over backwards to ensure proper care and nourishment for their sheep. In large churches this can become a Herculean challenge, and yet it is never acceptable to exempt oneself from such duties by saying that there are simply too many to shepherd. It would be no different from an actual shepherd saying he simply had too many sheep to feed, so some are going to have to fend for themselves. We see this as poor care for animals, but often let the same happen spiritually to Christ’s sheep even though he emphatically called us to feed them (John 21:15–17). In order to gather your sheep for such biblically demanded care, you may indeed have to opt for a college-age or young adult group. But as long as the purpose of such a group is feeding them with Christ and bringing them into the entire body, then such groups should be productive and actually promote unity within the church. It takes great attention and vigilance, however, to resist the constant cultural and selfish urge to make such groups an end in themselves, for this can indeed fracture the body that Christ has called to live in unity together.

I couldn’t have written a better job description! The elders were shocked when I brought this to their attention. Several of them, having raised babyboomer children, were the most shocked—and delighted. One of them, an 81-year-old WWII pilot and widower, said, “I don’t know why they’d want to hang out with old guy like me, but I’d love to get to know some of them.” He came faithfully to our Bible study every week—and you’d have thought a celebrity was in attendance. They couldn’t wait to hear what he had to say, to share decades of wisdom that they (and even their pastor) lacked. And he took it upon himself to mold many of the young men for future service in the church. He nominated them as church officers and regularly met with many of them to provide the guidance they desperately needed. It was an excellent picture of how the family of God should function.

“THE GOAL OF THESE AGE-ORIENTED GROUPS MUST BE TO ENFOLD THE SHEEP INTO THE LIFE OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, TO COMMUNE WITH THE WHOLE BODY OF CHRIST.”

Tom Wenger is an assistant pastor at the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Annapolis (PCA) in Annapolis, Maryland.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

STYLE TYLE UBSTANCE SUBSTANCE or

A REVIEW OF CONTEMP ORARY YOUTH BIBLE CURRICULA

by BRIAN H. COSBY

he vast majority of youth-targeted Bible studies and curricula make it their priority to be “culturally relevant,” “engaging,” “cutting edge,” “creative,” “radical,” or “real” (actual statements promoting popular studies). Many are filled with Hollywood movie clips, icebreakers, and calls to confront the “real world” with love and without the narrow confines of old heady doctrine. For these studies, the approach shapes the content. I’ve selected a sampling of some of the most popular, best-selling, and what I believe to be the most biblically faithful youth Bible studies and curricula available today.

WHAT’S POPULAR? STUDIES ON THE GO (Youth Specialties).

Actually takes the student through books of the Bible. They are full of intriguing, thought-provoking questions, but the questions are not answered and thus lack actual teaching and content.

ENCOUNTER CURRICULUM

(Simply Youth

through DVDs and places a high priority on Scripture generally. It tries too hard, however, to be “cool” and relevant and doesn’t fully get into the text of Scripture. Rather, it highlights big-picture themes and applications.

(Standard

Filled with colorful pages and catchy graphics, the Encounter curriculum emphasizes moralistic teaching with little to no gospel. It teaches through cheesy fill-in-the-blank worksheets with without much actual content. Publishing).

BIBLE STUFF SERIES

Ministry). Contains decent teaching

LIFE CHOICES (Outreach). Provides students with good historical context of Scripture passages and places high priority on reading the Scriptures in private devotions, but doesn’t teach much.

WHAT’S MISSING FROM THESE STUDIES? GOD-CENTEREDNESS. These studies do not highlight God’s attributes, character, self-sufficiency, or supremacy, namely, the glory of the God who draws us to himself. Thus the student is left with a plea to “try God” or just apply the “moral of the story,” as if the student is the autonomous arbiter of salvation and meaning. HISTORICAL-REDEMPTIVE CONTEXTS. Few, if any, of these studies place the Scripture passages in their historical-redemptive context to show how they point to Christ and the gospel, or where it fits within salvation history. Thus they tend toward moralism or what I call Home Depot theology: “You can do it; God can help.”

ACTUAL BIBLICAL TEACHING. While these studies provide good thought-provoking questions, they are rarely answered with Scripture. It leaves students deciding “truth” for themselves. AVOIDANCE OF “SIN.” You will be hard-pressed to find

much about “sin” in these studies. Rather, you will find replacement words such as “troubles,” “brokenness,” “frustrations,” and living in a way that isn’t the most healthy or happy.

THE IMPORTANCE AND ROLE OF PARENTS OR CHURCH LEADERSHIP. These studies assume a youth group

and youth pastors to the exclusion of parental involvement and the significance of God-ordained church leadership. They imply an overemphasis on the “me-and-Jesus” syndrome.

WHAT DO I RECOMMEND? BIBLE DOCTRINE FOR TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS (Reformation Heritage

A three-volume series covering all the major biblical doctrines, this curriculum offers clear, easy-to-read teaching, with hundreds of informative charts and illustrations. Written from a Reformed, confessional position, it’s brimming with discussion questions, definitions, and catechism. It also emphasizes the role of parents and the local church. Books).

GOSPEL PROJECT FOR STUDENTS

The emphasis is on the redemptive context, seeing Jesus in all of Scripture. From a Reformed Baptist bent, these studies are interactive, and they uniquely dovetail with the Gospel Project for Children and Gospel Project for Adults around the same church-wide curriculum (so everybody is studying the same thing!). They are well designed and provide helpful biblical commentary as well as notes from leaders throughout church history. (LifeWay).

S O W H AT ?

(Great Commission

From a ReformedPresbyterian angle, these studies take a “modified-inductive” approach, filled with solid content, Bible commentary, thought-provoking questions, and appropriate application. These studies are also well designed and helpfully packaged for both leader and student. Publications).

CHILDREN DESIRING GOD YOUTH STUDIES (Desiring God). From a

Reformed Baptist slant, with the following stated distinctives: Godcenteredness, depth/accuracy, application, theology, and partnership with parents. These studies stay close to these stated goals.

Brian H. Cosby is pastor of Wayside Presbyterian Church (PCA) on Signal Mountain, Tennessee. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

CHOOSING YOUTH CONFERENCES WISELY by DAVE WRIGHT

he stage is set. The sound check is done. Leaders huddle for one last prayer. Cue the music. Dim the lights. Open the doors. A swarm of excited students pour into the venue. Many eagerly race to the front for the best seats. The emcee takes the stage and welcomes the crowd to what is promised to be an exciting, inspiring, and life-changing event. Welcome to a youth conference. Thousands upon thousands of students every year for decades have experienced these events. What takes place next is largely dependent on the ministry philosophy of the organizers. The options include zany games up front involving teens, a band entertaining and energizing the crowd, comedians and/or drama teams captivating the audience, a worship group leading a lively session of praise music, a dynamic communicator who delivers the message, and a response for students to go to the front either to make a commitment or receive prayer. At a typical youth conference, some combination of all of the above will take place. Large youth conferences and events have been around for a long while. Back in the middle of the last century, Youth for Christ (YFC) led rallies all over the country with bands and great preaching. A young Billy Graham honed his skills at these rallies. In the 1980s YFC began a national youth conference that by the 1990s had grown to 30,000 students. Some organizations have reached thousands of teens through conferences over the years. Others have reached millions. Conferences vary between weekend events and weeklong events, and many of the larger conferences around the country are interdenominational and hosted by independent organizations. Some of them are excellent and really helpful to our ministries, but others are not. How do we tell the difference? Why might we want to bring students to a youth conference? What will they gain? How will it impact the youth ministry at our church? A TAST E O F H E AV E N OR A WA STE O F L E AV E N? A taste of heaven is how I described one massive event to my group as we processed what we were experiencing. They were simply blown away by the

