that-word-above-all-earthly-powers-november-december-2000 by Modern Reformation

C N

O B

N D

T B

E 0

N V

T M

S N

THAT WORD ABOVE ALL EARTHLY POWERS

13 Wanted: Ministers Who Preach Not Themselves, But Christ Are we sure we understand what the minister’s job is? If Paul had answered the classified ads that pastoral search committees place today, how would he have faired? by Michael Horton Plus: Where Did the Pulpit Go?

20 Divine Double-Talk and the Parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus offered the Parable of the Good Samaritan in response to a lawyer’s question about how to inherit eternal life. What are we to conclude when it is a Samaritan—a law-breaker by birth—who identifies with the bloody man in the ditch? by William M. Cwirla Plus: Evaluating Sermons

30 What Would Jesus Preach?: Catechism Preaching as Preaching Christ Given that all religious communities adopt summaries of their common beliefs, the only question is whether the encapsulations will be regularly explicated. Catechetical preaching—as a complement to, not a substitute for, exegetical preaching—is a method worthy of recovery. by Brian J. Lee Plus: A Tale of Two Catechisms?

35 Looking for Grace in All the Wrong Places: The Marginalization of Preaching The increasing centrality of “praise and worship” in evangelical services raises troubling questions about our understanding of the divine meeting. Do we secretly believe that our speech to God is more important than his to us? by Robert Spinney COVER PHOTO BY ANTHONY PARDINES/PHOTONICA

39 Immodest Speech: Speaking the Truth in Love G. K. Chesterton once worried about “the dislocation of humility.” Christians are meant to be doubtful about themselves, but undoubting about the truth; this we have exactly reversed. by John Stott

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Michael Horton

The Preached Word

Executive Editor

Benjamin E. Sasse Vice President

Diana S. Frazier

e often think of preaching as either exhortation on how to act or counsel on

Assistant Editor

Ann Henderson Hart Production Editor

how to think. Practical guidance or abstract instruction-—or some admix-

Irene H. DeLong Book Review Editor

ture of the two, first emphasizing doctrine and then moving to

application. Though this spectrum initially seems to cover the universe of options, could it be that there is an unhelpful presupposition informing this entire range of views? For the subtle assumption here is that the Bible needs some assistance. It is from another age, and we are going to need to update it somehow to make it meaningful to our age. The New Testament supposedly needs to be “translated” not only from Greek to English, but also from the first to the twenty-first century. Now, of course, the biblical writers do mediate the great distance between one age and another. But while we may be fascinated by the cultural distance between Roman geopolitical dominance and the post-Cold War era’s democratic capitalism, James and John are not. Their central preoccupation is instead with the contrast between “this present evil age” and the already appearing “age to come.” This is not some Platonic dualism, juxtaposing a deficient material universe with a blissful immaterial realm. Rather, the biblical contrast is between the earth yet under the curse—where appearances seem to testify that Christ does not really reign—and the heavenly Kingdom that even now dawns in the church. This radically alters our understanding of which divide the preacher is bridging. He mediates not primarily the distance between the premodern Mideast and postmodern America, but the even greater distance between heaven and earth. He speaks not his own wisdom on how to make an old word relevant (morally or intellectually) for a new time, but rather Another's “foolish” message of freedom to those living in an age still languishing in bondage. The faithful preacher’s model is neither a charismatic leader at a Next Issue rousing pep rally Catechesis (moral), nor a resident

2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

Dr. Mark R. Talbot Column Editor

Brian Lee

intellectual delivering a brilliant lecture (doctrinal). Instead, as an ordained emissary from a liberating King, he addresses his rag-tag assembly of misfits from a series of remote, irrelevant towns, to announce that—appearances to the contrary—they have been freed! In the distance, the tyrant under whom they have long labored has been defeated! Though these rebellious auditors have collaborated with that ruthless old lord, they have been given a new identity as citizens of the city without end. And, take heart, for the victorious Sovereign will soon restore even the outward structures, natural and social. The texts from which the ambassador speaks often include exhortation toward behavior that is fitting in the Redeemer’s sight (moral), as well as rigorous explanation of what the Lord is and is not like (doctrinal). But such exhortation and instruction are not the root of the authorized speech; rather, these are elements that find their place in a larger declarative framework announcing not primarily what they are to do and think—but what He has already accomplished, what He is now doing, and how He will ultimately triumph! The assembled community is not bringing this Word to life. Rather, it is the Word— declared externally by the preacher’s voice and confirmed internally by the Holy Spirit—that here acts on them. For this Word proclaimed brings its hearers to life, incorporating dry bones into the great King’s eschatological drama.

Copy Editor

Alyson S. Platt Layout and Design

Lori A. Cook Proofreader

Mary Beth McGreevy Production Assistant

Kathryn Baldino Marketing Assistant

John J. McClure Alliance Council

The Rev. Alistair Begg The Rev. Mark E. Dever Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, III Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Dr. John D. Hannah Dr. Michael Horton Mrs. Rosemary Jensen The Rev. Ken Jones The Rev. John Nunes Dr. J. A. O. Preus Dr. Rod Rosenbladt Dr. R. C. Sproul Dr. Mark R. Talbot Dr. Gene E. Veith, Jr. The Rev. Paul F. M. Zahl Contributing Scholars

Dr. Allen C. Guelzo Dr. D. G. Hart Dr. Carl F. H. Henry Dr. Arthur A. Just Dr. Robert Kolb The Rev. Donald Matzat Dr. John W. Montgomery Mr. John Muether Dr. Richard A. Muller Mr. Kenneth A. Myers Dr. Tom J. Nettles Dr. Leonard R. Payton Dr. Lawrence R. Rast Dr. Kim Riddlebarger Mr. Rick Ritchie Dr. David P. Scaer Dr. Rachel S. Stahle Dr. David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

© 2000 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. For more information, call or write us at: 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 ModRef@Alliance Net.org www.AllianceNet.org ISSN-1076-7169

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $22 1 YR $15 1 YR $25 1 YR $34 1 YR $35

2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $62 2 YR $65

I greatly enjoyed your July/August issue on covenant theology, and was pleased to see MR defend the classic Reformed definition of the Covenant as it flowed out of the Reformation and Protestant Scholasticism. The clear distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is the heart of the Gospel because it places our focus on the eschatological and soteriological work of the Last Adam as our federal head. Anthony T. Selvaggio Oakmont, Pennsylvania

Though of a Reformed bent, I find myself forced to side with Dr. Arand in the July/August debate. Dr. Horton does more than an admirable job of defending covenantal formulations against Arand’s criticisms at first—until he accepts Meredith Kline’s particular formulation of the Mosaic economy. From the very beginning of Israel’s history (as in Deut. 9:1–6), the LORD made it clear that possession of the land had nothing to do with Israel’s (nonexistent) righteousness before him based on works…. Steve De Young Phoenix, Arizona

Even though I am just a young pastor’s wife without a Ph.D., I have been enjoying very much the issues that I have read of MR. I find the articles so rich that I include them in my daily devotional time. Thank you for contributing to the renewal of my mind. Thanks for being clear; thanks for being biblical. Mary Jo Canales Lakeland, Florida

I applaud David Wells’s editorial in your July/August issue for its helpful exposition of the biblical language about God’s repenting, being sorry, and grieving. Indeed, he did well what the classical theists at last November’s meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society failed to do. When challenged by Clark Pinnock, they simply dismissed the exegetical and hermeneutical challenges presented by such texts. Nevertheless, I am appalled at the way in which Wells read Christianity Today’s editorial. First, he claimed the editorial cited the passages of God changing his mind as support for the openness theism of Pinnock/Sanders/Boyd. Instead the editorial reported that those theologians used these texts this way. Second, Wells says the editorial assumes that because God is said to “repent” that means the Reformed view of God has been dismissed. Wells says that the editorialist “imagines that those who believe in the immutability…of God necessarily believe also that he is static and immobile.” Not so. The editorial begins by citing Pascal, whose God was immutable, but also “Fire!” and “not the God of the philosophers.” Wells infers that the editorial was really an attack on the Reformed tradition. But that inference is undermined by his own assertion that Calvin would have served as well as Pascal to make our point. Indeed Wells’s reading of the editorial is almost entirely a matter of unwarranted inference. Finally, the introduction to Wells’s editorial claims that CT sympathized with openness theology. In fact we wrote that openness theologians picture God “as like us in a way that merits Voltaire’s observation that God made man in his own image and ever since man has been seeking to return the compliment.” Our purpose in writing the editorial was to urge both sides of the debate to engage fully the biblical material that is central to the dispute. Unfortunately, that purpose was obscured by Wells’s account. David Neff Executive Editor Christianity Today

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

Editors’ Note Regarding Bob Jones University The March/April issue of MR on Christian liberty included a section on the behavioral policies or “holiness codes” of many fundamentalist and evangelical colleges. We distinguished there between the legitimate practice of private institutions establishing house rules for the good order of their proximate community (for example, a restaurant with a dress code), and the illegitimate (because legalistic) practice of Christian organizations claiming that their extra-biblical rules somehow apply to all mature Christians. An example of the latter error would be when a Christian college decides not merely to ban alcohol on its campus (which is surely its right), but also to teach students that consuming alcohol “compromises the witness” of Christians or in some other way constitutes sin. This type of practice goes beyond an institutional rule, and becomes an unauthorized attempt to bind consciences which Christ has set free. In the course of our statement, we reprinted portions of the Bob Jones University (BJU) Student Handbook, as representative of this widespread practice in Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism. In some gracious correspondence, BJU has suggested to MR that we misrepresented their position on a number of grounds. Most importantly, BJU notes that many of the justifications for rules which we highlighted (from the cited 1994–95 handbook), and to which we objected, have been clarified in recent years—with an eye toward reasonably distinguishing institutional rules and the freedom of the conscience. Additionally, they argue (as have some of our readers in letters to the editor) that much “flesh” is put on the “bones” of these rules in campus meetings, that excerpts are misleading apart from larger discussions, and that we should have engaged a willing rather than an unwilling debate partner. On the last point at least, we disagree—as the public arena of theological/intellectual discourse often starts by key players being forced to defend their ideas and practices even if they would rather not. And in fact, we invited the senior BJU administration to interact with us well before we published our piece on college holiness codes, but they declined. We certainly recognize this as their right, but we also believe it was well within MR’s purview to consider practices which are prevalent in Evangelicalism and frequently detrimental to the spiritual health of many laity.

4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

Beyond this general defense of vigorous public discourse, though, we want to state clearly that we are heartened on this practical matter to learn of BJU’s efforts to clarify the student handbook, and we want to clarify any misunderstanding about BJU to which our piece contributed. Though it is obviously not MR’s job to adjudicate such matters (and thus we aimed not to address exclusively BJU, but rather holiness codes more broadly), we have been convinced that there is a great deal of humble, selfconscious reflection at BJU on differences between institutional rules and “thus saith the Lord.” (In addition, it is worth highlighting BJU’s noble spring decision to eliminate their prohibition on interracial dating among students.) We regret that we were unable to obtain a copy of their updated handbook before publication of our piece—which would surely have led us to select another example of the perils of holiness codes. We thank BJU for bringing this matter to our attention in such a courteous fashion. For a further statement of some current BJU thinking on Christian living and related topics, we refer our readers to Changed into His Image: God’s Plan for Transforming Your Life (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1999), by BJU Dean of Students Jim Berg.

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

E E

X X

A O

U H

D -

I T

T D

U M

Matthew 12:20

The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax1

bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench,

of comfort into the soul, especially if we look not only till he send forth judgment unto victory.—Matt. 12:20 [Editors Note: This sermon by on Christ, but upon the Father’s authority and love in Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) is regarded by many as one of the finest examples of him. For in all that Christ did and suffered as Mediator, we English Puritan preaching. It is said to have greatly impacted Richard Baxter.] must see “God in him reconciling the world unto himself” The Text Opened and Divided. (2 Cor. 5:19). What the Reed Is, and What the Bruising What a support to our From The prophet Isaiah being lifted up, and carried faith is this, that God the RICHARD SIBBES with the wing of prophetic spirit, passes over all Father, the party offended by the time between him and the appearing of Jesus our sins, is so well pleased Christ in the flesh. He sees Christ as present with with the work of redemption! the eye of prophecy and with the eye of faith, preAnd what a comfort is this, senting him in the name of God to the spiritual eye that seeing God’s love rests Pastor on Christ, as well pleased in of others, in these words: “Behold my servant Gray’s Inn, London him, we may gather that he is whom I have chosen” (Isa. 43:10). Which place is 1617–1626 as well pleased with us, if we alleged by Saint Matthew as fulfilled now in Christ be in Christ! For his love (Matt. 12:18). Wherein is propounded first the calling of Christ to his office; secondly, the execu- rests in the whole Christ, in Christ mystical, as well as Christ natural, because he loves him and us with tion of it. For his calling, God styles him here his right- one love. Let us, therefore, embrace Christ, and in eous servant. Christ was God’s servant in the great- him God’s love, and build our faith safely. On such est piece of service that ever was, a chosen, and a a Savior, that is furnished with so high a commischoice servant. He did and suffered all by com- sion. See here, for our comfort, a sweet agreement of mission from the Father. Wherein we may see the sweet love of God to us, that counts the work of all three persons: the Father gives a commission to our salvation by Christ his greatest service, and Christ; the Spirit furnishes and sanctifies to it; that he will put his only beloved Son to that serv- Christ himself executes the office of a Mediator. ice. He might well prefix Behold, to raise up our Our redemption is founded upon the joint agreethoughts to the highest pitch of attention and ment of all three persons of the Trinity. admiration. In time of temptation, misgiving consciences look so much to the present trouble they The Execution of His Calling are in, that they need be roused up to behold him For the execution of this his calling, it is set in whom they may find rest for their distressed down here to be modest, without making a noise, souls. In temptations it is safest to behold nothing or raising dust by any pompous coming, as princes but Christ the true brazen serpent, the true “Lamb use to do. “His voice shall not be heard.” His voice of God that takes away the sins of the world” (John indeed was heard, but what voice? “Come unto me, 1:29). This saving object hath a special influence all ye that are weary and heavy laden” (Matt.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

11:28). He cried, but how? “Ho, everyone that thirsts, come” (Isa. 55:1). And as his coming was modest, so it was mild, which is set down in these words, “The bruised reed shall he not break.…” Wherein we may observe these three things: First, the condition of those that Christ had to deal with. 1) They were bruised reeds; 2) smoking flax. Secondly, Christ’s carriage toward them. He broke not the bruised reed, nor quenched the smoking flax, by which more is meant than spoken; for he will not only not break the bruised reed, nor quench but he will cherish them. Thirdly, the constancy and progress of this his tender care, “until judgment come to victory”— that is, until the sanctified frame of grace begun in their hearts be brought to that perfection, that it prevails over all opposite corruption. For the first, the condition of men whom he was to deal with is, that they were bruised reeds, and smoking flax. Not trees, but reeds; and not whole,

as smoking flax; so that both these together, a bruised reed and smoking flax, make up the state of a poor distressed man. Such a one as our Savior Christ calls poor in Spirit (Matt. 5:3), who sees a want, and sees himself indebted to divine justice with no means of supply from himself or the creature, and thereupon mourns. Upon some hope of mercy from the promise and examples of those that have obtained mercy, he is stirred up to hunger and thirst after it.