powerful experience of worship with thousands of others from all over the country. The practical training on evangelism that week led to several students sharing their faith with peers. We had some new Christians in the youth group before long. Our group gained a larger picture of the kingdom by being surrounded by masses of other Christian teens. It was but a taste of things to come. The real challenge was connecting the mountaintop experience to everyday life. Yet some conferences can be more accurately described as a waste of leaven. Motivational speakers and plenty of hype from the front can generate enormous energy with little lasting impact. These conferences excel at entertaining and exciting the crowd without delivering substance. One such event I brought students to featured a main stage speaker who was so wrapped up in himself that he never got around to presenting the gospel. On a night where he called for a response, the sum of his message was “Teens are hurting.... Jesus wants to heal that hurt... come to Jesus.” I was nothing less than shocked by the shallowness of the message and lack of real gospel content. I wish my experience was unique, but some of the most popular youth conference speakers are not always committed to presenting the gospel according to Jesus. A youth conference that excels at entertainment and hype does nothing more than engender moralistic therapeutic deism. “T HI S YE A R’S EVE NT PROMISES TO GRI P THE H E A RTS OF YOU R T E E NS…” How do we discern which youth conferences are worth attending and which are best to pass on? One easy way to decide might be to rule out all events with titles that have to do with flames, incineration, or fire. Seriously, these are important questions to ask before you embark on a road trip to the next youth conference. Information about the event can be found on the Internet, and it always helps to speak with people who have attended them in the past to see if the descriptions equal reality. Some conferences will match up better to your ministry’s needs or your church’s theology than others. Because independent groups organize so MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

many larger events, the theology and practice vary significantly. The first question to ask is what your reason is for wanting to take students to a conference. Is there a conference that matches your need and will provide the experience or teaching you seek? We should always have a goal in mind. Some take students to events simply for the energy it creates. Getting teens fired up for Jesus is not an easy task, but it’s not really a good reason for investing time and money in a youth conference. Exposing your group to the wider church is a better reason, though still not a primary motivation. Give careful consideration to what students will gain from the experience. Next, it is vital to consider the theology and piety at a conference. Some are strongly charismatic, many are broadly evangelical, a few are conservative, and others fairly liberal. Look at who the main speakers are and who is sponsoring the conference. Does the event reflect the theology of your church? Taking students to learn from leaders who teach a different theology from yours can lead to division in your church. Does the conference share the values of your church? Is the gospel clearly proclaimed? If your church strongly believes in the clear exposition of Scripture, and the conference you choose does little more than reference the Bible, it’s probably not a wise match. There are plenty of youth conferences that feature “youth talks” that are more motivational in nature and do not teach from the authority of Scripture. While they are entertaining and inspiring to some extent, the effect is like going out to dinner and eating only from the dessert menu. Think about how the conference might build up the ministry of your church. Does the conference set out to have a long-term impact? You should also consider whether or not the conference will translate to their experience back home. One major challenge with large youth conferences is the disconnection between them and the weekly experience of students in their home churches. There is a valuable axiom for ministry to consider here. What we win people with we win them to. Another way to state that is: How people start is how they continue. If a student’s experience at a conference is radically different from church back home and their faith is awakened in that conference environment, going home may bring disappointment. Although we might be thrilled they had a powerful experience while away, we do better

to help students encounter God on a regular basis. Many conferences ramp up the entertainment factor, and in doing so make the experience vastly different from anything they could experience at church. In some settings this can radically distort one’s understanding of the church. M T V a nd N ic ke lode on o r the Chu rch Gat he re d? Thirty years ago when youth conferences first faced the MTV generation, the need to engage youth accelerated an approach driven by entertainment. When kids raised on Nickelodeon reached middle school, conferences oriented toward them featured messy games, bright colors, and zany fun. Viewing teenagers as consumers, the common approach was to cater to their desires and tastes. Consumerism turned the focus on the youth themselves. Creating the ultimate conference experience would lead to larger events affording bigger name bands and speakers. The youth conference became a marketplace to sell music, books, and t-shirts. That ultimate experience is also an emotional one, so the youth conference becomes a place where students expect to experience a range of emotions. What was created over time no longer resembles the church gathered. It looks, smells, and feels like a rock concert. We should not be surprised that there are churches all over the country that now look like this. What we win youth with, we win them to. Is it worth bringing students to youth conferences? That depends on the conference being attended and its place in the scope of a youth ministry. The benefits of bringing students to conferences are numerous. These include experiencing God’s presence, gaining specific training, and exposing them to the kingdom. Scripture teaches us to pursue God’s presence and shows us examples of how he manifests himself in the gathering of his people. Because praise is a major component of most youth conferences, the corporate worship experience can help students experience God’s presence in ways they might not at home. Some conferences offer specific training that, in the intensive conference environment, can have a long-term impact. The number of teaching sessions over a weekend or week lends itself to deepening one’s understanding of a subject. In other words, what might take weeks

or months to teach in a youth group can be accomplished in one conference. A kingdom perspective is another benefit of conferences. When surrounded by hundreds or thousands of peers all excited about their faith, students begin to see that the kingdom is so much larger than their youth group or church. This is particularly encouraging in places where Christian teens feel like minorities at their school or in the world in general. There are not many places where students can be exposed to the larger kingdom more effectively. THE DA NG E R There are drawbacks in taking students to youth conferences. Some might argue that we are fueling narcissism, perpetuating an emotional rollercoaster, and distorting worship. Twenty-firstcentury students have grown up in a world focused on adolescents. Family, school, fashion, music, and more have communicated that the world revolves around their tastes, desires, and whims. They grew up watching television shows in which teens were the wisest characters on the screen. They are the ultimate â&#x20AC;&#x153;meâ&#x20AC;? generation. Do we really want to take them to a conference that affirms this? When an event is so built around youth, it can border on glorifying the students rather than God. This is especially true in conferences where the speakers are more motivators than Bible teachers. Adolescence is an emotional period in life. Changes in hormones during the teen years are the major cause of this. Yet a high level of stress and anxiety, which some teens experience growing up in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

world, amplifies emotions. When youth conferences seek to create emotional highs, they serve only to perpetuate the rollercoaster. Students often return seeking that high. Worship music is a centerpiece of youth conferences and serves to set the emotional tone and energize the crowd. Worship in the context of an entertainment-driven event replicates the values of the world rather than Scripture and risks being manipulative. When worship is dependent on a trendy enthusiastic music leader and builds on emotions, it becomes about us rather than God. Many conferences use praise music but neglect other biblical aspects of worship. Combining this with a rock concert approach, the end result can be far from a sound theology of worship. The diversity of youth conferences allows for churches to find those best suited for their theology and practice that will serve the needs of their youth ministry. The benefits of taking students to these events outweigh the drawbacks, if we do our homework and find the right conference to attend. Yet there are conferences that, due to marketing by the large organizations who sponsor them, perpetuate consumerist, entertainment-driven events that do little more than generate hype and ultimately foster moralistic therapeutic deism. As youth ministry leaders seek events with greater substance and less entertainment, the tide will turn, and perhaps one day we will no longer have conferences with names to do with flames or burning.

Dave Wright is the coordinator for youth ministry in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. He blogs at Fusion Musing and serves on the steering committee for Rooted: Advancing GraceDriven Youth Ministry.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THE

LONG VIEW AND THE

SURE PROMISE

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER LEAVES THE FAITH by MICHAEL S. HORTON

hat did I do wrong? What did my spouse do wrong? How could it happen, when we have so many memories of shared Christian experience together? Did I catechize them enough? Love them enough? Was I too strict—or not strict enough? Too inconsistent in the way I lived what I professed? Could I have seen earlier where they were beginning to wander from God? When a son or daughter abandons the faith, our default setting is to ask, “Whose fault is it?” It’s often the first question that comes to mind when we encounter suffering in any form. We are all prone to a prosperity gospel of some sort, with its tidy logic of reaping what you sow. We can call it “natural law” or karma, but the idea is the same: You get what’s coming to you. Or, in the case of apostasy, you imagine that your loved one gets what you did or failed to do.

TWO DA NG E R S TO AVO ID There are two dangers we need to avoid at this point. The first danger (let’s call it “no church”) is to so emphasize personal faith that we disregard the ordinary means of grace through which this faith is created and confirmed. The public means that God

has ordained for our entrance and growth in Christ can be marginalized in favor of a purely private and individual relationship with Jesus. Formal and public rites such as baptism, preaching, the Supper, corporate confession and prayers, and catechism instruction at home and at church are often contrasted with a “personal relationship with Jesus.” Instead of looking for extraordinary occasions for MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

a radical conversion experience, we should be making use of the ordinary means through which God has promised to deliver Christ with all of his benefits. A trellis can’t make a vine live and grow, but it can help it grow in the right direction. Many young people today are drifting from the church more than outright rejecting it. And that is in part because they have not been rooted in the regular instruction, worship, confession, and life of the covenant community—even if they are entertained with youth-oriented programs. Fortunately, many who take this view nevertheless raise their children in an atmosphere of Christian nurture at home and in the church. And yet by placing all of the emphasis on a personal conversion experience—often apart from the ordinary ministry of the church (for instance, at summer camp)—this approach can easily marginalize those daily and weekly means that God has provided for bringing children to their own profession of faith and admission to the Lord’s Table. The second danger (let’s call it “hyper church”) lies at the opposite end of the spectrum. It’s the result of thinking of the covenant and the church’s ministry as guaranteeing salvation simply by themselves. If the problem in the first view is to see God’s saving work as independent from ordinary means, the danger in the second view is to take the covenant for granted and to treat its means as magic. It’s as if the covenant works automatically: you’re “in” simply because you were born to certain parents and have been exposed to certain rites. If the first view regards signs as incidental—or perhaps even detrimental— to personal faith, this second view at least tends to assume that all who are members of the visible church are united truly to Jesus Christ through faith. This was a recurring source of apostasy in the Old Testament. It is especially evident in our Lord’s ministry, as the crowds—especially the religious leaders—would not look through the sign to Christ, who is the reality. They could not see Christ in the law and the prophets. They beheld a miracleworker and lunch-provider but failed to see these as signs meant to lead them to Christ himself. In Roman Catholic teaching, the signs are simply replaced with the reality. The administration of baptism itself effects regeneration (ex opere operato: “by doing it, it is done”). Ordination transforms an ordinary Christian into a priest who can transform bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood.

If one follows the prescribed regulations for dealing with sin (the sacrament of penance), one may hope to attain final justification. Obviously, then, the apostasy of a loved one provokes us to question the efficacy of God’s promises and visible means of grace. Or it provokes us to blame ourselves, even though we have exposed them to the saving ministry of Christ. Remember, as U2’s Bono pointed out, it’s grace, not karma. A Re forme d U nde rsta ndi ng of Ap o sta sy Within the Reformation traditions, there is also a spectrum of confession on this point. I can only represent the Reformed confession to which I subscribe. Our churches teach that “the Spirit creates [faith] in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 65). We believe that the Spirit is the effectual agent of our union with Christ. The word and the sacraments are not the source or cause of grace, and yet the Spirit works ordinarily through these ordained means of grace to bring salvation and to keep us in faith until the end. God is the promise-maker, but every covenant involves two parties. He will bring his elect into union with Christ. He objectively gives Christ and his benefits to believers and their children, but we and they only actually receive these gifts through faith. What this means in concrete and practical terms is that we raise our children as Christians. In the Reformed churches in which I serve, our form for infant baptism explains how each person of the Trinity is involved in this act. Though conceived and born in sin, we are taught by baptism that we must “seek for our purification and salvation apart from ourselves.” As it states in our denomination’s liturgy: Holy baptism witnesses and seals unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ. When we are baptized into the Name of the Father, God the Father witnesses and seals unto us that He makes an eternal covenant of grace with us and adopts us for His children and heirs. When we are baptized into the name of the Son, the Son seals unto us that He washes us in His blood from all our sins,

incorporating us into the fellowship of His death and resurrection, so that we are freed from our sins and accounted righteous before God. Likewise, when we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit assures us by this holy sacrament that He will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members of Christ, imparting to us that which we have in Christ. Yet that is not all: Whereas in all covenants there are contained two parts, therefore we are by God, through baptism, admonished of and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we cleave to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that we trust in Him, and love Him with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength; that we forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a godly life. And if we sometimes through weakness fall into sins, we must not therefore despair of God’s mercy, nor continue in sin, since baptism is a seal and indubitable testimony that we have an eternal covenant with God. Therefore, in baptism the Triune God teaches us our need for Christ, seals God’s promise to each recipient, and admonishes us to lifelong faith and repentance. In short, a Reformed understanding of apostasy presupposes that the children of believers are the Lord’s covenant seed and that the Triune God has pledged his entire estate to them as well as to us in Christ. Yet it also recognizes that, apart from personal faith in Christ, all of these blessings truly bestowed by God are never actually received. “But it is not as though the word of

God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring” (Rom. 9:5–7). It is from there that Paul explains God’s sovereign prerogative to have mercy on whomever he has chosen in eternity. Isaac and Ishmael belonged to the covenant, but only Isaac received

“GRACE OVER KARMA” Bono: I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace. Assayas: Well, that doesn’t make it clearer for me. Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff. Assayas: I’d be interested to hear that. Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge.…It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity. FROM BONO: IN CONVERSATION WITH MICHKA ASSAYAS (RIVERHEAD, 2005).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

the inheritance. Jacob was more of a scoundrel than Esau, but Esau traded his covenantal birthright for a bowl of stew. Thus excommunication is real. “Cutting” lies at the heart of biblical covenants. In fact, the Hebrew idiom for covenant-making was “cutting a covenant,” involving some shedding of blood. In circumcision, a piece of flesh is cut off so that the person himself is spared God’s judgment. The whole sacrificial system involved the cutting of a covenant, representing the life of one given up for that of another. Jesus was “cut off”—excommunicated—for us. Baptism, too, is a “cutting off” from sin and death in order to be united to Christ. And those who renounce their baptism are cut off from the everlasting covenant. As Paul pointed out, it is not that the promise of God has failed. It is not that his word and sacraments are invalid until we make them effective by our response. Yet God’s secret election remains just that: secret to us. We cannot determine who is elect or truly regenerate, but only who belongs to the visible church. Let’s apply this now to the difficult subject of apostasy or excommunication in our churches today. According to the first view I summarized above (the “no-church” view), the church has no authority to interfere in the personal relationship of a believer with Christ. According to the second view (the “hyper-church” view), the church has magisterial—ultimate—authority to save or condemn. But in Reformed interpretation, the church has a ministerial authority, delegated by Christ, to speak in his name. Christ himself has the last word, but the church’s ministry is real. Christ gave the power to bind and loose to his apostles (Matt. 16:19; 18:15–20; John 20:22) and it continues to the ordinary ministry of the word, sacraments, and discipline (1 Cor. 5). Ministers pronounce Christ’s absolution in the public service, as well as in their preaching and administration of the sacraments, and the elders handle disciplinary cases. It can be disturbingly unfamiliar to those raised in evangelical churches to see this process actually play out on the ground. We are all accountable to the church for discipline (this includes officers as well). Pastors cannot rule and elders cannot even rule individually. We are all subject to each other in submission to Christ. Usually, this discipline takes the form simply of public instruction in church. Sometimes, private admonition and teaching are necessary, as well as attempts to reconcile parties.