Those That Christ Has To Do With Are Bruised This bruising is required before conversion, so the Spirit may make way for itself into the heart by leveling all proud, high thoughts, and that we may understand ourselves to be what indeed we are by nature. We love to wander from ourselves and to be strangers at home, until God bruises us by one cross or other, and then we collect our thoughts, and come home to ourselves with et all know that none are fitter for comfort than those that think themselves furthest the prodigal (Luke 15:17). A marvelous hard thing it off…. A holy despair in ourselves is the ground of true hope (Hosea 14:3). In God is to bring a dull and a shifting heart to cry with feeling the fatherless find mercy. for mercy. Our hearts, like malefactors, until they are but bruised reeds. The Church is compared to beaten from all shifts, never cry for the mercy of weak things; to a dove amongst the fowls; to a vine the Judge. Again, this bruising makes us set a high amongst the plants; to sheep amongst the beasts; to price upon Christ. The Gospel is the Gospel a woman, which is the weaker vessel. And here indeed then; then the fig leaves of morality will do God’s children are compared to bruised reeds and us no good. And it makes us more thankful, and smoking flax. First, we will speak of them as they from thankfulness more fruitful in our lives. For are bruised reeds, and then as smoking flax. what makes many so cold and barren, but that They are bruised reeds before their conversion, bruising for sin never endeared God’s grace unto and oftentimes after. Before conversion all—except them? Likewise, this dealing of God establishes us such as being bred up in the Church, God hath more in his ways, having had knocks and bruisings delighted to show himself gracious unto from their in our own ways. This is often the cause of relapschildhood—yet in different degrees, as God sees fit. es and apostasies, because men never smarted for As difference is in regard of temper, parts, manner of sin at the first; they were not long enough under life, etc., so in God’s intendment of employment for the lash of the law. Hence this inferior work of the the time to come. Usually he empties such of them- Spirit in “bringing down high thoughts” (2 Cor. selves and makes them nothing, before he will use 10:5) is necessary before conversion. And the them in any great services. Holy Spirit joins some affliction to further the This bruised reed is a man that for the most part is work of conviction, which, sanctified, has a healing in some misery, as those were that came to Christ and purging power. for help, and by misery is brought to see sin the Nay, after conversion we need bruising, that reeds cause of it. For whatsoever pretenses sin makes, yet may know themselves to be reeds, and not oaks. bruising or breaking is the end of it. He is sensible Even reeds need bruising, by reason of the remainof sin and misery, even unto bruising; and seeing no der of pride in our nature, and to let us see that we help in himself, is carried with restless desire to live by mercy. And that weaker Christians may not have supply from another. He has some hope, be too much discouraged when they see stronger which a little raises him out of himself to Christ, shaken and bruised. Thus, Peter was bruised when though he dares not claim any present interest of he wept bitterly (Matt. 26:75). This reed, till he mercy. This spark of hope being opposed by met with this bruise, had more wind in him than doubt, and fears rising from corruption, makes him pith. “Though all forsake thee, I will not” (Matt.

6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

26:35). The people of God cannot be without these examples. The heroic deeds of those great worthies do not comfort the Church so much as their falls and bruises do. Thus David was bruised (Ps. 32:3–5), until he came to a free confession, without guile of spirit. Nay, his sorrows did rise in his own feeling unto the exquisite pain of breaking of bones (Ps. 51:8). Thus Hezekiah complains that God had “broken his bones” as a lion (Isa. 38:13). Thus the chosen vessel St. Paul needed the messenger of Satan to buffet him, lest he should be lifted up above measure (2 Cor. 12:7). Hence we learn that we must not pass too harsh judgment upon ourselves or others when God exercises us with bruising upon bruising. There must be a conformity to our head, Christ, who “was bruised for us” (Isa. 53:5), that we may know how much we are bound unto him. Profane spirits, ignorant of God’s ways in bringing his children to heaven, censure broken-hearted Christians for desperate persons, when God is about a gracious good work with them. It is no easy matter to bring a man from nature to grace, and from grace to glory, so unyielding and intractable are our hearts. Christ Will Not Break the Bruised Reed The second point is, that Christ will not “break the bruised reed.” Physicians, though they put their patients to much pain, yet they will not destroy nature, but raise it up by degrees. Surgeons will lance and cut, but not dismember. A mother that hath a sick and ill-mannered child will not therefore cast it away. And shall there be more mercy in the stream than in the spring? Shall we think there is more mercy in ourselves than in God, who plants the affection of mercy in us? But for further declaration of Christ’s mercy to all bruised reeds, consider the comfortable relations he hath taken upon him of husband, shepherd, brother, etc., which he will discharge to the utmost. For shall others by his grace fulfill what he calls them unto, and not he that has taken upon him these relations out of his love, so thoroughly founded upon his Father’s assignment, and his own voluntary undertaking? Consider his borrowed names from the mildest creatures, as lamb, hen, etc., to show his tender care. Consider his very name Jesus, a Savior, given him by God himself. Consider his office answerable to his name, which is that he should “heal the broken-hearted” (Isa. 61:1).… He never turned any back again that came unto him, though some went away of themselves. He came to die as a priest for his enemies. In the days of his flesh he dictated a form of prayer unto his disciples, and put petitions unto God into their mouths, and his Spirit to intercede in their hearts.

He now makes intercession in heaven for weak Christians, standing between God’s anger and them; and sheds tears for those that shed his blood.… What mercy may we not expect from so gracious a mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), that took our nature upon him that he might be gracious. He is a physician good at all diseases, especially at the binding up of a broken heart. He died that he might heal our souls with a plaster of his own blood, and by that death save us, which we were the procurers of ourselves, by our own sins. Has he not the same bowels in heaven? “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4), cried the head in heaven, when the foot was trodden on the earth. His advancement has not made him forget his own flesh. It has freed him from passion, yet not from compassion towards us. The lion of the tribe of Judah will only tear in pieces those that “will not have him rule over them” (Luke 19:17). He will not show his strength against those that prostrate themselves before him. Use 1: What should we learn from hence, but “to come boldly to the throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16), in all our grievances? Shall our sins discourage us when he appears there only for sinners? Art thou bruised? Be of good comfort, he calls thee; conceal not your wounds, open all before him, keep not Satan’s counsel. Go to Christ though trembling; as the poor woman, if we can but “touch the hem of his garment” (Matt. 9:20), we shall be healed and have a gracious answer. Go boldly to God in our flesh; for this end that we might go boldly to him, he is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone. Never fear to go to God, since we have such a Mediator with him, that is not only our friend, but our brother and husband.… Use 2: Let this stay us when we feel ourselves bruised. Christ his course is first to wound, then to heal. No sound, whole soul shall ever enter into heaven. Think in temptation, Christ was tempted for me, according to my trials will be my graces and comforts. If Christ be so merciful as not to break me, I will not break myself by despair, nor yield myself over to the roaring lion Satan, to break me in pieces.… Signs of One Truly Bruised. Means and Measure of Bruising and Comfort to Such Objection: But how shall we know whether we are such as those that may expect mercy? Answer: By bruising here is not meant those that are brought low only by crosses, but such as by them are brought to see their sin, which bruises

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

most of all. When conscience is under the guilt of sin, then every judgment brings a report of God’s anger to the soul, and all lesser troubles run into this great trouble of conscience for sin. As all corrupt humors run to the diseased and bruised part of the body, and as every creditor falls upon the debtor when he is once arrested, so when conscience is once awaked, all former sins and present crosses join together to make the bruise the more painful. Now, he that is thus bruised will be content with nothing but with mercy from him that hath bruised him. “He hath wounded, and he must heal” (Isa. 61:1).… Question: But how shall we come to have this temper? Answer: First, we must conceive of bruising either as a state into which God brings us, or as a duty to be performed by us. Both are here meant. We must join with God in bruising of ourselves. When he humbles us, let us humble ourselves, and not stand out against him, for then he will redouble his strokes. And let us justify Christ in all his chastisements, knowing that all his dealing towards us is to cause us to return into our own hearts. His work in bruising tends to our working bruising ourselves. Let us lament our own untowardness, and say, Lord, what a heart have I that needs all this, that none of this could be spared! We must lay siege to the hardness of our own hearts, and aggravate sin all we can. We must look on Christ, who was bruised for us, look on him whom we have pierced with our sins.… It is dangerous, I confess, in some cases with some spirits, to press too much and too long this bruising, because they may die under the wound and burden before they be raised up again. Therefore it is good in mixed assemblies to mingle comfort, that every soul may have its due portion. But if we lay this for a ground, that there is more mercy in Christ than sin in us, there can be no danger in thorough dealing. It is better to go bruised to heaven than sound to hell. Therefore let us not take off ourselves too soon, nor pull off the plaster before the cure be wrought, but keep ourselves this work till sin be the sourest, and Christ the sweetest, of all things. And when God’s hand is upon us in any kind, it is good to divert our sorrow for other things to the root of all, which is sin. Let our grief run most in that channel, that as sin bred grief, so grief may consume sin.… For the concluding of this point, and our encouragement to a thorough work of bruising, and patience under God’s bruising of us, let all know that none are fitter for comfort than those

8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

that think themselves furthest off. Men, for the most part, are not lost enough in their own feeling for a Savior. A holy despair in ourselves is the ground of true hope (Hos. 14:3). In God the fatherless find mercy. If men were more fatherless, they should feel more God’s fatherly affection from heaven, for God that dwells in highest heavens dwells likewise in the lowest soul (Isa. 66:2). Christ’s sheep are weak sheep, and wanting in something or other; he therefore applies himself to the necessities of every sheep. “He seeks that which was lost, and brings again that which was driven out of the way, and binds up that which was broken, and strengthens the weak” (Ezek. 34:16). His most tender care is over the weakest. The lambs he carries in his bosom (Isa. 40:11): “Peter, feed my lambs” (John 21:15). He was most familiar and open to the troubled souls. How careful was he that Peter and the rest of the apostles should not be too much dejected after his resurrection! “Go, tell the disciples, and tell Peter” (Mark 16:7). Christ knew that guilt of their unkindness in leaving him had dejected their spirits. How gently did he endure Thomas his unbelief, stooping so far unto his weakness, as to suffer him to thrust his hand into his side. Richard Sibbes (B.A., M.A., B.D. St. John's, Cambridge), 1577-1635, was a student and fellow at St. John's College, Cambridge, preacher at Gray's Inn, London (1617-1626), Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge (from 1626) and perpetual curate of Holy Trinity, Cambridge (from 1633). This sermon was first published in 1630.

MODERN REFORMATION Magazine seeks qualified applicants for senior editorial positions. Qualified applicants will have literary and/or editing experience, strong administrative skills, and serious study in at least one confessional Protestant tradition. Send resume and salary requirements, by December 4, to: MR SEARCH COMMITTEE, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, P.O. Box 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103

Speaking of... G

od makes men and women free in order

that they may serve their neighbor. Where the gospel is preached, communities of love are created. Such communities of love, in which authentic human freedom is realized, cannot be formed or sustained in any other way. Luther sums up: “We conclude, therefore, that a Christian lives not in himself but in Christ and in his neighbor. Otherwise he is not a Christian. He lives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love.” David Steinmetz, Luther in Context, p. 121.

he governing motif of Paul’s preaching is the saving activity of God in the advent and the work, particularly in the death and resurrection, of Christ. This activity is on the one hand the fulfillment of the work of God in the history of the nation Israel, the fulfillment therefore also of the Scriptures; on the other hand it reaches out to the ultimate consummation of the parousia of Christ and the coming of the kingdom of God. It is this great redemptive-historical framework within which the whole of Paul’s preaching must be understood and all of its subordinate parts receive their place and organically cohere. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 39.

t is earnestly commanded that no one in the church dare to prescribe or to do something (be it little or much, small or large) from one’s own understanding or upon the counsel and opinion of a human being. Instead, whoever wishes to teach or do something there, should speak and do it in such a way that he is certain beforehand that that, which he speaks and does, is truly God’s word and work, commanded by Him. Or, he should leave his preaching and office and do something else in the meantime. In the same way, the others should also hear, believe, or accept nothing other than that which is commanded by the sure witness of divine word and command. Then, God desires to have no trifling, and it is important to the salvation of the souls which are thereby led into eternal harm and depravity where this rule and command are not maintained. Martin Luther, WA 21, 422, 33–423, 5.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

Open Markets and Religious Persecution in China n a historic move, the U.S. Senate voted in September to grant permanent most favored nation status (MFN) to China. Many advocates of religious freedom around the globe lamented the decision, arguing that Chinese reli-gious oppression is not decreasing, and needs to be combated with all possible tools including economic sanctions. Business groups, along with some civil and religious rights organizations, rejected this logic—insisting that liberalized trade policies will ultimately benefit the persecuted. The debate pits those who believe that the benefits of free trade should be used as a reward for allowing religious liberty, against those who argue that the benefits of free trade tend to create a strong middle class—which in turn agitates internally for more liberal religious policies and greater freedom of association. Advocates of free

SUM + of the = TIME

trade with China also note that unless there is a substantial Western commercial and tourist presence in China, it will be difficult to determine actual Chinese practice on these matters. Critics respond that these are the superficial arguments of corporate interests with little concern for anything except profit. Previously, U.S. tariffs toward the Asian behemoth have been determined annually, and the decision has always been accompanied by substantial political and journalistic discussion of the current state of Chinese treatment of its citizens. Under the plan approved by the House of Representatives a few months ago, MFN status would be made permanent, eliminating the yearly publicity of Chinese government abuses. Presi-dent Clinton, long in favor of normalized relations with China, has argued for years that greater interaction with the West is the best way to improve the situation of oppressed Christians, Muslims, and

Percentage of Americans who believe in women’s ordination according to the most recent survey by the Princeton Religion Research Center, compared to 44 percent in 1977.

1 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

Opponents of the congressional decision to grant permanent Most Favored Nation status to China gather outside the Capitol. The protest made strange bedfellows, as labor organizations joined with some traditionally conservative religious groups.