Only if a member is unrepentant is there first a public censure (without mentioning the person’s name) and then, after repeated failures to bring the erring member back, a public excommunication of the identified person. Even in this difficult Form for Excommunication that is read in the service, there is the recurring hope and prayer for the Lord to pursue his lost sheep. It is emphasized that the Father’s arms remain open to receive his prodigals into his arms. The goal is the person’s repentance and faith: And since Thou desirest not the death of the sinner, but that he may repent and live, and since the bosom of Thy Church is always open for those who return, kindle Thou, therefore, in our hearts a godly zeal, that we, with good Christian admonitions and example, may seek to bring back this excommunicated person, together with all those who through unbelief and recklessness of life go astray. Happily, there is another form: the Form for Readmission. After declaring publicly one’s repentance and faith in Christ, the minister declares the individual, by name, “to be absolved from the bonds of excommunication,” and the congregation is admonished: And you, beloved Christians, receive this your brother with hearty affection; be glad, for he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found; rejoice with the angels in heaven over this sinner who repents; count him no longer as a stranger, but as a fellow-citizen with the saints and of the household of God. I have mixed emotions on those occasions of hearing the excommunication form read. With the rest of the congregation, my eyes are wet with sorrow. And yet I have seen too many instances of this godly process bearing hopeful fruit that through it Christ himself will draw straying sheep back into his fold. Christ’s promises are valid. We do not make them valid by our faith. His word and sacraments do not fail. God truly gives what he promises: Christ with all of his benefits. And he even gives us the faith to receive these gifts. Since we do not have access to God’s secret election, we hold out hope to the very

“[HEBREWS 6] PRESUPPOSES A THIRD CATEGORY: NAMELY, THOSE WHO BELONGED TO THE COVENANT AND EVEN EXPERIENCED WHAT JOHN CALVIN CALLED ‘THE EXTERNAL OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT’ THROUGH THE PUBLIC MEANS OF GRACE, WITHOUT BEING ACTUALLY REGENERATE.” end for the return of apostate members. And yet those who do not repent and trust in Christ have only themselves to blame—especially when they have been given such great promises and privileges. On the one hand, the church has the responsibility and authority to determine credible membership, and its use of the keys is to be taken with utmost seriousness. On the other hand, this authority is always provisional and ministerial—the shepherd’s staff to guide, protect, and lead. AP OSTA SY I N H E B REWS 6 Now let’s put these three alternative views to the test with the classic warning passage of Hebrews 6:4–6: For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. Is such a person a regenerate believer who falls away, thus losing his or her salvation? Or is the writer describing a person who was never a

Christian in the first place? Actually, the passage presupposes a third category: namely, those who belonged to the covenant and even experienced what John Calvin called “the external operations of the Spirit” through the public means of grace, without being actually regenerate. How can I say this? Because the person in view is not simply a nonChristian. He or she has been “enlightened”—early church language for baptism (as in the Didache)— has “tasted the heavenly gift” (probably a reference to the Supper), “tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,” and has even “shared in the Holy Spirit” in some sense. In other words, they are heirs of the covenant who have experienced the in-breaking of the age to come through the means of grace. In some sense, they even benefited from these gifts for a while. And yet there is a deliberate repetition of the verb “tasted.” They caught a glimpse of the reality that they never truly embraced for themselves. Though outwardly united to the church, they are not living branches of Christ the Vine. They are like “land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it,” but instead of bearing fruit, “it bears thorns and thistles.” In fact, “it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned” (vv. 7–8). The writer even adds, “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things— things that belong to salvation” (v. 9; italics added). The people in view here are the same as those MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

envisioned in Hebrews 4: the unbelieving generation in the desert. They beheld God’s mighty works and benefited from them as covenant members, and yet “we see that they were unable to enter [Canaan] because of unbelief.” “Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened” (Heb. 3:19–4:2). So here is a category of those who belonged to the visible church. God gave them his promise, worked wonders among them, and even proved his promise by means of grace that allowed them to taste the realities that they never actually embraced by faith. The blame cannot rest with God, who is free to show mercy to whomever he chooses (Rom. 9:6–24) and who has even presented them with the gift of salvation through many visible testimonies of his grace. These truths are not just theories; they make all the difference in our lives. They caution us against neglected ordained means as well as against trusting in them rather than in Christ. Some emphasize the subjectivity of the covenant to the extent that they treat their children as “vipers in diapers,” pagans who need to become Christians at some later stage in life. Others (even in Reformed circles) emphasize the objectivity of the covenant to the extent that they place an intolerable burden on parents (especially fathers) as the “federal” representative of the family. If a covenant son or daughter apostatizes, the assumption is that the father has failed. Ironically, placing so much weight on the evangelist would be considered “Arminian” if we were talking about reaching non-Christians. CONCLU SI O N Applying these truths to concrete situations requires pastoral sensitivity to specific circumstances. Let me, however, offer a few suggestions that may have broader relevance: ➨ Honor the means of grace ordained by Christ. Take advantage of every means that God has provided for his gift of creating, confirming, and continuing our faith to the end.

Resist the familiar assumption that children don’t belong in the public service or that they cannot learn Scripture or the catechism. Then, as they mature, move out of the mere memorization phase to encouraging them to freely question things. This is not a sign of apostasy but the way that they come to understand and to own the faith for themselves. Try not to “freak out”! They’re God’s children, not yours. ➨ Cling to God’s promise that he makes to us and to our children in baptism, even if your children do not yet profess faith or have wandered from it. ➨ Impress upon children as they are growing up the priority of God’s promise, without failing to point out that just as the promises are greater in the new covenant, so too are the curses for abandoning it. ➨ Remember that God retains his prerogative to have mercy on whomever he chooses; ultimately, it’s not in your hands. On the one hand, don’t allow a loved one’s apostasy to lead you to conclude that God’s promise has failed—even if they never come to faith. And don’t conclude that you have failed. God gives faith according to his mercy, not according to our works. ➨ Don’t assume you know for certain that even in the case of apostasy, your son or daughter is reprobate. Both Scripture and experience prove otherwise. You do not know God’s secrets, but you do have access to the promise he made in his word and confirmed in baptism. Pray in the expectation that they are elect and that in due course God will give them repentance and faith. Above all, bear in mind that even if your son or daughter currently lives in the “far off country,” there is a Father who is more merciful than we can imagine. And who knows: maybe through this dangerous sojourn, God is going to reveal himself as your child’s Father in ways that he or she had never known before.

Michael S. Horton is editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation.

book reviews “Questioning and faith are not enemies but close friends. Questioning is not the same as doubt.”