Buddhists in China. Lawrence Goodrich, one of the heads of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, told Religion Today that President Clinton may be correct in the long run, but that doesn’t help the Chinese dissidents wrongly imprisoned today. “The problem is whether you feel that you can ignore what is going on now in hopes that things will improve in the future. We feel we must take a stand now.” The situation is dire, he argued. “To ignore [the reality] and say ‘OK’ on permanent trade relations— does that send a wrong signal? Yes it does.” The U.S. State Department does not deny that Chinese crackdowns on unapproved worship have been serious in recent months. A September 5 department report noted that, in August alone, four raids

were made on Protestant house-churches, with 80 adherents imprisoned. August also saw the imprisonment of 22 Roman Catholic priests and nuns, as well as two bishops. Non-Christian religions have not been spared. Eight Muslim leaders were recently executed, and 30 Buddhists have been removed from their temple. Followers of Falun Gong, a spiritualist movement native to China, have been most seriously brutalized: More than 30,000 of them have been temporarily arrested, with approximately 5,000 sent to labor camps. Officials in Beijing insist that all religions outside of the government-approved “Three Self Churches” (see the May/June 2000 issue of MR for a discussion of this Chinese civil religion) are unpatriotic and culturally divisive. Independent religions have been illegal in China

since the early 1970s. Experts on China continue to follow the Washington debates closely, but remain divided over whether Beijing’s position against “unpatriotic” religions will be solidified or weakened by the substantial economic benefits of trade with the United States. Conservative Episcopalians Declare “Pastoral Emergency” coalition of evan-gelical Episcopalian groups met recently in the Bahamas and announced plans to form a

ÍWycliffe Bible Translators has translated the New Testament into its 500th language: Javanese—a language spoken by a portion of the population of Suriname (formerly Dutch Guiana), on South America’s northern coast. The South Holland, Illinois-based Bible League, which is distributing the Bibles in Suriname, reports that there have been Christian believers there for about twenty years waiting for the translation. Following a three hour service to celebrate the completed work, one Bible League official rejoiced, “Heaven seemed close.” ÍThe Vatican is concerned that the theology taught to the 700,000 students at America’s 235 Catholic universities and colleges is not sufficiently

theologically orthodox structure “parallel” to the official Episcopal hierarchy in the United States. A movement spokesman announced that, though those involved plan to remain in their local dioceses, the 2.5 million-member national church is clearly “beyond reformable.” At the Episcopal Church’s triennial General Convention last summer, the denomination did not officially approve homo-sexual marriages within the church, but did explicitly affirm “lifelong committed relationships…other than marriage.”

Catholic. Joseph Fiorenze, a Houston bishop and head of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, helped draft new rules governing who may teach the required theology classes. The statement says that theologians must be committed to “authentic Catholic doctrine and…refrain from putting forth as Catholic” anything contrary to established teaching as interpreted by their local bishop. Critics complain that the guidelines, which go into effect in May, will limit academic freedom. ÍThe theologically liberal National Council of Churches (NCC) is planning a spring meeting with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to discuss the possibility of forming a joint organization. The financially

Critics claim that such actions reveal that the hierarchy has little interest in the teachings of Scripture, and just as little in trying to retain a place in this church for those who do submit to Scripture. Rev. David Moyer, head of the 19,000-member Faith in Forward, one of the larger conservative groups joining the new coalition, insisted that the faithful tradition of the Anglican church needs to be reclaimed. While the coalition’s leaders have not yet offered many specifics, they noted their intention to

strapped NCC voted recently to disband if a broader ecumenical organization could be established in the next three years. The NAE, which was founded in the 1940s partly to protest the theological accommodation of the NCC, has moved to strengthen its ties with the NCC by eliminating its rule precluding church and parachurch bodies from joining the NAE if they are also members of the NCC. NAE President Kevin Mannoia cheered the developments, stating that the “old compartmentalized segmentation of the church is giving way to a new sense of vision and mission and presence of God in America.” Evangelicals are “rediscovering the integration of social holiness and personal holiness.”

focus on the long-neglected tasks of evangelism and discipleship. There are also plans to hold orthodox conventions and youth events parallel to official church events. There was little discussion of the Reformational Anglican confessions to which the national body might be recalled.

ÍA small liturgical movement within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) appears to be gaining steam. A conference during the denomination’s General Assembly (GA) last summer drew approximately 10 percent of the teaching elders in attendance at GA. Speakers included MR contributor Leonard Payton, as well as James Jordan, Rob Rayburn, and Peter Leithart. Organizer Jeff Meyers, senior pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, said another conference is scheduled for GA in 2001. Tapes from this year’s event are available for $40 from Biblical Horizons at (850) 8975299.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

T H AT W O R D A B O V E A L L E A RT H LY P O W E R S

Wanted: Ministers Who Preach Not Themselves, But Christ ver the years, I have noticed that “want ads” for pastors have changed quite remarkably. For most Reformed and Presbyterian bodies, as, I would imagine, most Lutheran and Southern Baptist churches, vacancies are advertised in denominational periodicals. Even there, the calls are advertised differently than in the past. Hoping to have my general impression tempered by the actual evidence of mainstream evangelical ads along these lines, I turned to a leading evangelical magazine’s classified section. I took a sampling of the last six issues. Some of the “employment opportunities” for pastors included not only senior pastor positions but also openings for that ever-expanding “leadership team” of pastoral ministry. One church seeks “a dynamic leader with a passion to facilitate growth.” Hence, this person will be given to “relevant, thematic preaching incorporating creative use of drama and contemporary worship.” Nothing is mentioned about a commitment to Scripture, proclamation of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ, or any specific doctrinal convictions. Perhaps that is assumed, but it shouldn’t be these days. According to another ad, a member of the pastoral staff should possess “gifting in leadership, shepherding, administration, recruiting, team-building, problem solver [sic], large church experience (1,000+).” In many of the ads, it was expected that the applicant will be a deeply spiritual person: “must have a heart for God,” “a contagious faith,” “a servant leader” who “loves God and truly worships Him” through “choirs, orchestra, drama, handbells, banners, etc.” But most of the qualifications had to do with personal abilities that might be sought in any business look-

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N

ing for a combination CEO, coach, and entertainer. From my random sampling of this publication’s past several issues, here are the most representative criteria for ministry staff (each word taken directly from the ads).1

office. The apostolic ministry was, unlike the ordinary ministry that followed, the foundation-laying epoch of the New Testament people of God. “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God • Innovative, progressive, change initiating gave the increase.… According to the grace of • Team leader/builder God which was given to me, as a wise master • Pastor-coach builder I have laid the foundation, and another • People-developer with strong organizational builds on it. But let each one take heed how he skills builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone • Someone who “can relate well to ‘fast-track’ else lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus commuters” and “design and build infrastruc- Christ” (1 Cor. 3:5–11). Paul here is indicating not ture, envision and create ministry delivery merely that we should all imitate the faithfulness of teams” his foundation-laying, but that no other foundation • Approachable, dynamic, catalytic can in fact be laid for the Christian Church than • Relevant that foundation laid by the apostles, Jesus Christ • A close walk with the Lord being the chief cornerstone. • Able to lead worship through drama, audioThe apostolic era was innovative in that Jesus’ visual technology, banners and dance ministry, shed abroad through the work of the • Degrees in music or business required, a Holy Spirit according to the Father’s plan, inaugudegree in theology preferred rated the kingdom of God. It was a “new creation” because the Second Adam had fulfilled all righteousness and had ascended Where we focus on the minister's charisma and person (“Sure, I wish he'd stick to to the Father’s right hand awaiting the final judgment the text, but he’s an excellent speaker, and he has a tremendous heart for the lost”), and salvation of the world. The ministry of Moses had Paul does the reverse: “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife… faded, to be overwhelmed now by the ministry of Christ. Accompanied by [but] whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice.” signs and wonders, this aposNearly all of these ads came from churches that tolic ministry was replaced by the ordinary minwould describe themselves as “conservative evan- istry of Word and Sacrament entrusted to faithful gelical.” A mainline church, however, insisted that ministers. Timothy was among those first “ordiits associate pastor must not only have a personal nary” ministers and to him Paul charges, “O relationship with Jesus Christ, but must be one Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, “whose theology is Reformed, biblically based, and avoiding the profane and idle babblings and conrooted in the creeds of the Church.” Another tradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—by church in this mainline denomination was looking professing it some have strayed concerning the for someone with “a strong commitment to the faith” (1 Tim. 6:20). Gospel of salvation through Christ alone, and to Having learned the faith from his grandmother, the Reformed tradition, [who] leads us to unite faith Timothy “confessed the good confession in the and action in mission and outreach.” But not a sin- presence of many witnesses” (v. 12). All of Paul’s gle ad, by my count, included anything about sub- advice to Timothy and future ministers is to keep scription to a particular confession of faith. And in that which was entrusted to them, while Paul himvirtually none of them was there so much as a men- self was among those apostles who actually tion of doctrinal criteria or ecclesiastical affiliation. received new revelations that would make public the mystery progressively revealed until finally The Apostle Paul’s Qualifications Jesus has come in the fullness of time. And even s I read these qualifications, I cannot help Paul’s “innovation” was in no way a personal skill, as but think of how the apostle Paul might these ads would imply. It was God’s innovation; have fared. On the “innovative, progres- even though he is an apostle, Paul only speaks sive, change-initiator” scale, he would have scored where God has clearly spoken. He calls Timothy, poorly. First, there is a sense in which he was inno- as he calls us, not to imitate his apostolic foundavative and progressive—not in his person but in his tion laying, but to “guard the deposit” that has now

1 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

been entrusted to the post-apostolic ministry. How about “relevance”? As for his own ministry, despite the fact that this message was viewed not only as irrelevant but as “to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23), he insists on limiting himself to that message. In fact, he adds, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1, 2). As for his “relational skills” as an “approachable, dynamic, catalytic, relevant, pastorcoach,” Paul could only declare in the very next verse, “I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (vv. 3–5). That Spirit-driven power was nothing more or less than “the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Note that Paul specifically cites his weakness in the area of relational and communicative skills as a means of directing faith not to his personality but to the Gospel. So much for being “dynamic.” Could the apostle have ranked better as a “team leader” and “team builder”? He certainly did have some support from God’s people in various places. However, after charging Timothy to preach the Word without compromise in these self-centered last days, Paul, nevertheless, complains that his life is being poured out as a sacrifice, and Demas, a close coworker who shared Paul’s imprisonment in Rome “has forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:9). Like the Lord whom he served, Paul’s ministry was under the shadow of the cross. And, like his Lord, many of his disciples refused to follow him if it meant the way of the cross instead of the way of glory (see John 6). Furthermore, Paul was not exactly lavished with organizational skills, as one can infer from his frequent appeals at the end of his epistles. Like Peter, who instituted the office of deacons in order to take care of the administration of the Church and its charity so that the apostles could be devoted to the Word and to prayer, Paul asked local pastors to baptize adult converts after extended catechesis, so that their efficacy would be directed to the Word and Spirit rather than to his own apostolic persona (1 Cor. 1:14). Paul, who knew well the story of Aaron’s “passion for leading God’s people into His presence in innovative and authentic ways” (one of the ads) and stuck instead to God’s own revelation of how we are to enter God’s presence safely, would

not have scored very high on that one either. Even though Paul was steeped in theological training and—after his conversion—received the personal instruction of Jesus Christ himself by revelation, his qualifications might not satisfy everyone. Only after three years of instruction did Paul present himself to Peter who, after more than two weeks with the former persecutor of the Church, received Paul as an apostle (Gal. 1:15–20). But Paul was not skilled in drama, technology, or business— or whatever first-century equivalents might have been. He probably was not prepared to “relate well to ‘fast-track’ commuters,” since he wrote, “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor. 1:27–29). One even wonders if Paul could have secured a call today on the basis of his “walk with the Lord.” At the very least, Romans 7 would be an autobiographical piece that should not make it into his “personal testimony” section of the application, much less the claim that he was “chief of sinners.” Paul was sort of a “downer” by contemporary standards, “used up”—always getting himself thrown into jail for preaching the Gospel. So why is the apostle Paul so exemplary? There is one simple answer to that: Paul was dedicated to “preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23). “For if I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!… What is my reward then? That when I preach the Gospel, I may present the Gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the Gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16–18). That’s a far cry from one of the ads, which called for “a full-time Associate Pastor (ordained or not) for Music and Worship” who will be “the right person regardless of denomination … with generous compensation.” (Generous compensation for leading God’s people in worship, with no particular belief system as his basis, is the antithesis of Paul’s ministry.) Ministry Not Minister he basic difference between Paul’s outlook and the dominant perspective reflected in these ads is quite simple: for Paul, the authority and power rests in the ministry, not the minister. It is the proclamation of Christ, not the skills, personality, charisma, or even personal godliness, that builds Christ’s Church. We hear the

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

reverse all the time: “Sure, he could stick closer to the text when he preaches, but he has a real heart for the Lord and wants to reach out to those who are hurting.” But Paul turns this around: “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the Gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice” (Phil. 1:15–18). For many today, the marks of the Church are relevance, success, and the pastor’s personal gifts, but for the apostles the marks were the Word rightly preached, the Sacraments rightly administered, and discipline exercised so that the first two marks would not be compromised. While personal godliness is essential for the minister, it is not essential for the ministry. The Gospel-preaching ministry even of someone who is unregenerate or living in serious sin can be more effective than the ministry of a pious person who does not preach Christ. “Therefore, since we have this ministry,” Paul says

of himself and his fellow apostles, “as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart.… But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:1, 7). If we took this line of thought seriously, we would expect more of Christ and less of the minister in the actual experience of Church life. If a minister falls into grave sin or error, he would (hopefully) be reproved or removed, but this would not affect the faith of believers in the least. Furthermore, ministers would feel far less liberty to share their own views on life, child-rearing, business investments, culture wars, politics, and a host of other topics that seem to dominate preaching on the left and the right these days. There would be a greater sensitivity to the weakness and inadequacy of the minister in his person, but a greater respect shown to the minister in his office. The Minister’s Two Duties realize that this claim is controversial in our present day and that it may be misinterpreted, so let me explain what I think Paul is emphasizing here. It is the interpretation that we find in the Church fathers in their rejection of Donatism, a

Where Did th

haveavividrecollectionasasmallboyofsittinginSt.George’sTronChurch in Glasgow waiting for the commencement of morning worship. At about three minutes to eleven, the beadle (parish official) would climb the pulpit stairs and place a large Bible on the lectern. Having opened it to the appropriate passage, he would descend, and the minister would in turn ascend the stairs and sit in the cone-shaped pulpit. Thebeadlewouldcompletehisresponsibilities by climbing thestairsa secondtime to close the pulpit door and leave the pastor to his task. There was no doubt, in my young mind, that each part of that procedure was marked with significance. There was clearly no reason for the pastor to be in the pulpit apart from the Bible upon which he looked down as he read. I understood that, in contrast to his physical posture, the preacher was standing under Scripture, not over it. Similarly, we were listening not so much for his message but for its message. We were discovering, as J. I. Packer has suggested, that preaching is “letting texts talk.” Sadly, much of what now emanates from pulpits would not be recognized by many Christians of past generations as anywhere close to the kind of expository preaching that is Bible-