47 MODERNREFORMATION.ORG MODERNREFORMAT ORMA ION.ORG ORMAT

BOOK REVIEWS

The End of Our Exploring: A Book About Questioning and the Confidence of Faith BY MATTHEW LEE ANDERSON Moody, 2013 224 pages (paperback), $13.99

t can sometimes appear as though Christians are threatened by questioning. Those who question must somehow be doubters or even unbelievers. The faithful need only believe and be silent. Enter Matthew Anderson and his new book, The End of Our Exploring: A Book About Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Anderson argues persuasively that questioning and faith are not enemies but close friends. This is first and foremost because questioning is not the same as doubt. Those who doubt everything may deploy questions as a shield, but they are not likely to accept any answers they find. Genuine questions are asked, not accusingly, but in the hopeful expectation of finding an answer that leads to deeper understanding. Anderson argues that it is only from within a sound intellectual framework (in other words, from a position of confidence rooted in belief ) that one can have the confidence to ask the tough questions. Asking hard questions, after all, is risky. Only confident people take risks. It follows from this that the strain of reactionary fundamentalism that often plagues the evangelical church is not rooted in invincible certainty (as non-Christian critics often allege) but in insecurity. Why are fundamentalists so often insecure? According to Anderson, it is precisely

because they are closed to questioning. Many young evangelicals are taught to think of questions as subversive, and so those with genuine doubts simply keep them quiet until they leave for college. We know all too well how that story often ends. Anderson suggests that the lost practice of catechesis is one way to begin cultivating the skill of questioning in young evangelicals. Rather than simply handing a student a list of answers to be memorized (without question), catechisms train them to think of their beliefs as the end result of questioning. And with each answer the catechism gives, it flows naturally into another question, which the previous answer actually precipitated. By the end, the students have not only been given a deeper understanding of their faith, but have also been trained to think of answers as an occasion to ask more questions. Within this environment, the goal of such questions is obviously not to be a contrarian skeptic, but rather is motivated by the hopeful excitement of going even deeper. Anderson also cautions that the evangelical reliance on study guides (and I would add study Bibles) may actually be a hindrance to cultivating the practice of good questioning. By constantly limiting ourselves to prepackaged, one-size-fits-all questions, we are already forcing the text of Scripture into someone else’s mold and potentially blocking our own questions. And unlike catechism, most of these study guides are designed for easy answers (if they give answers at all). This is because the “success” of a Bible study is often measured by what factual

“MANY YOUNG EVANGELICALS ARE TAUGHT TO THINK OF QUESTIONS AS SUBVERSIVE, AND SO THOSE WITH GENUINE DOUBTS SIMPLY KEEP THEM QUIET UNTIL THEY LEAVE FOR COLLEGE.” knowledge was gained. By such a measure, a Bible study that seeks to draw its participants into a life of never-ending questioning is not likely to be judged a success (though, ironically, it would ensure return customers!). Unfortunately, the book falls short at the point most people expect to find practical advice on how to question well. After explaining in great detail how evangelicals fail to do this, and how bad our spoon-fed study questions are, the lack of a practical solution is a bit frustrating. To his credit, though, Anderson anticipates this worry and suggests that the constant demand of evangelicals (especially in America) for practical advice and “application” is actually one of the major factors interfering with their ability to question well. In other words, we American Christians want everything boiled down to a short, immediately useful how-to list, in part because we don’t have the time or patience to sit, contemplate, and question. So, ironically, Anderson’s refusal to give us a how-to on questioning well should actually help us on the path to questioning well. Even this isn’t entirely accurate. While Anderson does not distill his experience into a condensed

how-to chapter, the entire book is filled with personal anecdotes and bits of practical wisdom. Anderson counsels that we should not be afraid of long silences in group discussions, for example, because we should not feel pressured to give easy, regurgitated answers. He also suggests that good questions move from the whole (an entire work) to a part (a chapter or passage) and then back to the whole. Advice like this, together with illustrations drawn from Anderson’s experience as both a student and a teacher, mean that the book slowly immerses the reader in the ethos of questioning well. It will also leave readers with a million questions of their own. For example, Anderson says that when we are “at home” in our framework of belief we can ask deeper and more radical questions than the skeptic. He later says that in the eschaton we will be fully and completely “at home” in the cosmos with Jesus. Doesn’t it follow that we will be asking even deeper and more radical questions in heaven than we can even dream of now? And that, in one sense, the age to come will be an eternity of questioning? The End of Our Exploring, then, is an excellent critique of some unfortunate trends in American evangelicalism, as well as a thought-provoking introduction to the life of questioning well. There is plenty of stimulating material for the average reader, and I suspect it will become an indispensable guide for pastors, elders, and small group leaders for years to come.

David Nilsen studied philosophy at Biola University and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California. He has written for The Gospel Coalition and EvangelicalOutpost.com.

The Book of Common Prayer: A Biography BY ALAN JACOBS Princeton University Press, 2013 256 pages (hardback), $24.99

o borrow a phrase from faux fashion icon Mugatu in Ben Stiller’s film Zoolander, liturgy is so hot right now. A minister at an evangelical Congregational church in Massachusetts uses the Book of Common Prayer at every baptism. In Texas, at an Emergent MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

congregation with Baptist roots, the praise music ends and they celebrate the Eucharist with actual wine. Up on the screen, the skinny-jeans-clad pastor is called “Celebrant.” A former megachurch member says of her joining the Episcopal Church: “I was looking for a connection with the ancient church; you know, something that doesn’t change every week.” It’s no wonder then, that in our live-tweeting-everything world, the seemingly unchanging liturgy draws people. But as Alan Jacob’s ode The Book of Common Prayer: A Biography teaches us, liturgy in general and Anglican liturgy in particular is surprisingly contingent, fluctuating, and malleable. The Book of Common Prayer is the Church of England’s liturgical text. It contains rites for Morning and Evening Prayer, Holy Communion, baptism, marriage, and burial. Its rich and sonorous language has shaped how Anglicans think, pray, and believe. Its unique phrases pepper the English language. Published slightly more than thirty years after the launch of the Reformation, the BCP reached its final form in 1662. Its architect was Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer. In his book, Jacobs walks us briskly through the BCP’s history. We see Cranmer replace a perplexing constellation of Roman rites (in Latin, of course) with one in English, uniting the realm (whether they liked it or not). Cranmer’s liturgy hummed with Scripture and was infused with the doctrine of justification by faith. At the same time, Cranmer sought to maintain the catholicity

and sacramental worship of the English church. There was some compromise baked in from the beginning. In spite of this, and not without plenty of controversy (Cranmer was martyred), the prayer book took hold. Ultimately, as England’s empire grew, so spread its form of worship. The 1662 BCP is the ancestor of prayer books used from Malawi to Singapore to that other former colony, the United States. As an introduction to the BCP, Jacobs’ accomplishment is without parallel. Brief BCP histories are out there, but they are either too preachy or too boring or both. Likewise, longer, denser tomes of prayer book history exist—which tend to sit impressive and unread. But Jacobs writes an engaging story with wit and warmth. He refuses to bog down in minutiae, and as a result, we get a highly accessible text. Yet he does not over summarize. You get what you came for: the main figures and events are all here. Still, Jacobs means to move quickly with tight, concise prose. And thankfully, he means to have fun doing it. His quick pace, however, in no way sacrifices the color, pathos, or humanity that makes up the story of the Book of Common Prayer. We read how Cranmer (a married man) added the then novel and very touching phrase “to love and to cherish” to the wedding vows. We read how in the Edinburgh cathedral in 1637, Jenny Geddes hurled a stool at the minister when he began the Communion prayers. His crime: using a version Geddes deplored. (The next minister kept two loaded pistols on his prayer desk.) We read of