1 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

based, Christ-focused, and life-changing—the kind of preaching that is marked by doctrinal clarity, a sense of gravity, and convincing argument. We have instead become far too familiar with preaching that pays scant attention to the Bible, is self-focused, and consequently is capable of only the most superficial impact upon the lives of listeners. Worse still, large sections of the church are oblivious to the fact that they are being administered a placebo rather than the medicine they need. They are satisfied with the feeling that it has done them some good, a feeling that disguises the seriousness of the situation. In the absence of bread the population grows accustomed to cake! Pulpits are for preachers. We build stages for performers. Some years ago, I enjoyed the privilege of speaking at a convention in Hong Kong. The meetings were held in an Anglican church that had a pulpit we did not use. The organizers felt it would be best if we were not six feet above the congregation but on the same level as the people. So they provided a lectern to hold the preacher’s Bible as he spoke. I was sharing the event with a kindly older man whom I had never met before. We both spoke each morning. Some

heresy that made the existence of a true church dependent upon the minister’s morality. Donatism expressed itself throughout the Middle Ages in various sects and cults, and the Protestant reformers confronted it in the Anabaptist movement. Ministers are not the community’s all-purpose advisors. Nor are they experts on everything. Contrary to the ads that expect ministers to oversee battalions of “ministries,” the Second Helvetic Confession (Reformed) declares, “The duties of ministers are various; yet for the most part they are restricted to two, in which the rest are comprehended: to the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, and to the proper administration of the Sacraments.… When those things are done, the faithful esteem them as done by the Lord himself.” But what of those whom we do not regard as sufficiently vibrant in their own personal piety— much less those who turn out to be unbelievers or immoral persons? “Even evil ministers are to be heard. Moreover, we strongly detest the error of the Donatists who esteem the doctrine and administration of the Sacraments to be either effectual or not effectual, according to the good or evil life of the ministers. For we know that the voice of Christ

is to be heard, though it be out of the mouths of evil ministers.” The Confession further insists on the proper ecclesiastical organization for removing such ministers but follows Paul in locating the ministry’s efficacy in Christ himself and his Gospel rather than in the ministers and their persons. In short, their personal gifts are not means of grace and their personal insincerity or unworthiness does not invalidate their ministry. “Whether from pure motives or false, Christ is being preached.” All of the sincerity, purity of motive, passion for God and the lost, organizational and relational skills, “transparency,” relevance, and enthusiasm in the world cannot create and strengthen faith; only the ministry of reconciliation can accomplish this. This should not lead us to be slack in church discipline but to change our view of preaching and the preacher in two ways. Instead of placing our confidence in the minister and his abilities (natural skills and moral example), we need to place our confidence in the ministry and the Gospel’s power—even when it is dispensed through weak ministers, like Paul. Too frequently, our respect for the minister is weighed in terms of his personality. If we like our minister, we will tend to treat him as

he Pulpit Go? mornings I would preach first, sometimes he would. Whenever he began a message, his first action was to pick up the small lectern and move it off to the side where it could neither impede his movement nor create the impression that he was “preaching” to the people. Instead, he said, he was delivering a talk, and he wanted to be sure the listeners could relax and benefit from his conversational style. When it came time for me to preach, my first action was to put the lectern back in its place, central to the occasion. The congregation laughed as this pattern repeated itself over the course of five days. I would use it; my colleague would remove it. Before the week was out, two incidents occurred that may or may not have been related. First, I explained to the congregation that the reason I replaced the lectern each time was not simply so I might have a place for my Bible, but because I did not want to forgo the symbolism of having a central pulpit with the Word in its deserved primary place. After all, I observed, if the preacher were to fall down or disappear, the congregation would still be left with its focus in the right place—namely, the Scriptures. (I know that my preaching partner did not take this as a personal rebuke,

which is what made the second incident all the more telling.) A day or two later he confided to me that he felt he had lost any real sense of passion or power in the delivery of his messages. It was very humbling for me as a young man to sit and listen as he poured out his heart and with tears reflected upon his diminished zeal. It is far too simplistic to suggest that his removing the podium each time he spoke was a symbol of a faltering conviction regarding the priority and power of Scripture. Yet I have a suspicion that its removal was more than simply a matter of style or personal preference. The layout of many contemporary church buildings, including my own, at least flirts with the danger of creating the impression that we have come to hear from man rather than to meet with God. It is imperative that we acknowledge and remember, and help each other acknowledge and remember, that we gather together as the church not to be entertained, but to hear and heed the Word of God.1

b y A L I S TA I R B E G G

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

our spiritual handyman, someone who can give us answers to every question. And too often, ministers may succumb to this erroneous expectation and make “applications” in their sermons that are beyond either their expertise or their divine commission. Eventually, and perhaps subtly, we begin to accept whatever the minister says as divine mandate even if it does not arise from Scripture itself. The problem with this is that God has sent his ministers on his mission. Ministers are not free to display their wit and wisdom, but are under orders to deliver as ambassadors a particular message from their Sovereign. It is not their time in the pulpit but God’s time—and every instance in which a minister leaves the proclamation of the Word for “authentic,” “relevant,” “transparent” conversation with the congregation, the authority of Scripture slips another step in the life of that church and its members. The only thing that should be transparent is God’s Word in command and promise: “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ.”

very word of God. “Truly, truly, I say to you,” Jesus says, “he who received any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (John 13:20).

A High View of Preaching ecovering this view of preaching would have wide-ranging practical effects in our churches, as ministers are once again filled with both a sense of their own personal unworthiness and a confident freedom in the Spirit to announce that which God has done in Christ. Imagine how liberating it would be for pastors to be able to continually sharpen their expertise in Scripture rather than being distracted by false expectations. Furthermore, as those under their care, we too would be liberated to become hearers of the Word. For so long, we have either put our ministers on pedestals or lost our interest in hearing sermons because we have heard more about what the preacher has to say than about what God has to say. And, let’s be frank, a lot of the time we pastors God has sent his ministers on his mission. They are not free to spout their wit and think that we have more to say than we actually do. wisdom, but are under orders to deliver as ambassadors a particular message from Often, it is not that God is boring, but that we are. As parishioners we are free now their Sovereign. to listen to God’s own voice through his servant, without The second way in which this leads us is toward fearing that we will be saddled again this week with a higher respect for the authority of the ministry the idiosyncrasies, hobbyhorses, and familiar autoand its office. Many of us recall the cynicism in the biographical scenes from the pastor’s own experiwake of Watergate and the precipitous decline in ence. We would be free again to hear God even respect for the office of the president. Much the through servants who lack many of the gifts that same has been repeated in recent events surround- the advertisements list as essential even above bibing our current president. In both cases, howev- lical qualifications. In 2 Corinthians, where Paul particularly er—usually among the older folks—there has been a defense for “the office” that younger people ever defends his ministry, he contrasts the ministry of since the sixties have found antiquated. This same Moses with his own. You will recall that Moses was diffidence toward “office” has been carried over reluctant to take up the position of divine into the Church. As with our presidents, so with spokesman, despite God’s promise to uphold him. our pastors, there is a respect or disrespect for the With his visage glowing with the reflection of the person depending on his performance, without glory of God that had accompanied the delivery of much place given to the office itself. But if the the Law on Mount Sinai, Moses descended from presidency of the United States transcends the per- the Mount to the astonishment of the people below. son holding that office at any given time, so much But if the ministry of death, written and more the office of minister of Word and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the Sacrament. When our ministers hold themselves children of Israel could not look steadily at accountable—and are by the elders held accountthe face of Moses because of the glory of his able—to the authority of Scripture and take their countenance, which glory was passing away, office seriously, they must be heard as if God himhow will the ministry of the Spirit not be self were addressing the people. In fact, when minmore glorious? For if the ministry of conisters act in their office—accurately proclaiming demnation had glory, the ministry of rightthe Scriptures and not their own opinions, their eousness exceeds much more in glory.… For preaching is to be regarded by the faithful as the

1 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech—unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away (2 Cor. 3:7–16). And what a glorious ministry this is! Like Jesus Christ himself, it is hidden under the cross, carried around in “jars of clay,” but also like Jesus Christ, it possesses the power of resurrection life. It will fail all of the worldly tests of success, effectiveness, relevance, and efficiency, but it will continue, as it always has, to breathe everlasting life into a valley of dry bones until God has a living people standing before him in praise and thanksgiving. Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us (2 Cor. 4:1, 5–7). ■ Michael Horton (Ph.D. Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry) is associate professor of historical theology and apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and chairs the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

T H AT W O R D A B O V E A L L E A RT H LY P O W E R S

Divine Double “T

he Lord kills, and He makes alive; He brings down to Sheol, and He raises up again” (1 Sam. 2:6). “I form light and create darkness, I make wealth and create woe, I am the LORD who does all these things” (Isa. 45:7). Sin and grace; death and life. Even the novice reader of the Scriptures detects the tension almost immediately. God seems to talk out of two sides of his

mouth. He commands, threatens, curses, punishes, kills, destroys. He comforts, he promises, blesses, forgives, raises to life, restores. On the one hand, God appears full of wrath and anger; on the other hand, he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. What’s a reader to do with this “divine double-talk”? The Scriptures picture the Word of God as a two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12; Rev. 1:16; 2:12; 19:15–16). The reformers identified the two edges as the law and the Gospel—two distinct doctrines yet one Word of God. The law teaches what God expects of his foremost creatures created in his image, what we are to do and not. It threatens divine wrath and punishment on all who break God’s commandments, down to the slightest infraction. The law diagnoses the death of Adam at work in Adam’s fallen children. It mirrors our sinful condition back to us and magnifies our sin so that it becomes unmistakably sinful (Rom. 5:20; 7:13). The law instructs, informs, guides, governs, and shapes our actions and attitudes. It reveals pic-

tures of what man in the image of God looks like without the corruption of sin. Law always accuses. Combined with sin it always kills (Rom. 7:10–11). It kills our pride, our ego, our attempts to bribe God with religion. The law reveals our death in Adam, and it keeps us nicely dead, lest we should imagine that we have life in ourselves. The law is the killing edge of the Word, the Gospel is its healing edge. The Gospel teaches what God has done, does, and will do in his son Jesus Christ to save the fallen sons and daughters of Adam from sin and death. It reveals God’s mercy in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world by his dying and rising. In the death of his son, God has reconciled the world to himself, not counting humanity’s sins. The death of Adam is reconciled and redeemed by the death of the second Adam (Rom. 5:18–21). Where the law reveals death in the midst of life, the Gospel reveals life in the midst of death. The Gospel raises the dead in the life of Christ. It lifts up the fallen, gives sight to the blind, declares freedom to the

Parable of the G 2 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

by WILLIAM M. CWIRLA

e-Talk and the captives, not on the basis of our merits, but on the merits of Jesus’ perfect life and death. The challenge for the reader of the Scriptures is to hold these two doctrines of the Word, the law and the Gospel, properly distinguished. To borrow some Chalcedonian terminology, law and Gospel must be held together as two distinct doctrines yet one divine Word “without confusion, division, change, or separation. ” The reformers saw this distinction of law and Gospel as an especially bright light under which the writings of the holy prophets and apostles may be explained and understood correctly. Outside this light, the merits of Christ are obscured, the law becomes a moralizing ethic, and the comforting teaching of God’s grace in Jesus is changed into a religion of works by which we bargain with God for his favor. The danger with distinctions is that they easily become confusions on the one hand, divisions on the other. The double-edged sword of the Word turns into a single-edged blade, either by confusing law and Gospel and changing them into something else, or by dividing and separating one from the other. One way to confuse law and Gospel is to change Gospel into law, permit some work on our part to trickle into God’s unconditional bestowal of salvation in the death of Jesus. Forgiveness, eternal

Good Samaritan N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

life, and salvation become conditional on some action in us. “If you do this, that, or the other thing, then God will forgive and save you.” Jesus’ “it is finished” becomes “my part is finished, now it’s up to you.” This is the raw material of religion in the naughty sense of that word, by which we try to earn by our good behavior what God has given out for free by his grace in the death of Jesus. Conditional grace is neither amazing nor is it grace. Another way to confuse law and Gospel is to change law into Gospel, hold out the law as though it were something a sinner could actually do if only he or she tried hard enough, prayed long enough, or believed sincerely enough. This happens when preachers misapply the so-called “third use or function” of the law. Here the law is preached as something you can do to please God, provided you have a proper dose of the Holy Spirit, or Gospel power, or infused grace, or whatever you choose to name it, which enables you to keep the law. This is the way of perfectionism.

Gospel passages there. This overly simplistic approach leads to moralizing on the law hand, and on the Gospel hand. antinominianism Antinomianism, the mistaken notion that Christians do not need to hear the law but only the Gospel, is at the extreme end of this line. For example, the preacher may decide that a person is “not yet ready” or “repentant enough” to hear any good news of God’s unconditional forgiveness, and so he will preach law without Gospel until his hearer is good and contrite. This was the path of pietism, which focused on the quality of one’s contrition. Only those who were “sincerely sorry” for their sins were permitted to hear the good news of forgiveness in Jesus. On the other hand, the preacher may conclude that people have heard enough bad news in their lives, and so preach Gospel without law. What the Reformation identified as the distinction of law and Gospel was not a categorical division of God’s Word, but a paradoxical tension between God’s command and his promise within his one, undivided Word. Every Word The Law and the Gospel are not two separate words, but one double-edged word, that proceeds from the mouth of God is doublewhose ultimate goal is to forgive sinners and raise the dead. God kills in order to edged. Even the simple declaration, “Jesus died for your make alive. He condemns in order to forgive. He brings down in order to raise up. sins,” has both a law and a Gospel edge to it, depending on where the accent is Now that you are a Christian, you are in a position placed. “Jesus died for your sins” is a terrifying word to keep the law. Keep working at it, and you will of law. This is how great a sinner you are, that the do the law with ever-increasing proficiency on Son of God had to die because of you. “Jesus died your way to perfection, all with divine assistance, for your sins” is a word of Gospel. This is how of course. But this is not the way the apostle Paul great a Savior you have, that Jesus should die for teaches it. As far as he is concerned, he is dead, you. The paradoxical tension of law and Gospel is crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20). His life in the reflected in the concrete existence of the believer flesh he calls a “body of death” from which he prays as being at once sinner (law) and saint (Gospel). continually for deliverance (Rom 7:24). His life is The law and the Gospel are not two separate hidden with Christ in God, not in himself (Col. words, but one double-edged word, whose ulti3:3). He no longer lives but Christ lives in him mate goal is to forgive sinners and raise the dead. (Gal. 2:21) who enables him both to will and to do God kills in order to make alive. He condemns in (Phil. 2:13). Certainly we are to be encouraged, order to forgive. He brings down to Sheol in order even exhorted, to “do” or “obey” the law. Paul’s to raise up. The law was given not to make us good epistles are full of such examples. But the exhorta- but to lead us to Christ so that we might be justition to do the law must never call into question that fied by faith in Jesus (Gal. 3:24). Having come to God has nailed the law to the cross in the death of Christ, we have come to the end (telos) of the law his son (Col. 2:14). (Rom. 10:4). The prophet Isaiah calls this God’s Another way to confuse things is to rend asun- “strange” or “sinister” work (Isa. 28:21). What is der what God has eternally joined together, to strange is not that God punishes the wicked and divorce the law from the Gospel. Instead of one rewards the good. What is alien to our religious double-edged sword, we now have two single- way of thinking is that God forgives sinners and edged razors that can be used independently from raises the dead. He consigns all to disobedience so each other. The dynamic law and Gospel become that he might have mercy upon all (Rom 11:32). two static categories; buckets into which we sort That’s counter-intuitive, strange, and downright the scriptural catch of the day. Law passages here, left-handed. God paid out the just wages of our sin

2 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

in the death of Christ, and in him all died. The death of Adam is absorbed by the death of Christ. Life in a fallen world is now found precisely in the death of the Word by whom the world was made, whom God raised from the dead. Death is not God’s last word. Life is. The law is God’s penultimate word; his ultimate word is Gospel, the good news of life in Jesus Christ. Law, Gospel, and the Good Samaritan ow does the distinction of law and Gospel play out in practice? Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). I choose this parable because it so easily lends itself to a moralistic interpretation and application, as evidenced by its popular title.1 A synagogue lawyer, an expert in the Torah, comes to test Jesus with a question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus, in fine rabbinical form, answers the question by asking a question: “What is written in the Torah. How do you read it?” The lawyer responds in legal form: “Love God, love your neighbor.” He answers his law question with an appropriately law answer; Jesus says, “Right you are. Do this, and you’ll live.” But something doesn’t sit well with that answer. Seeking to justify himself, the lawyer asks another question: “Who then is my neighbor?” If loving your neighbor is what you must do to inherit eternal life, then you must know precisely who your neighbor is. Eternal life hangs on the definition. In reply, Jesus tells this parable. A man fell among thieves and was left lying in the ditch at the side of the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. A priest came, saw the man from a distance, and went on the other side. A Levite came by and did the same thing. Finally a Samaritan came, saw the man, and had compassion on him. He bandaged the man’s wounds, put him on his donkey, took him to the local Motel 6, set him up for a couple of nights, and left a couple of denarii and a credit card to cover the tab. “Now who was neighbor to the man who fell among the thieves?” Jesus asks. “The one who helped him,” said the lawyer. “Right. Go and do likewise,” says Jesus. At first glance, Jesus’ parable seems to invite turning Gospel into law or law into Gospel. Question: What must I do to inherit eternal life? Answer: Love God, and love your neighbor. Clarifying question: Who then is my neighbor? Clarifying answer: Every broken-down person who crosses your path. Conclusion: If you love God and love your neighbor, including every man in the ditch, then you will inherit eternal life. That makes your inheritance of eternal life a transaction in which you do your part, and God does his part.

We might try turning things around. If you want to be sure that eternal life is yours, love God and love your neighbor as yourself. You can be as certain of your inheritance as you are sure of your love. The focus is now inward, on your love, instead of outward. The good news of eternal life becomes the bad news of your love, which is considerably less lustrous than the law requires. Your certainty of salvation wobbles every time you fail to pull over on the freeway to help someone with their hood up. Try law without Gospel. Read the parable as pure law. Help anyone in need that crosses your path, regardless of the cost or convenience, and at the same time love God with your whole being and entire strength. Do this perfectly, and you will live. Don’t do it, and you’re dead. Have a nice day. Thank you for asking. At least this approach is more faithful to the parable and its context. However, if there’s going to be any Gospel, it will have to be smuggled over the border, usually under the cover of allegory. You and I are the priest and Levite. Cold, indifferent, hardened to our neighbor in need, looking out for number one. Jesus is the good Samaritan who obediently humbles himself to death to help the neighbor in need, healing the sick, raising the dead, driving out the demons, keeping the law perfectly where we would not. And we get credit for being the good Samaritan even though we never actually lift a finger. Had Jesus ended this parable as he did the parable of the vineyard workers (Matt. 20:1–16) with priest and Levite getting credit in the local papers and a rich reward for having rescued the man in the ditch, we might be on to something. But as it stands, the law here serves only as a pretense for the Gospel. Love God and neighbor. You can’t do it. Jesus did it for you. You and I could be the man in the ditch, dead in trespasses and sin. (Never mind that the man in the parable fell among thieves while we’re in the ditch by our own doing. We’re trying to smuggle Gospel pearls past the exegetical border guards, remember.) The old religion offers us no help or comfort. Good Samaritan Jesus rides up on his donkey, pours healing oil and wine into our wounds, and brings us to the inn of the Church where he pays all the bills and we are nursed back to health. And having been so graciously restored, we are now in good shape to go and do likewise. Gospel gives way to law, and the parable becomes an exercise in it.2 Jesus rescued you from your ditch, now you go and do the same. But watch what happens when we look at law and Gospel in paradoxical tension. First, check out the synagogue lawyer’s question. He wants to trap

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

Jesus. Jesus knows it and declines to give a straight answer. Instead, he gives the lawyer just enough rope to hang himself. Will the lawyer interpret the Torah in terms of his merit or God’s mercy? Law or Gospel? Jesus’ question is open. The lawyer’s answer is from the perspective of the law: Love God; love your neighbor. He believes that this is what you must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus lets him run with it. “Do this and you’ll live.” The lawyer is caught in his own trap. He knows this is neither possible nor realistic. He begins to panic. Seeking to justify himself, he pops the six million dollar question: “Who then is my neighbor?” The self-justifying question goes right to the law/Gospel heart of the parable. Ultimately, this parable is not about helping crime victims in ditches at the side of the road. It’s only the bait in the trap. This parable is about the religion of the law and the bind the law puts us in when we make it the basis of eternal life. Who fails to help the man in the ditch? The religious clergy—the priest and the Levite, whom the synagogue lawyer would hold up as examples of blue-ribbon righteousness. Why didn’t they help the man in the ditch? Not because they were wicked, or indifferent, or bad, or uncaring, but because their religion based on keeping the law would not permit them. If the man in the ditch were as dead as he appeared, the priest and Levite would have become ceremonially unclean simply by touching him (Lev. 19:11–13). Rabbinic interpretation drew a four-cubit radius safety zone around the corpse. Step inside and you’re automatically unclean. Even if the priest and Levite were heading home for the holidays, the last thing they would want is to come home in a state of impurity. In addition to the humiliation, there would be the time-consuming and costly process of restoration. Most people would have approved the priest’s and Levite’s decision not to help the man in the ditch.3 Priest and Levite are caught between a legal rock and a rabbinic hard place. The law says they must love their neighbor. Yet helping the man in the ditch puts them at risk of ritual impurity. And all the while they must also love God who makes these laws in the first place. Only the Samaritan, a half-breed heretical layman, is free enough to stoop down and help the man in the ditch. He’s dead to the law, impure from the start. Ritual purity is the least of his concerns. He needs no commandment; he seeks no reward. He is free to help the man in the ditch for no other reason than the man needs help, and his help far exceeds what the law required precisely because he acts in freedom. Who is most like Christ in the parable? The broken man in the ditch. He is Christ in cognito,

2 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

hidden under weakness, beaten, broken, and bloody, who himself is on the road to Jerusalem to fall among the religious and be crucified with the thieves. And the only way to relate to him is to repent of the religious notion that commandmentkeeping is the way to inherit eternal life, drop dead to the law, get off your religious high horse, and take your place in the ditch along with the Samaritan and the man who fell among the thieves. Only one who is completely free of the law can even remotely do the law. The law says, “Love God and love your neighbor,” including that poor loser lying there in the ditch bleeding to death. But if your eternal life hangs on your bending down to help him, you are doomed from the start because you will not only resent him for lying there in the ditch, you’ll despise God for commanding you to help him. Jesus’ parable turns out to be a poison pill for what Paul calls the righteous which is by the law. In order to concur with the law, the lawyer must criticize the priest and Levite and identify with the Samaritan, the very person he least admires. What must one “do” to inherit eternal life? In a word: Repent. Have a change of mind, a re-thinking, a “re-cognition.” “Re-cognize” who God is and who you are. You are a sinner under the law, and the law can’t help you. Your only hope is the broken man on the cross. He alone holds your life in a way that you cannot. Viewed under the polarized light of law and Gospel in paradoxical tension, the parable of the Good Samaritan is both bad news and good news at the same time. It is bad news to those who would justify themselves with the law, and good news for those who re-cognize (i.e., repent) that they belong with the Samaritan and the broken man in the ditch. Only when eternal life is no longer the prize will you truly be free to love your neighbor and God. In this light, the question “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” turns out to be just plain foolish. You don’t do anything to inherit. You’re born into the right family and then the head of the family has to die. The only thing you can earn is your own death. Eternal life is a free gift of God in Jesus Christ. Held in paradoxical tension, distinguished but not confused or divided, the law remains law, and the Gospel remains Gospel. There are neighbors aplenty to love. And there is freedom in Christ to love them. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). ■ William M. Cwirla (M.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary) is Senior Pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Hacienda Heights, California.

Evaluating Sermons I was once a member of a church whose senior pastor had retired. A search committee was appointed to do what was necessary to find a suitable successor. The task seemed daunting since the retiring pastor was a gifted preacher under whose ministry people of widely diverse nationality and social backgrounds had been incorporated into the life of a growing church. When asked what it was that drew them to this church, the answer almost always focused on the biblical expository, Christ-centered preaching. The search committee was determined to find a pastor who would continue the pulpit tradition that had so nourished and expanded the ministry of this congregation. That proved to be more difficult than any of us expected. We discovered that the membership was quite capable of evaluating invited applicants in terms of personality, sensitivity for pastoral concerns, and communication skills. The last of these seemed to be of greatest importance to them. Applicants who were clear and skillful communicators and had captivating preaching styles enjoyed broad appeal regardless of their approach to the Scriptures or the substance of their messages. Since the content of the sermon was a primary issue with the search committee, it became necessary to instruct the congregation regarding the biblical substance which we have come to expect from our pulpit. I was asked to provide some general guidelines to sensitize the congregation as to what it was that the search committee was so eager to identify when evaluating the sermons of applicants for our senior pastor position. Evaluating Sermon Content There are three general categories into which sermons fall among preachers who take a text from the Bible as the starting point for their sermons. Many preachers don’t even make a pretense of beginning with Scripture or they may have a Scripture reading that really has little or nothing to do with the topic about which they intend to provide advice or encouragement. Their sermons are a form of “group counseling” as Harry Emerson Fosdick once described his sermonizing. We are not addressing that form of preaching. We are rather attempting to distinguish approaches to the preaching task that are taken by those who are serious about the Bible and its message. They are committed to the authority of the Scriptures but approach the task of preaching from the Bible differently. When a congregation is searching for a pastor, the membership should be aware of these differences, at least in general, so that intelligent, prayerful choices can be made. Moralistic Sermons: Discerning Ethical Teachings from Biblical Examples This approach takes a passage of Scripture and uses it to help people understand how they should live as Christians. One might call this approach a search for biblical guidelines for godly living. It is motivated by a sincere desire to encourage people to be more pious, loving, kind, generous, and faithful in their Christian lives. It primarily addresses the will. Biblical examples are enumerated to serve as models of the way people should live, or bad

examples are cited to warn against destructive patterns of living. Thus, Joseph serves as a powerful model of one who resisted temptation even when it cost him a prison term. And David’s courageous confrontation with Goliath challenges us to a similar fortitude as we face life’s demanding situations. Absalom demonstrates the self-destructive consequences of a rebellious youth, whereas Daniel provides us with an example of faithfulness to the true God in a pagan, unbelieving social environment. Recently I heard a sermon by a local pastor entitled “Biblical Principles of Money Management”. Citing scattered references from Ecclesiastes, the pastor gave advice about earning, handling, and sharing money. It made good rational and responsible sense about stewardship. But there was no Good News, no mention of Jesus, by whose grace and power alone we are able to receive and manage any of God’s gifts in a way that honors him and demonstrates our thankfulness. There was simply no Gospel. A Jewish rabbi or a Protestant liberal could have spoken every word of that message. There are pastors and congregations that prefer this approach. I would recommend against it for several reasons. 1. The Bible should not be treated as a source book for moral advice. That is not its purpose. It is the infallible revelation of God’s gracious determination to save a lost world. It records God’s saving purpose in real history, culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in the light of whom all Scripture must be

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

In Print November/December Book Recommendations The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament Edmund Clowney Clowney takes a fascinating walk through the Old Testament, revealing Christ in places where he is usually overlooked. B-CLO-2 PAPERBACK, $10.00 The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross Leon Morris To understand the significant terms used in New Testament teaching about Christ’s death—for example, redemption, covenant, propitiation—Morris sets these words against the background of the Greek Old Testament, the Papyri, and the Rabbinic writings as a basis for an examination of them in their New Testament setting. B-MORS-1 PAPERBACK, $15.00 The Preacher and Preaching: Reviving the Art in the Twentieth Century Samuel T. Logan, ed. Renowned preachers and teachers such as James Montgomery Boice, Joel Nederhood, Sinclair Ferguson, and R. C. Sproul, contribute to this volume on the preacher, his message, and method of presentation. B-LOG-1 HARDCOVER, $23.00 Preaching and Preachers D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones The author states his attitude, practice, and addresses various problems and questions that have been put to him. B-LLO-8 HARDCOVER, $23.00 The Pearl of Christian Comfort Petrus Dathenus The Pearl of Christian Comfort is a dialogue between a mature believer and a young Christian designed "for the instruction and consolation of all troubled hearts who are not properly able to distinguish between the law and the Gospel." Dathenus (1531-1588) was the leading figure of the early Dutch Second Reformation. B-DETH-1 HARDCOVER, $12.50 Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon Bryan Chapell A complete perspective on expository preaching aims and methods, with sections on weddings, funerals, and evangelistic messages—resources not easily found elsewhere. Students are shown the redemptive aim of all Scripture while they learn the expository preaching method. B-CHAP-1 HARDCOVER, $28.00 To order, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or, use our secure e-commerce catalog at www.AllianceNet.org. For phone orders call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only).