the great controversy over kneeling and how evangelicals ripped out and burned the altar rails. We hear of nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholic priests flaunting rubrics with extra candles on the altar— for which they willingly went to jail. And in one of the book’s many laugh-out-loud moments, we read of W. H. Auden, who after learning of his rector’s liturgical innovations, wrote to ask the clergyman if he had gone “stark raving mad.” Such stories demonstrate the deep and opposing convictions Christians hold regarding matters of faith and worship. Any observer of the Anglican landscape over the last decade (especially in the Episcopal Church) knows that tempers still run hot over worship, texts, and rites. In this climate, Jacobs adopts a refreshingly nonpolemical tone. He has opinions, certainly, and makes persuasive arguments—but always with charity. And he casts a forgiving eye on those ugly battles waged over the prayer book. He rightly gives voice to both the faults and faithfulness among evangelicals and AngloCatholics, traditionalists and modernizers. Would that such a spirit be evidenced in today’s churches and blogs. Jacobs writes as one who loves books and words (no surprise to anyone who knows Jacobs’ previous work on texts). He delights in showing off Cranmer’s intentional literary and poetic devices in the prayer book. But as importantly, Jacobs writes as one who knows and loves the prayer book from within the tradition, not as a casual observer. A reader who ventures into the endnotes (a rewarding exercise in itself ) will find Jacobs’ personal admission to using one of the Church of England’s contemporary derivations of the BCP’s form of Morning and Evening Prayer every day. As a hands-on practitioner, Jacobs sees why the BCP matters—not just for its incalculable historical import and literary grandeur, but also for how it gives its readers such a hearty and trustworthy way of being a Christian. In Jacobs’ hands, we see the BCP as a text that has weathered “the sundry and manifold changes of the world” (Collect for the Fourth Sunday of Easter, the Book of Common Prayer). It has been edited, revised, authorized but not printed, printed but not authorized, burned, banned, and neglected. Much of its original form came from the life and mind of one man, but the convictions and circumstances of men and women since have shaped the book’s fate

“IT IS A HUMAN BOOK BEARING THE STAMP OF MANY A HUMAN LIFE.” and form. It is a human book bearing the stamp of many a human life. Ultimately, the BCP reflects an incarnational reality. With the word “incarnation,” Christians name that aspect of God’s character in which God is pleased to intimately involve himself with us volatile beings of highly diluted virtue. In fact, it pleased him so much that he was “born of the Virgin Mary and made man.” What a fitting thing, then, for such a faith to have produced the Book of Common Prayer—a book so venerated and revered, so malleable and bent; smudged with the fingerprints of the countless sinners and saints who have found such comfort in its pages. And we are indebted to Jacobs for bringing to light again this treasure for the next generation of men and women who need the book’s Comfortable Words.

The Rev. Aaron M. G. Zimmerman (@zimmermania) is the rector of St. Alban’s Episcopal Church in Waco, Texas. He is a contributor to Mockingbird at www.mbird.com.

Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation BY ELAINE PAGELS Viking Press, 2012 256 pages (paperback), $16.00

eciding which religious books are going to rule your life is no small issue. In a word, it is called “canon” (kanon), the “measure” by which a religious community seeks to comply in its religious thought, ethics, life, and even discipline. Therefore, when a church discourses on such matters, it cuts to the very heart of religion. Elaine Pagels is a professor of religion at Princeton, well known for her work on the so-called MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

Gnostic Gospels—documents found among the Nag Hammadi Codice in 1945. They are documents that recently have received much press: a cache of more than fifty “secret books” that somehow slipped into oblivion for twenty centuries but now are supposed to receive pride of place, at least according to Pagels. “Had it not been for Athanasius, would Revelation be in the Bible?” asks Pagels (160). Pagels is not joking when she asks this question. For her, the venerable church father Athanasius— that’s right, the Athanasius who stood against the world and argued that Christ is fully God and fully man—is the man whom she has in her gun sights. That much is clear, even with a sympathetic reading of this book. Pagel’s agenda, then, amounts to the following: reconsider the importance of other lost manuscripts (i.e., Nag Hammadi) only recently rediscovered, and inculcate the notion that Athanasius was a power hungry, intolerant church leader responsible for the canon. What is less well known about Pagels is that in all of this she is popularizing the “Baur thesis” through her writings. This is a thesis on early Christian origins and the New Testament (NT) canon, which, thanks to Pagels, is now easily the most popular thesis afoot concerning what books should really belong in the Bible. The “Baur thesis” (so named after F. C. Baur, a nineteenth-century German scholar) is essentially this: diversity, not orthodoxy, was the reigning paradigm in early Christianity. Any number of various teachings, according to Baur, could claim to be a legitimate representation of Christianity in this early period. Up until this last century, the idea was common that orthodoxy preceded heresy in early Christianity. Now a great reversal has occurred: diversity allegedly preceded orthodoxy. Pagels, whose mentor was Harvard professor and “Baur thesis” advocate Helmut Koester, applied the thesis to the recently discovered Nag Hammadi documents and claimed that Christianity became more rigid with regard to doctrine in the second century AD. Consequently, since diversity preceded orthodoxy in the earliest years of Christianity,

“PAGELS TREATS THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY AS IF IT WERE NOT THE BIG ORDEAL EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE MADE IT.” so the logic runs in Pagels’ book that Christians today should also become less rigid doctrinally by returning to the earliest forms of diversity in doctrine represented by nascent Christianity in the first century. What’s at stake in the larger debate revolves around the following question: Did orthodoxy precede diversity, or did diversity precede orthodoxy in the early church? Pagels claims that these Nag Hammadi texts slid under the radar of Athanasius’s list of twenty-seven canonical NT books. What is egregious about her assertion—or the importance claimed for it—is the repetition of a false notion: the canon of twentyseven NT books was first enumerated (allegedly) by Athanasius. Actually, it was Origen a century earlier who listed all twenty-seven books in a sermon, something uncontroversial and that should be noted by the Princeton professor. Since much of Pagels’ case turns on Athanasius, here is more of the story. Canonization was, according to Pagels, a power play in which Athanasius was trying to unify Christianity all over the empire. In Egypt, Athanasius had to deal with numerous others who did not tow the orthodox line; i.e., against Arius as denounced by the recently convened Council of Nicaea. Pagels talks about the fact that many leaders around the empire were discussing which books should belong in the canon, which is

true; but then she paints Athanasius as the “bogeyman” who construed his own list of twenty-seven books as canon—a standard of measurement, a fixed measure of orthodoxy—in order to use it as a powerful tool to subdue others. Surprisingly, Pagels treats the Arian controversy as if it were not the big ordeal everyone seems to have made it heretofore. In fact, nearly all the assembled church leaders agreed to sign the document (the Nicene Creed), except for Arias and two Libyan bishops associated with him. These three, having been cut off from the communion with the Roman Catholic Church and ordered into exile, hastily departed. According to Pagels, at this point Athanasius and his successors came to treat the theological formulations of the Nicene Creed as orthodoxy. Presuppositions are crucial here. For Pagels, the Nicene Creed is not the crystallization of a profound theological truth but complexity in the service of power. If you don’t submit to Athanasius the man, then “a pox on you,” at least according to her! Pagels surmises that by the time of Athanasius’s death in May 373, he succeeded in his threecreed, clergy, and canon. pronged agenda to mandate creed Toward the end of her book, Pagels contrasts a compassionate Christ with the “intolerant” John, author of the book of Revelation included in Athanasius’s canon. John’s apocalypse conjures “cosmic war, good fighting evil until Christ crushes the dragon, through visions that can be plugged into almost any conflict. Because John more often defines ‘evildoers’ with degrading epithets— ‘cowards, the faithless, abominable, filthy . . . and all liars’—than with specific deeds, nearly anyone might claim to be on God’s side, fighting ‘evildoers.’” Throughout the ages, Pagels argues, John of

Patmos’s visions have fortified religious anger like his own, the anger of those who suffer oppression and long for retaliation against those who torture and kill their people. “Yet those who torture and kill in God’s name often cast themselves into the same drama, seeing themselves not as the ‘murderers’ John denounces but as God’s servants delivering divine judgment” (172). In her conclusion, Pagels makes an “evangelistic” plea for her beloved Nag Hammadi texts. The upshot of all this is likely the influence of Michel Foucault (1926–1984), who thought that any grand story or metanarrative is oppressive by definition and therefore ought to be regarded with deep suspicion. He occupies a pivotal position in this discussion with his critique of the manner and nature of discourse in Western philosophy. Foucault saw language not as an interplay of signs but as a relationship of power and a “violent” interaction between interlocutors, both historical and contemporary. Foucault thinks language is a power game. Truth, for Foucault, is the result of a complex interplay of relationships—power responrelationships in particular. I wonder if any respon sible history can be written under such categories, most of which are seen throughout Pagels’ work. In short, there is little that this reviewer can commend in Pagel’s revision of history as represented in this book.