2 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

On Tape From the Alliance Archives Who Is Jesus? Jesus is often seen today as a great moral example or a mirror that reflects our hopes. We see as many different Jesus' as there are people — dutiful son, ascetic sage, martyr — depending on our personal needs. Starting with the question "Who was Jesus?" this series takes a look at some of the contemporary comments made about him and compare them to what the Scriptures themselves say. In addition to the normal discussion with hosts Michael Horton, Ken Jones, Kim Riddlebarger, and Rod Rosenbladt, two of the programs include a special interview with radio host and author, Hank Hannegraaff, on the topic of the meaning and evidence of the resurrection. C-WIJ-S 4 PROGRAMS ON 2 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $13.00 Standing on the Rock James M. Boice This four-part series is an invigorating study for anyone who wants to understand the power of God’s Word and live a biblical life. Done in a seminar setting, these messages capture the passion of a seasoned pastor focused on strengthening the church. Topics include principles for interpreting the Bible, dealing with attacks on the Scriptures, and understanding the sufficiency of God’s Word. A study guide with outline, definitions, and recommended reading is included. C-SOR 4 TAPE SERIES IN AN ALBUM, $27.00 For He Must Reign Kim Riddlebarger In this twelve tape series, White Horse Inn host Dr. Kim Riddlebarger introduces us to the topic of eschatology from a Reformation perspective. The series surveys the major end times positions and lays a foundation for proper biblical interpretation, especially as it relates to prophetic literature. The study is also available in a four tape-mini series edition. C-FR-S 12 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $63.00 C-FRM-S 4 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $23.00

Discovering God in Stories From the Bible Philip G. Ryken Featured on The Bible Study Hour’s Friday radio series, the lessons here explore God’s character. You’ll find thirteen stories from the Bible designed to help you know and love God more. Each message focuses on a distinct attribute of God and then helps you apply it to your life. C-DG 7 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $38.00 Man the Sinner, Man the Saint Fourth Annual Conference on Reformed Theology This seven-part series from our conference archives looks at the sinfulness of man and the abounding grace of God in providing a Savior. Topics covered include “Man as God Made Him,” “Masculinity and Femininty Under God,” “The Bondage of the Will,” and more. Speakers are Dr. James M. Boice, Dr. John H. Gerstner, Mrs. Elisabeth Elliott, and Dr. R. C. Sproul. C-77-0A 1977 PCRT SERIES, 7 MESSAGES ON 7 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $38.00 Recent White Horse Inn Programs on Tape, $5.00 each * Doctrine of God, C-W471-72 * Christian Liberty, C-W474-75 * Commercialization of Christianity, C-W476-77 * Question & Answer #2, C-W478-79 * Question & Answer #3, C-W484-85 * Question & Answer #4, C-W490-91 * Question & Answer #5, C-W496-97 * Question & Answer #6, C-W502-03 * Question & Answer #7, C-W504-05 * Question & Answer #8, C-W506-07 * Question & Answer #9, C-W508-09

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

U.S. One year $22 (MR1YR) Two years $40 (MR2YR) U.S. Student One year $15 (MRS1YR) Two years not available Canada One year $25 (MR1YR) Two years $45 (MR2YR) Europe One year $34 (MR1YR) Two years $62 (MR2YR) Other One year $35 (MR1YR) Two years $65 (MR2YR) To subscribe, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7 7

understood. Where moral admonition appears, as it certainly does, it must be clearly recommended as the response of gratitude from the Lord’s redeemed people. Providing moral admonition presumably recommended by Scripture subtly implies that if people know what is right they will do it, and if they know what is wrong they will avoid it. This is the fundamental flaw with the liberal belief in the inherent goodness of human beings. People need always to be reminded that good works are only those that proceed from a heart renewed by the Spirit of God. The power to obey has its source not in our will, but in Christ living within us. It is through repentance for the sin of falling short of God’s demands, faith in Jesus Christ our Savior, and renewal by the Holy Spirit that our wills are driven to make a beginning toward living in obedience to God’s expectations for the Christian life. All human examples are imperfect—even biblical examples. Therefore, we must be selective in identifying those qualities for which biblical figures can serve as examples. When using a human model, we risk coming to Scripture with preconceived notions of morality and searching for examples to support these notions. David often provides a bad example of conduct (adultery and polygamy), and perhaps Joseph did a little bragging when his dreams made him feel that he was somewhat superior to his older brothers. Who is to say that the moral of the story of Joseph’s dreams isn’t “Don’t boast. It may get you into trouble.” If motivational examples of faith, courage, conviction, service to others, and so forth are needed, why restrict ourselves to the Bible? Perhaps this train of thought explains why many television preachers who are moralistic in their approach often conduct interviews with famous people on their programs. Examples of “success” through a positive mental attitude and “healing” through effectual prayer are popular. The implication is clear: Follow these examples and you can expect similar results. Moralistic preaching introduces a new legalism into the pattern of a Christian lifestyle. “If you do this and avoid that, God will be pleased with you.” To leave such an impression with a congregation can be especially tragic when there

2 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

are unbelievers present. We must always emphasize that the Lord is pleased only by that which proceeds from a renewed heart empowered by Christ living within us. 6. The moralistic approach to preaching does not require the proclamation of the Good News that through repentance for sin and faith in the Crucified One, the believer is reconciled to our merciful and loving God. If a call to repentance and faith is given, it often has a tacked-on character which is not integrally related to the sermon’s text. Doctrinalistic Sermons: The Discovery of Doctrinal Implications from Biblical Texts This approach searches a text to try to clarify doctrinal teaching. It primarily addresses the intellect. In a “doctrinalistic” sermon the preacher is eager to have his congregation understand Christian doctrine better and leave a worship service with a clearer conception of what they must believe. Thus, for example, the biblical account of Joseph’s experiences demonstrates the doctrine of providence. The providential arrival of a caravan of Midianite merchants changed the plans of Joseph’s brothers, which were to kill him. They sold him into slavery instead, thereby sparing his life. And, providentially, a kindly gentleman named Potiphar, who recognized Joseph’s trustworthy leadership qualities, became his master. Providence is seen in all of Joseph’s experiences, right up to his appointment to leadership in government, which enabled him to save his father’s family from starvation. The application is obvious: Be aware of the reality of divine providence in your life. Much preaching in churches that align themselves with the Reformed tradition has historically been of the doctrinalist approach. I would recommend against it, however, for several reasons. 1. It tends to view a clearer understanding of Christian doctrine as an end to itself rather than to provide a life-changing and God-honoring body of truth. It is in danger of implying that a better knowledge of Christian doctrine guarantees a closer walk with the Lord. We must remember that knowledge of the truth, crucially important though it is, may never be a substitute for the humble surrender of one’s heart to the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. The doctrinalist approach tends to identify

individual doctrines in isolation from the larger body of biblical teaching. The truths of Scripture can be fully understood only in relation to him who is the truth. 3. This approach easily tends to lose sight of the organic nature of Scripture. The Bible is, after all, the infallible account of God’s saving acts unfolding in salvation history, from bud to flower, from promise to fulfillment. Distilling doctrinal teaching from individual texts treats the Bible as a static document for which the historical setting and the relation between prior and subsequent revelation is of little or no importance. Redemptive Historical Sermons: ChristCentered Preaching from All Scripture This approach begins with the recognition of the essential nature of the Bible. The Bible is God’s revelation of his saving purposes in real planet earth history, culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Every text in Scripture is part of the unfolding of God’s sovereign plan to redeem a lost world, a plan that reaches its fulfillment in the person and work of the Savior. Therefore, the fullest meaning of a particular text can be discerned only in relation to him who is the Word made flesh. And obedience to the ethical demands of any text is possible only in dependence on the power and grace of our divine Savior. No sermon is complete unless its place in the history of redemption, which centers in Jesus Christ, is clarified. Only then will we consistently obey the Apostle Paul’s injunction to preach Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Such preaching demands a heartfelt response because it addresses the heart, which is the core of a person’s total being, not just the intellect or will. From this perspective, Joseph’s experiences become part of the grand drama of divine redemption. Joseph is himself an object of God’s grace, who is chosen by God to be an agent for the preservation of a covenant people through whom the Savior of the world, in the fullness of time, would be born. Joseph is thereby an imperfect type and shadow of Jesus, who is the ultimate preserver and deliverer of a covenant people. Joseph’s salvation—and ours—is secure only in Jesus. Whatever noble character traits he exhibits are the evidence of grace in his life, traits that are common to those whose desire it is to please

God and who are submissive to his providential will. We, too, are eager to please God as the response of gratitude for what he has done for us in Christ. Even our desire to do God’s will has its source in him whose will it is our delight to do. Why should we insist on redemptive historical sermons? 1. The nature of the Bible requires it. Such sermons reflect what the Bible is, namely, the very Word of God revealing his saving grace, unfolding from seed to mature flower, until it reaches its fulfillment in the person and work of his divine Son. Every text in the Bible is part of that progressively unfolding message. To do justice to a biblical text, therefore, requires addressing the place that particular passage fills in the divine revelation of God’s saving concern for a lost world. In short, every text must be understood as truth for those to whom God first revealed it, or truth to the first degree. It must also be understood in relation to him who is the truth, truth to the nth degree. 2. The Bible sets the pattern for it. The Scripture interprets itself in terms of its testimony to Jesus. New Testament references to the Old Testament make unmistakably clear that the message of the Law and the Prophets centers in Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 5:17; Luke 1:69, 70, 24:27; John 5: 39, 40; Acts 13:27, 28:23; Rom. 15:7–13; Rev. 19:10). 3. One could argue that since the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, its moral and doctrinal claims must be obeyed; “Thus saith the Lord” applies to everything that is written in the Bible. This is a valid argument. But if the ethical and doctrinal imperatives are not rooted in the Gospel of repentance for sin and faith in God’s forgiving grace, the power to obey the moral demands and accept the doctrinal teachings is lacking. 4. Sermons that clarify and celebrate the divine initiatives at every point in salvation history concentrate the worshiper’s attention on what God has done. The Spirit-touched heart response will be emotional (awe, wonder, and joy), intellectual (knowledge of the truth), and volitional (grateful commitment to Christian service and devotion). Derke Bergsma (Drs., Free University of Amsterdam and Chicago Theological Seminary), after a career teaching theology and homiletics, is now Coordinator of Church Relations at Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Illinois.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

T H AT W O R D A B O V E A L L E A RT H LY P O W E R S

What Would Jesus Preach? Catechism Preaching as Preaching Christ ou may be surprised to learn that catechism preaching—long a weekly staple in Reformed churches—is enjoying an unprecedented revival in a broad cross-section of evangelical churches across America. Granted, the vast majority of contemporary catechism preachers rarely appreciate the grand tradition they have joined. In fact, these messages are rarely actually called catechism sermons. This revival is due in large part to the newfound popularity of a catechism which, though written over a hundred years ago, has only recently become emblematic of the nondenominational, unconfessional general content of ministry in Evangelicalism. Though noted for its simplicity (you’ve probably already memorized it!), this unfortunately comes at the cost of severe ambiguity—brevitas sed non claritas. Indeed, it is composed of a single, solitary question, which, being hypothetical in

by BRIAN J. LEE 3 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

nature, lacks a formal answer. This weakness, however, has not prevented it from being the explicit topic of many a sermon, the guiding principle of many more, and even the title of a few. Though this catechism has no formal title, its first line suffices: What Would Jesus Do (WWJD)? Many readers may argue that I have thus defined catechism preaching so broadly as to be utterly meaningless—every church has a catechism, every sermon is catechetical. Thus, “catechesis” is the way in which all religious communities summarize their faith, pass it on to their children, and share it with others, giving witness to what they believe. By underscoring the catechetical nature of all sermons, I want to argue, first, for a more self-conscious selection of a catechism; and, second, for the historic practice of explicitly preaching through one’s catechism. Thus, the question shifts from “Whether catechism preaching?” to “Which catechism shall we preach?” and “How shall we preach it?” The First Catechism Sermon he very first post-resurrection sermon, delivered by Christ himself, was a catechism sermon. After exposing the ignorance of the two men on the Emmaus road, he asks yet another question: “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory” (Luke 24:26)? Apparently, they were ignorant on this point as well. Luke provides only a paraphrase of Christ’s explanation of the proper answer in the following verse, “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” The significance of this sermon is underlined in the immediately following episode, where Christ instructs the gathered disciples in Jerusalem. He continues where his highway discourse left off, explaining further how the whole of Scriptures have pointed to his suffering and glorification as their fulfillment. The conclusion of this instruction is expressed in an answer, an answer that happens to be the correct response to the question posed on the road to Emmaus: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.” This text has long been recognized as a summary of all the Scriptures and a basis for understanding them in terms of law and Gospel. Zacharias Ursinus, principal authors of the Heidleberg Catechism, in his commentary introduction on the same, writes: “Christ himself makes this division of the doctrine which he will have preached in his name, when he says, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ

to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name’ (Luke 24: 46, 47). But this embraces the entire substance of the law and gospel.”1 The structure of this final chapter of Luke’s Gospel suggests a logical summary of the instruction received by the disciples during the forty days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension. It may strike us as strange that this important period of teaching receives so little attention in the Gospel accounts. During this time, Christ was able to speak openly of the significance of his completed work and specifically directs the apostles in their newly received commission. Yet Luke, who gives us the most information, merely summarizes it in the form of a one-question catechism. Why is there not more of a record of this crucial instruction? When one reads further in Acts, the second volume of Luke’s work, one reason for this apparent oversight suggests itself. Jesus Christ is still active in the witness-bearing ministry of the apostles. There is no distinction between this instruction of Christ and the proclamation of his students, for the apostles passed their catechism class! In the apostolic sermons of Acts we hear Christ’s forty days of instruction writ large. Peter’s first sermon explains why Jesus was “delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23), and further demonstrates its radical eschatological significance in terms of Joel’s fulfilled prophecy. His second sermon, likewise, explains that God has glorified his son through suffering, and how the forgiveness of sins is thus received by the faithful (3:13–15). So, too, his third explains that the crucified, rejected stone has been made the capstone and source of salvation (4:10–12). The pattern is not accidental, for it is manifest in all the apostolic sermons recorded throughout Acts. The risen Lord himself comforts his people through the ministry of his commissioned heralds.2 A catechism, most simply put, is a summary of what one professes together with the Church, cast into question-and-answer form, for ease of instruction. Christ did not spend the forty days after his resurrection testing his disciples’ skill in Old Testament Bible trivia. Nor did he merely exhort them to holiness and supply witnessing ideas. Rather, he asked them the key question which demonstrated immediately whether or not they got the point of his ministry: “Why did the Christ have to suffer?” This simple question, and what it says about the suffering and glory of the Lord and his Church, provided a starting point for virtually every sermon the apostles preached, just as it ought to do for us. It was able to explain and account for every individual part of the Old Testament Scriptures, including the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