Bryan D. Estelle is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and associate professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido. He is recently the author of Salvation through Judgment and Mercy: The Gospel According to Jonah (P&R, 2005).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

AS A THANK YOU FOR EACH GIFT OF $100 OR MORE, WE WILL SEND YOU YOUR CHOICE OF MP3 CD, LOADED WITH EXTENDED EPISODES OF WHI , BONUS INTERVIEWS, AND MR ARTICLES! CHOOSE FROM THE FOLLOWING:

With You. To the World. For the Kingdom. SPECIAL OFFER. Earlier this year, you followed the story of our senior staff member who was traveling to several countries in the Middle East and Asia. He initiated the first stage of our international strategy to bring the rich resources of the Reformation to the far corners of the earth. Will you help us go back? Your $100 gift lets us put the same materials that transformed you and your church into the hands of a pastor, student, or laborer in places as diverse as Dubai, India, and Malawi.

LEAR N MO RE AN D D ONATE AT W H ITEHO R SEI NN.ORG/D ONATE 2014.

GEEK S QUAD

T H E M I N U T E S A N D PA P E R S O F T H E W E S T M I N S T E R A S S E M B LY 1 6 4 3 – 1 6 5 2

by KEVIN J. BIDWELL

ollected in five volumes and edited by Chad Van Dixhoorn (published by Oxford University Press, 2012), this is a monumental academic and theological contribution. These volumes will probably form the basis for scholarship that seeks to interact with the Westminster Assembly for the remainder of this century, at least. It is, after all, a full return to the primary source material surrounding the creation of the Westminster Standards, which are some of the world’s foremost statements of the Christian faith. Ad fontes should be the motto of historians, sociologists, and, of course, theology students. However, we would misunderstand the breadth of appeal of these volumes if we deemed them to be of interest only to the church: the influence of these minutes and papers will cross scholarly disciplines. I am writing this essay, however, primarily as a Presbyterian minister and theologian. (One of the Westminster divines, Stanley Gower, ministered in the part of the city where our Sheffield [Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales] congregation meets.) It is going to take time for the “drip effect” of these volumes to crystallize into new formations of thought,

though this seems the likely result. Anachronistic assertions that have ascended to an unchallenged status regarding the conclusions and process of the assembly’s work will in time slowly disappear. But, just as the assembly’s fruits involved an arduous process, rethinking our approach to the assembly’s conclusions will similarly require industrious labor, patience, and frank discussion.

The stage is now set to outline the content of the five volumes, and any engagement with this project cannot be in haste. The first volume is a must-read. John Morrill explains in his foreword: “I am confident that all users of this edition will be richly rewarded so long as they have the patience to read the introduction and to treat the volumes holistically, drawing on all parts of it” (xi). Approaching this collection is much the same as the daunting feeling of moving to live in a large city, with the need to understand the layout of that city, something often learned by getting lost. If we draw that parallel with these “Minutes,” then reading volume one will reduce the orientation time because it lays down a “road map” to an extensive “street system.” The opening volume will be essential for those readers outside the United Kingdom because there are so many unfamiliar place names; the glossary, map, and list of county abbreviations will be most useful for such readers. I wondered if the “Abbreviations” section would have best been placed at the very front of the first volume, instead of being part of a “Reader’s Guide” on pages 99–105. It is impossible to read the footnotes without reference to it. In addition to the maps, tables, photos, and useful appendices, the highlight of the first volume is Chad Van Dixhoorn’s introduction. Considering that Van Dixhoorn is an outstanding historical transcriber and project manager, he proves to be an equally able historical writer. His style is lively, incisive, and lucid. My impression is that the subsection on “The Solemn League and Covenant and The Scottish Commission” may be oft quoted. He writes that Robert Baillie’s letters “almost sensationalize the theologians of the Scottish commission as an elite strike-force—a four-man gang of trained specialists rushed into Westminster Abbey to rescue hapless English Presbyterians” (24). He evaluates with care and clarity the folklore and tradition that have surrounded the commissioners. The “Biographical Dictionary” supplies historical portraits of key assembly figures (106–47), though readers will observe the notable absence of entries for John Owen, Thomas Watson, and Oliver Cromwell. Despite the fact that Owen and Cromwell were both included in the famous assembly painting by J. R. Herbert, and that Owen and Watson were remarkable theologians, none of these men were

“THE ASSEMBLY’S CONFESSION BECAME ‘BY FAR THE MOST INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINAL SYMBOL IN AMERICAN PROTESTANT HISTORY.’” actually part of the assembly (it is perhaps time for a new painting). Nonetheless, two of my other favorite inclusions in the series are a “Register of Citations” (148–61) and the “Leading Assembly Contributors” (212–13). The former supplies a register of the theological citations by the assembly or its members. Augustine, Calvin, Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Tertullian are prominent; but more investigation will be inspired as researchers consider the much quoted Theodore de Bèze, Thomas Cartwright, Johannes Piscator, and William Whitaker. The leading assembly contributors provide a kind of premier league table of speeches, with Stephen Marshall (“the irenic Presbyterian”), the most frequent number with 465, followed by Lazarus Seaman, and then Cornelius Burges. It is my hope that this essay will whet the appetite of many to delve into this labyrinth of material, producing fruitful lines of enquiry on many levels. Van Dixhoorn agrees with S. E. Ahlstrom that the assembly’s confession became “by far the most influential doctrinal symbol in American Protestant history,” and he states that the Westminster Standards are considered by many to be “the finest and most enduring statements of early modern Reformed theology” (86–87). With this in mind, let me give a brief sketch of the remaining volumes. The second (687 pages), third (791 pages), and fourth volumes (897 pages) are the minutes that cover the MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