Insofar as they summarize the Christian faith, all sermons are catechetical. Every sermon comes to its text or topic with a series of questions and answers. An exegetical preacher may follow Christ in asking, “What does this text tell us about the suffering and glory of our Lord?” (It is a sad fact that far too few have done so!) A pietist may be noted for asking, “How’s your walk with the Lord?” A revivalist may ask, “Brother, are you saved?” Even preachers who place a great priority on emotion over intellect implicitly ask a question in their sermon, “Do you feel the power?” These questions and answers flow directly out of a preacher’s theology, and any given preacher is generally quite predictable from week to week. The question is not whether a preacher will function with such a summary, but what summary he will use. Why Catechism Preaching? f all sermons are catechetical, why ought we ever to preach the catechism in the narrow sense? The answer lies in the fundamental tendency of the

Church to wander from the catechism which Christ himself provided. The scope of the Scriptures provides ample opportunity for wolves to enter in and twist their basic message. Examples of false prophets fill the pages of Old Testament and New. The apostles in the very presence of Christ failed to grasp the clear purpose of his ministry, and even the Spiritfilled churches after Pentecost demonstrated a grand proclivity for falling away from the Gospel. Warnings against ministerial deception are a centerpiece of Paul’s pastoral instruction to Timothy. How does a catechism help? May not the Church preach an erroneous catechism—or preach a sound catechism erroneously—just as simply as it misconstrues the Scriptures themselves? Of course the answer to this question is yes, but the question fails to take into account the purpose and function of the catechism itself. A catechism instructs, thereby following Paul’s direction to instruct the faithful and safeguard the truth. A congregation properly catechized is much more likely to recognize when they are hav-

A Tale of Two

catechism is a brief summary of Christian doctrine intended for the uninstructed, often put in a question-and-answer format. Since the earliest times in the church, converts were instructed in their basic understanding of the faith before being admitted to full fellowship in the sacraments of the church. The course of instruction in the ancient Church for such a convert, or catechumen, typically lasted three to five years. Luther noted that in the medieval church this course of instruction was replaced by the pomp and ceremony of the sacrament of confirmation. This ceremony substituted mere recital for the understanding of content. In the face of rampant ignorance—both on the part of pastors and laypersons—Luther reinstituted catechesis anew. Reformation catechisms demonstrate the great deal of continuity between the Reform movement and the previous 1,500 years of church history. Luther’s small catechism (1529) gives brief and simple explanations of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments, following the practice of the ancient Church. He did, however, omit the Hail Mary, which was often included in this list during the Middle Ages. While this amount of material may appear onerous and artificial by modern standards, it is interesting to note that Luther’s concern is quite pastoral:

3 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

Indeed, the total content of Scripture and preaching and everything a Christian needs to know is quite fully and adequately comprehended in these three items [Ten Commandments, Apostles’ Creed, Lord’s Prayer]. They summarize everything with such brevity and clarity that no one can complain or make any excuse that the things necessary for his salvation are too complicated or difficult for him to remember.1 Through these three forms, even the illiterate are able to comprehend a summary of the whole of Scripture and preaching.2 For Luther, these three forms were provided by God as a faithful summary of the Christian faith, allowing even the uneducated to memorize them and so know God’s goodness. Indeed, Luther’s small catechism is a masterwork of simplicity. Its intended purpose is to assure that its student comes to know and understand these three forms, as well as the elementary principles of the sacraments. Luther’s catechetical materials silence the critics who claimed that the faith required for the Gospel was too intellectual. Rome had thought that the faithful need merely voice agreement—even if they didn’t know or understand the particular teaching of the Church. But Luther and the Reformation after him recognized that one must know God in Christ in order to trust on

ing their ears tickled and much less likely to allow it. Further, a catechism explicitly addresses the question “What does it all mean?” As such, it recognizes the agreement of all the Scriptures, and demonstrates their coherence succinctly, while drawing upon the Scriptures themselves. It is much more difficult to abuse a summary answer to this big question than it is to misuse the particular parts of the whole. Thus, it is important to note that not every part of Scripture claims to be such a summary. Virtually every error the Church has ever seen comes from dividing the Scriptures and unduly emphasizing a particular part. Every heretic has at least one good proof text, often many. Yet inconsistency is always the ultimate result. Liberalism’s (and much of recent Evangelicalism’s) preference for “Jesus over Paul” is the perfect example. In opting for “No creed but Christ,” the liberal/evangelical rarely heeds Christ’s own catechism in Luke 24, which is very Pauline. They fail to recognize that Christ’s preresurrection earthly ministry is intended as a particular part of the history of redemp-

tion. Though Christ is the apex of God’s redeeming work, his earthly ministry is not its sum total. The parts of the New Testament most often neglected are precisely those parts that seek to summarize the whole of redemption—Christ in Luke 24, the apostolic preaching, and Paul’s letters. Given the preacher’s need for a working summary, how do we know whether our catechism is correct? Reformation catechisms claim authority only because they agree with Scripture. They self-consciously seek to set out the whole counsel of God, and often are explicitly comprised of quotes and supported by references taken directly from Scripture. They tend to expand upon forms taken directly from Scripture, such as the Creed, the law, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments, and generally evidence the reflection of godly people in all generations. This self-conscious type of summary immediately surpasses a contemporary talisman like WWJD. No one ever bothers to think of WWJD as a catechism, nor do they ever give texts support-

o Catechisms? him for salvation. To be a Christian, you need not be a Doctor of Theology, but you must know what you believe. Luther’s catechetical literature inspired literally hundreds of other catechisms, all following him in his adherence to the classical content of the catechism.3 The vast number of catechisms produced during the sixteenth century is a testimony to an intense pastoral drive—not to a nit-picking intellectualism in matters of the faith. This pastoral desire is nicely summarized by the Heidelberg Catechism’s second question: “What three things must you know to live and die in the joy of this [Christian] comfort?” This single question illustrates quite nicely two fundamental ways in which virtually all the catechisms of the Reformation are set apart from their modern counterpart, WWJD. The first is a concern with knowledge. Heidelberg insists that unless you know the extent of your sin and misery, the deliverance wrought for you by God, and how you ought to respond, the comfort of the Gospel is beyond your grasp. By way of contrast, WWJD is thoroughly anti-intellectual, providing no correct answer to its single, hypothetical question. WWJD is ultimately not asking what you know, but what might be the case were Jesus in your shoes. Once the catechumen takes a stab at this, he has obtained a criterion for his behavior. A criterion, we should note, entirely

of his own making. The knowledge of saving faith—consisting primarily of God’s redemptive action—has been replaced with a prescription for our own action. The second distinction follows from the first. Whereas the Heidelberg Catechism has as its goal the communication of Christian comfort, WWJD has as its goal discomfort. It seeks to challenge its student with his current life, convict him of sin, and thus drive him to more “Christian” behavior. A catechumen who correctly(?) determines the appropriate course of action must yet perform that action. Upon performance, he may either recognize his failure to measure up to the rigor of the Law, or—like the rich young ruler—deceive himself into thinking that he has kept the whole Law. There is that point of contact here between WWJD and the first section of the Heidelberg Catechism, which treats the topic of our sin and misery. Unfortunately, whereas Heidelberg proceeds to address our deliverance and faithful response, WWJD has nothing further to say. [Note: Our next issue of Modern Reformation will treat the topic of catechesis more fully.]

by BRIAN J. LEE

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

ing it as a faithful summary of Scripture—yet it functions as such. Instead of defending itself as a merely human tool for instruction, WWJD is most often presumed innocent on account of its good intentions. In short, if a formal catechism is not explicitly adopted and defended as a faithful summary of Scripture, the Church is virtually certain to implicitly and unreflectively adopt a false summary. Catechism Preaching: Truly Practical Theology hough many pastors preach WWJD on a weekly basis, very few churches actively defend the historic practice of preaching the catechism. Some Lutheran and Reformed churches are seeking to make use of their catechisms in the pulpit, but many more continue to ignore them. It is claimed that laypeople aren’t interested in doctrine, that they want to hear practical sermons. After all, what could be more boring than a lifetime of annual cycles through the 52 Lord’s Days of the Heidelberg Catechism? For one, a lifetime of weekly sermons on WWJD. Catechism preaching has always been recognized as a complement to exegetical preaching, a complement that preserves the distinctiveness of both methods. Without the systematizing presence of the catechism, there is a tendency to systematize exegesis, to force a text into an implicit summary. Without an explicit catechism, there is thereby an even greater tendency for preaching to become repetitive. Instead of making every text ask, “What Would Jesus Do?”, the catechism preacher is free to let the glorious particulars of redemption stand as particulars in their context. A well-catechized congregation is better prepared to understand good exegetical preaching. Reformation catechisms themselves recognize the rich texture of the Christian faith. By avoiding minimalism they treat fully not only what the Christian ought to do, but what he ought to believe, confess, and pray. In their common forms of Creed, law, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacraments, they equip their students with the tools of piety. They resist the reductionism that leads to preaching only propositions or only exhortation. Far more of an asset than a liability, the predictability of an annual series of sermons through the catechism serves to weave together public and private worship.3 Next Sunday is not a surprise, it is something to be anticipated and prepared for. Adults need not choose at random from the dross of devotional literature, rather, the catechism with its proof texts provides an accessible departure for study and reflection. Bible verses no longer need be memorized in isolation. Parents may more easily engage their children: at home the sponge that

3 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

is their memory has a goal for the week, and in church the butterfly that is his or her attention span has a fixed point on which to rest. For a preacher, a catechism sermon is, as an opportunity to creatively engage a tradition, a chance to man the rudder and steer a set course. Though there is always a temptation to laziness and repetitiveness, this is not unique to catechism preaching. In our catechisms, the essence of our faith is laid bare, its dependence upon Scripture everywhere noted. The preacher of the catechism must exhort his people to confess their sins by the law, to confess their faith by the Creed, to pray as their Lord did, and to be strengthened by the feeding and washing wrought by his body and blood. The full range of the Christian life is embraced in these simple forms. There is no better training for the new preacher who meets in the catechism the full breadth of his pastoral calling. No doubt the greatest challenge to a true revival of catechism preaching is the failed institution of the evening, or second, service on the Lord’s Day. The transition from a single service to two is a difficult one. Yet this is a question of priorities, and the priorities of the Church ought to be established from the top down. Our worship bulletins bulge with announcements of weekly activities, which too often distract rather than instruct. Concerned catechists ought to fight for its presence wherever it can be found. Short of a second service, a catechism sermon could easily be the centerpiece of a midweek study. Most congregations with a single service would benefit from a month or two of catechism sermons in lieu of standard topical fare. Rediscovering the Value of Catechisms here is a principled objection to catechism preaching which claims that the only legitimate text for a sermon is the text of Scripture. Such logic, of course, necessarily rules out all topical sermons, which is not such a bad thing. Yet it is not clear that this principle in itself rules out catechetical preaching, classically understood. As this article has maintained, the catechism is a summary, valid only insofar as it faithfully reflects the teaching of Scripture. A good catechism sermon tests the document, holding it up to the light of the Scriptures, and allowing it only to shine through. The reformers and their successors preached the catechism precisely so illiterate laypeople could know the comfort of the Gospel. Perhaps it is time we started doing the same. ■

Brian J. Lee (Ph.D. candidate in theology, Calvin Theological Seminary) is a staff editor.

T H AT W O R D A B O V E A L L E A RT H LY P O W E R S

Looking for Grace in All the Wrong Places: The Marginalization of Preaching ost American Christians today do not understand how listening to an hour of preaching can be an act of worship. This is because we tend to regard worship as something inherently emotional. Worship, we believe, is something that we feel. We like to be “lifted up to the Lord” in worship, which seems to require a heavy emphasis on songs. “Good worship” is worship that moves us, touches our heart, and causes us to sway a little. Because we equate praise and worship with emotions, we tend to think of our standard Lord’s Day morning worship services as containing two distinct parts: the “praise and worship” part (which consists primarily of singing and perhaps public testimonies), and the teaching or lesson part (which consists of the pastor’s morning sermon). We see the sermon as a wholly intellectual and didactic event (read: it doesn’t move us emotionally), so we think that the worship stops when the preaching begins. I get blank looks from otherwise energetic Christians when

by R O B E RT S P I N N E Y N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

I speak of “worshiping while one listens to the Word being proclaimed” or “preaching as an act of worship for preacher and listener” or “meeting God in the preached Word.” What is the problem? In addition to placing too much importance upon emotions, we American Christians suffer from a sub-biblical view of preaching. But this may be because—in spite of all our affirmations and orthodox statements of faith—we have a sub-biblical view of the Word of God itself. We can (and should) say many good things about the Word of God: it is infallible, it is inerrant, it is God-breathed, it is useful, it is relevant, it is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. But we should add one other thing, something our Protestant forefathers emphasized but we have forgotten: the Word of God mediates the presence of God to us. In other words, God does not normally speak to his people today through dreams or Isaiah-like prophets. He speaks through his Word. This means that if I wish to hear God’s voice and enjoy his presence, I need to sit before his Word. To put it another way, we meet God in his Word. The Holy Scriptures not only teach us, exhort us, and correct us (although they do all these things), God’s Word is also the normal medium through which we encounter God himself and receive from him. This is one of the many ways in which the Bible differs from other books. One example will suffice. A good history book will communicate the facts about Abraham Lincoln to me. An extremely skillful history book may do such a good job of explaining Abraham Lincoln that I can have some understanding of the former president’s motives, personality, and demeanor. But in the end, I can only encounter facts about Abraham Lincoln; I cannot encounter Abraham Lincoln himself. This means that my history book is only (or at best) didactic: it teaches me. The Bible is quite different, however. To be sure, the Scriptures teach us many facts about God, his truth, and his ways among men. A careful reading of the sacred Word enables us to understand in part God’s character, his attributes, and his motives. In this sense, the Bible (like many other books) is didactic: it teaches me. But the Bible is much more. A prayerful and reverential reading of its pages allows one to encounter the living God himself! We do not only meet with facts about God; we meet with God himself. This is what we mean when we say that the Word of God mediates the presence of God to us. Where am I most likely to commune with God intimately? When can I most expect God to supply his grace and usher me into his presence? When