GEEK S QUAD

assembly sessions of the Westminster divines from August 4, 1643, to April 24, 1652. The fifth volume (472 pages) comprises supplementary material, including letters by the assembly. It is completed with a compendium of the plenary sessions with dates and Scripture and Apocrypha citations. Also, there are three separate indices for subjects, places, people, and names. Volumes two to four are the assembly minutes proper. Volume two is 687 pages long, and after reading this volume, if you have romantic illusions of the work of the assembly, they will be dispelled very quickly. Day after day the divines discussed, argued, debated, and presented viewpoints concerning many aspects of doctrine, including church government. The work was obviously arduous, tiring, difficult at times, and challenging; these men were thorough, vigorously committed to orthodoxy, and educated with rich learning. A snippet of the erudite contributions can be sampled by a speech given by Thomas Gataker in the midst of discussion on the remission of sins and justification. He refers to continental Reformed confessions and theologians such as Caspar Olevianus, Johannes Piscator, and Abraham Scultetus. He then expounds the word “justify” from English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. His comments are replete with biblical references and his conclusions are searching; he discerns the theological nuances between finely balanced teachings of remission of sins, justification, and reconciliation (vol. 2, 43–45). Reading Gataker should be an antidote for anyone suffering from theological pride. Toward the end of this second volume there is the record of intense debate in the assembly minutes regarding matters of church government and the locus classicus text of Matthew 18:17, “Tell it to the church,” which forms part of that debate. The seemingly inconclusive subject surrounded this question: “Is the locus of church authority and ex-communication in the final court of the local church congregation, the church’s elders or the regional elders together to form a presbytery?” This was not a new discussion; it had been rumbling among the English Separatists such as

Robert Browne, John Robinson, and John Smyth, to name a few, from the 1590s until the assembly. There was vociferous dissent raised against the Presbyterian Church of England majority in the assembly on the issue of the final seat of church authority by Philip Nye, Thomas Goodwin, William Bridge, and others (493–684). This was no minor key in the debates on the floor of the assembly, as is recorded in the minutes, which covers almost two hundred pages of volume two. In reading these congregational proponents, it appears evident that these men are contending for a particular formation of church government, yet they are labelled as “Congregationalists” and not “Independents” by Van Dixhoorn (see session headings 493, 507, 518, 617 as examples). However, their display of ecclesial principles that lean to independency raises questions. It is beyond the scope of this review to “drill down” deeper on this theological matter, but the editorial decision to remove the pejorative label “Independent”—a word actually never found recorded in the debates— in favor of “Congregational Presbyterians” is probably helpful. While the end of volumes two and most of three are taken up with the “grand debate” on church government, as labeled by Robert S. Paul (“The Assembly of the Lord”), there are other theological themes running concurrently as well, such as the ongoing work on the Confession of Faith. It appears that the work of the assembly picks up speed in volume four, even though the details of much discussion are not always recorded because it was conducted in committees. This volume spans the period 1646–1652, and the culmination of months of debate, fasting, prayer, speeches, and discussion comes to fruition with the completion of the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, besides the examination of hundreds of ministers of the Church of England, not to mention responses to Parliament and overseas correspondence with continental Reformed Churches. What can be learned from these minutes and papers of the Westminster assembly? I have

THE ASSERTION OF LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE BY THE INDEPENDENTS AT T H E W E S T M I N S T E R A S S E M B LY O F D I V I N E S , PA I N T E D B Y J. R . H E R B E R T, R . A .

written this essay as a working Presbyterian minister, and my goal has been to evaluate this material through the prism of conservative, Reformed, and Presbyterian ecclesiology—one that is hopefully continuing in the same established theological tradition. A valuable lesson gleaned is that there was a breadth of opinion in the assembly on many topics, but it became defined within clear written parameters. The production of their documents was the outcome of consensus and that not of a single theologian; this should guard us from assumptions that our own “specific brand” of the Reformed Church is the only precise pattern to be followed. On the other hand, their theological settlements are timeless, and a fresh return to their agreement on the directory for public worship would question the validity of many contemporary “winds of doctrine” on this subject. In addition, another lesson to be embraced is that of listening to others in debate. Open and vigorous discussion, anchored in historical, systematic, and

biblical theology, should be sought and not suppressed. The assembly conducted its business in painstaking detail, without undue haste, and in correspondence with the continental Reformed Churches. There appears to have been a broad European consensus of the Reformed Church and this assembly stood firmly in the same lineage, with healthy theological relationships outside of Great Britain. In conclusion, I unreservedly commend these volumes, and I recommend that presbyteries should consider buying a presbytery set, possibly to be stewarded by the clerk to enable as many as possible to gain access to this material. The cost of these volumes will be prohibitive for most individuals to purchase them, but perhaps a collective purchase and stewardship is a beneficial presbyterial practice in any such case.

Rev. Dr. Kevin J. Bidwell is minister of Sheffield Presbyterian Church in Sheffield, England.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

B A C K PA G E

DROPOUTS AND DISCIPLES H O W M A N Y S T U D E N T S A R E R E A L LY L E AV I N G A N D W H AT C A N W E D O A B O U T I T ? BY ED STETZER

ropout is a key word in today’s evangelical churches concerning teenagers and young adults. The quote often sounds like this: “86% of evangelical youth drop out of church after graduation, never to return.” The problem with that statement (and others around that number) is that it’s not true. But that doesn’t mean there is no reason for concern. LifeWay Research data shows that about 70% of young adults who indicated they attended church regularly for at least one year in high school do, in fact, drop out—but don’t miss the details. Of those

who left, almost two-thirds return and currently attend church (in the timeframe of our study). Also, that dropout rate is from all Protestant churches—evangelical and mainline. WHE N? Church attendance among teens and young adults follows some important patterns. There are always some coming and some going. Yet something significant happens between the ages of 17 and 19 that accounts for the vast majority of those who leave. At age 17, the twicemonthly attendance of our study sample drops as follows: ➨ 16–17, drop 10% ➨ 17–18, drop 14% ➨ 18–19, drop 13%

70%

OF YOUNG ADULTS DROP OUT OF CHURCH

FROM LIFEWAY RESEARCH

Between 17 and 19 is where the drop takes place. Our study was of those who attended regularly for at least a year in high school—so our sample is not representative of all teens and young adults, but clearly something is happening in that age range. In most cases, our surveys show a lack of intentionality in dropping out. It’s not that most rejected the church. Our teenagers aren’t primarily leaving because they have significant disagreements with their theological upbringing or out

DROP OUT

OR HIATUS?

Lifeway Research did a study that lends some insight into this— the primary ‘drop’ in church attendance among evangelical youth didn’t appear to be a complete ‘drop’, but rather a hiatus. FROM CHURCH DROPOUTS: HOW MANY LEAVE CHURCH BETWEEN AGES 18-22 AND WHY? BY LIFEWAY RESEARCH, SPRING 2007.

AGE S

18–19

13 %

AGE S

17–18

14%

AGE S

16–17 of some sense of rebellion. For the most part, they simply lose track of the church and stop seeing it as important to their life. WHAT WO R K S? Statistically, we found four factors that were the most predictive in determining which teenagers stayed in church: ➨ I wanted the church to help guide my decisions in everyday life (prior to 18). ➨ My parents were still married to each other and both attended church (prior to 18). ➨ The pastor’s sermons were relevant to my life (prior to 18). ➨ At least one adult from church made a significant investment in me personally and spiritually (between 15 and 18).

1 0%

W H AT NOW ? Obviously, the numbers are not as bad as many would think (or have been led to believe), but there are still too many students who fail to see the significance of the church as they move into early adulthood. If your student ministry is a four-year holding tank with pizza, don’t expect young adults to stick around. If, however, they see biblical teaching as relevant and the church as essential to their decisions, they stay. Dropout doesn’t have to be a key word. We can replace it with something far better. When teenagers see an active, practiced faith in their parents and other positive examples at church, they will stop being dropouts and start being disciples.

Ed Stetzer is president of LifeWay Research.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

Read, Hear, and Learn Together with Study Kits from White Horse Inn. NEW STUDY KITS EVERY TWO MONTHS. Our new study kits, designed for groups or individuals, combine WHI radio and MR magazine resources with group study questions and include leader and group guides and complete WHI audio and clips selected for use during discussions.

D OWNLOAD NOW AT W H ITEHO R SEI N N.ORG/STUDYKI T.