3 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

the Word of God is set before me richly, carefully, clearly, and redemptively. We reveal a sub-biblical understanding of the Word of God when we deny (whether in theory or practice) that the Word mediates God’s presence to us. Few American Christians today believe that the Word of God mediates the presence of God. Ask the average American Christian when (or where) she is most likely to commune with God intimately, and she will respond, “When I’m singing.” This is why we use the phrase “praise and worship services” to describe a meeting where we do nothing but sing. In other words, we use songs to mediate the presence of God. Although we would never admit it, we secretly believe that hymns, contemporary Christian songs, and praise choruses are more powerful than the Holy Scriptures. And this is precisely why we do not regard listening to a sermon as the high point of our worship. We no longer know how to meet God in his Word. Truth be known, we do not come to the preaching hour expecting to meet God; we only expect to hear a lesson. In other words, we are rationalists who see the proclamation of the Word of God as an exclusively didactic and intellectual process. It is during the singing and testimony time that our emotions are aroused and “real praise and worship” occurs. Our Protestant forefathers would be shocked by our emotionalism, quasi-mysticism, and Roman Catholic mentality. The medieval Roman Catholic Church provided the ultimate in sensory religious experience that was not based upon the Word of God. Catholic masses were nothing if not regal, mysterious, moving, and sacral (as in “creating a sense of the sacred”). They also ordinarily gave no place to the vernacular preaching of the Word of God. In the medieval Roman Catholic Church, atmosphere and ritual were used to excite the emotions and give the people a religious experience. From the beginning, Protestants rejected this approach to “praise and worship.” In contrast, Protestants affirmed that the Scriptures—not the medieval mass, which even Rome’s critics conceded was a moving religious experience—mediated the presence of God. Protestants made the proclamation of the Word of God (and, specifically, the sermon) the primary focus of the Christian meeting. They went so far as to call the Word of God “a means of grace,” or one of the two objective channels (the other being the Sacraments) instituted by God wherein he ordinarily binds himself in the communication of his grace. For our Protestant ancestors, preaching was not a “teaching time” that followed the worship portion of the service. Nor was it a mere “lesson” that engaged the mind while

singing engaged the heart. Preaching was the time when Christians were most likely to commune with God. I understand that the appeal for Word-based worship, or worship that is centered upon the preaching and hearing of the Word of God, may sound strange just as we are beginning to abandon it in favor of more “exciting” methods. But Wordbased worship was commonplace among our Protestant forefathers. Protestants of all stripes understood that the guidelines for a biblical and profitable worship service could be reduced to one phrase: Word and Sacrament. For centuries, Christians have met with their God in the written Word (as set forth in the sermon) and in the living Word (as set forth in the Lord’s Supper service). We may be the first generation of Christians to think that we can have a praise and worship service without the presence of either the preached Word or the communion table. Why do most American Christians assume that preaching is not the primary means for praising and worshiping God? Two reasons. First, many preachers do a bad job of preaching. In particular, so many of our sermons have emphasized morals, ethics, and lifestyle choices without situating those issues within a redemptive context that we have made it almost impossible for Christians to worship while listening to the Word. We emphasize Christian behavior to the exclusion of the person of Christ. When we do not hear the Triune God set forth in the sermon in a meaningful way, it is extraordinarily difficult to worship. (One brother tells me he now understands why his church practices exclusive psalmody: due to the steady diet of moralistic and exemplaristic preaching, psalm singing is sometimes the only time when the flock hears redemptive themes.) How do we raise our eyes to heaven to worship our salvation-giving God when the sermon outline goes like this: I. Ahab’s Major Flaw II. Are You Like Ahab? III. Don’t Be Like Ahab In other words, moralistic and exemplaristic sermons—which cause us to look exclusively at ourselves and ask, “How am I doing?”—are not conducive to worship. After hearing years and years of nonredemptive sermons, our churchgoers are trained to regard sermons as morality lessons only. They think the function of the sermon is to exhort in moral behavior and provide encouragement. Most churchgoers have never been asked to see Christ in a sermon, so they do not expect to do so and do not know how to do so.

On the other hand, theocentric, Christocentric, and redemptive sermons are conducive to worship. These sermons cause us to look heavenward and see the God who redeemed us. By setting forth these themes, these sermons do mediate the presence of God to us. We see Christ by faith as he is preached (“faith comes by hearing...”). We consider and exult in our God as he is set forth in a sermon. There is a second reason American Christians today are strangers to Word-based worship. Listeners often do a bad job of listening. We Americans have been so dumbed-down by an often shoddy public education system, sound-bite political campaigns, half-hour sitcoms, video games, and our addiction to entertainment that we find it difficult to listen to a sixty-minute-long sermon. To make matters worse, we are so historically ignorant that we do not realize how spiritually immature we are! Most American Christians today regard a sixty-minute sermon as criminally long, which means that Charles Haddon Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and most Puritan pastors would have been pulpit failures by contemporary American standards. The point, however, is that we are unable to listen skillfully and profitably. I suspect that many of us simply do not like to listen. Good listening requires good thinking, which is a chore. But a major part of the problem with our listening, I suspect, is that we do not come to sermons expecting to see God. We do not listen expecting to hear redemptive truth. And we do not approach the preaching hour expecting the Word of God to mediate God’s presence. Indeed, experiencing God’s presence is often the farthest thing from our minds when we settle in to listen to a sermon; instead, we expect to experience a morality lesson or a duty pressed upon us. This is why we groan impatiently (but inaudibly, of course) when the preacher has spoken for fifty minutes and then says, “And now let us consider my last point.” Our groan is proof that we do not expect that last point to be something that shows us the Savior, or something that opens up the glory of God for us. Who would groan impatiently if he expected to see God more clearly? Lest I be misunderstood, I should conclude by affirming that I favor Christian meetings where praise and worship abounds. It is biblical to include singing in such a service, and I would certainly want to include singing in my Lord’s Day gatherings. But hymns and songs are effective only insofar as they proclaim the Word of God, and a hymn or song (at best) only scratches the surface of biblical exposition. We deny the extraordinary power of the Word of God when we assume that

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

hymns and praise choruses are the best facilitators of genuine worship. I also favor Christian meetings where worshipers’ emotions are involved. Of course sitting in the presence of the Holy One of Israel is “emotional”! Of course seeing Christ and exalting him reaches down to the worshipers’ emotions! But we do not pursue emotions for their own sake or because it is enjoyable to get “pumped up,” as if we were in a high school pep rally. We pursue God in spirit and in truth; we pursue God as he speaks in his Word. Do you want a real praise and worship service? Do you wish to commune with God intimately? Do you wish to handle spiritual realities and taste

NOW

AVA I L A B L E

heavenly food? Then find a good Christ-centered preacher, tell him to preach meaty sermons that present redemptive truth, prepare to listen, and expect to feast. Good Bible exposition is not merely talk about God; it is God’s talk. Good preaching is not merely correct proclamation of the truth; it is God himself proclaiming his Truth in his own words. If hearing God speak in his Word does not elicit true praise and worship from us, then we have a problem that requires a solution much greater than a Sunday night singing service. ■ Robert Spinney (Ph.D., Vanderbilt) is a church officer at Grace Baptist Church in Hartsville, Tennessee.

CASSETTE

TAPE

NATIONAL PASTORS CONFERENCE

“The Power of Gospel Preaching” Plenary

Speakers

THE REVEREND ALISTAIR BEGG—“Expository Preaching” DR. WALTER C. KAISER—“Preaching from the Old Testament” DR. SINCLAIR B. FERGUSON—"Preaching for Preachers" THE REVEREND HARRY L. REEDER, III—“The Sufficiency of Scripture for Preaching” DR. R. C. SPROUL—“Toward a Modern Reformation” C-NPC-P 12 tapes in an album, $60.00 Single tapes, $5.00 each

S e mi n a r S p e a k e r s DR. BRYAN CHAPELL—“Christ-Centered Preaching” DR. W. ROBERT GODFREY—“Understanding the Worship Service” DR. MICHAEL HORTON—“Redemptive Historical Preaching” DR. PAUL S. JONES—“What Every Pastor Should Know About Music and Musicians” THE REVEREND KEN JONES—“The Holy Spirit and Preaching” DR. GENE EDWARD VEITH—“Preaching in Postmodern Times” DR. JOHN D. HANNAH—“Jonathan Edwards: the Preacher” THE REVEREND HARRY L. REEDER, III—“Growing Healthy Churches” C-NPC-S 10 tapes in an album, $50.00 Single tapes, $5.00 each Use the order form in the center of this magazine or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET or on line at www.AllianceNet.org.

3 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

T H AT W O R D A B O V E A L L E A RT H LY P O W E R S

Immodest Speech: Speaking the Truth in Love he spirit of our age is very unfriendly towards dogmatic people. Folk whose opinions are clearly formulated and strongly held are not popular. A person of conviction, however intelligent, sincere and humble he may be, will be fortunate if he escapes the charge of being a bigot. Nowadays the really great mind is thought to be both broad and open—broad enough to absorb every fresh idea which is presented to it, and open enough to go on doing so ad infinitum.

What are we to say to this? We must reply that historic Christianity is essentially dogmatic, because it purports to be a revealed faith. If the Christian religion were just a collection of the philosophical and ethical ideas of men (like Hinduism), dogmatism would be entirely out of place. But if God has spoken (as Christians claim), both in the olden days through the prophets and in these days through His Son (Heb. 1:1,2), why should it be thought “dogmatic” to believe His Word ourselves and to urge other people to believe it too? If there is a Word from God which may be read and received today, would it not rather be the height of folly and sin to disregard it? Of course the fact that God has spoken, and that His revelation is recorded in a book, does not mean that Christians know everything. I fear we may sometimes give the impression that we think we do, in which case we need the forgiveness of God for our cocksure pretensions to omniscience….

…Christian dogmatism has, or should have, a limited field. It is not tantamount to the claim to omniscience. Yet in those things which are clearly revealed in Scripture, Christians should not be doubtful or apologetic. The corridors of the New Testament reverberate with dogmatic affirmations beginning “We know”, “We are sure”, “We are confident”. If you question this, read the First Epistle of John in which verbs meaning “to know” occur about forty times. They strike a note of joyful assurance which is sadly missing from many parts of the church today and which needs to be recaptured. “It is quite mistaken,” Professor James Stewart has written, “to suppose that humility excludes conviction. G. K. Chesterton once penned some wise words about what he called ‘the dislocation of humility’…. ‘What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubt-

by J O H N S T O T T N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

ful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe on the multiplication table.’ Humble and self-forgetting we must be always,” Professor Stewart continues, “but diffident and apologetic about the Gospel never….” …[W]hen the biblical teaching is plain, the cult of the open mind is a sign not of maturity, but of immaturity. Those who cannot make up their minds what to believe, are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” Paul dubs “babies”. (Eph. 4:14) And the prevalence of people “who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” is a characteristic of “the times of stress” in which we are living (Heralds of God, by James S. Stewart; Hodder, 1946; p.210)…. The Unbalanced Hatred of Controversy It is very easy to tolerate the opinions of others if we have no strong opinions of our own. But we should not acquiesce in this easygoing tolerance. We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). But how can we be tolerant in mind to what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous?… Some of our divisions are not only unnecessary, but sinful and debilitating, an offense to God and a hindrance to the spread of the gospel. In my own conviction, the visible unity of the church (in each region or country) is both biblically right and practically desirable, and we should be actively seeking it. At the same time, we should ask ourselves a simple but searching question. If we are to meet the enemies of Christ with a united Christian front, with what kind of Christianity are we going to face them? The only weapon with which the opponents of the gospel can be overthrown is the gospel itself. It would be a tragedy if, in our desire for their overthrow, the only effective weapon in our armoury were to drop from our hands. United Christianity which is not true Christianity will not gain the victory over non-Christian forces, but will itself succumb to them…. This “lowest common denominator” approach gives the impression (although it has often been denied) of a regrettable indifference to revealed

4 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

truth. It has also led sometimes to a love of the unambiguous statement which conceals deep and sincerely held differences and does no lasting good. It merely papers over the cracks. This looks nice and tidy for a while, for the cracks are temporarily hidden from view. They remain there beneath the surface, however, and will one day break into sight again, by that time probably wider and deeper that before. It is neither honest nor helpful to make out that divergent opinions are in reality different ways of saying the same thing…. The proper activity of professing Christians who disagree with one another is neither to ignore, nor conceal, nor even to minimize their differences, but to debate them. Take the Church of Rome as an example. I find it distressing to see Protestants and Roman Catholics united in some common act of worship or witness. Why? Because it gives the onlooker the impression that their disagreements are now virtually over. “See,” the unsophisticated spectator might say, “they can now engage in prayer and proclamation together; what remains to divide them?” But such public display of unity is a game of let’s pretend; it is not living in the real world…. [T]he Christian church, whether universal or local, is intended by God to be a confessional church. The church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Revealed truth is thus likened to a building, and the church’s calling is to be its “foundation” (holding it firm so that it is not moved) and its “pillar” (holding it aloft so that all may see it). However hostile the spirit of the age may be to an outspoken confession of the truth, the church has no liberty to reject its God-given task. ■

John Stott served for the majority of his ministry as rector of All Souls Church, London, and is perhaps best known outside the UK for his role as a principal framer of the Lausanne Covenant (1974). This article is an edited form of the chapter “A Defense of Theological Definition” in Christ the Controversialist. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press.

F F

R O

E I

E G

| O

S S

P E

A O

C C

E C

Interview with William Willimon

A New Evaluative Question: “Would Jesus Have to Be Crucified to Make This Sermon Work?”

WILLIAM WILLIMON Professor and Deaen of the Chapel, Duke University

One of MR’s aims is to insist that “conservative/liberal” (or “fundamentalist/modernist”) is not the only important distinction to be drawn in the American Protestant landscape. For one thing, not all conservatives are as serious about Scripture as they claim to be. Nor are all so-called liberals actually as compromised as they might at first appear when evaluated through fundamentalist rather than confessional lenses. Moreover, only seeing conservatives and liberals (even when this division is important) has led many evangelicals to neglect the richness of their particular traditions (Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, etc.) for the sake of a minimalistic parachurch coalition. In light of this intention to problematize simple conservative/liberal categories a bit, we sat down to talk about preaching with one of the theologians who doesn’t fit well in the standard typology. Duke University’s Will Willimon may not be easy to label (we’ll call him a postliberal for now), but he is always sure to both enlighten and amuse. —EDS. MR: First of all, could you give us a brief sketch of your own background and where you place yourself on a theological map? WW: I grew up in a big, downtown United Methodist Church, so I’m of a mainline, liberal Protestant background. Then I went to Yale Divinity School, so I’m also a mainline, liberal Protestant in education. Beginning in seminary, though, I began to realize that there were certain problems inherent in mainline theological liberalism. So as I became a parish pastor, I was continuing to develop my critique—spurred on, I think, by people like Lesslie Newbigin, Stanley Hauerwas, Will Campbell, and Walt Bruggeman. MR: You have warned in some of your writings that evangelicals now sound more like liberals than liberals do. What do you mean by that? WW: That’s about the worst thing I can say about evangelicals. But perhaps one way I can explain this statement is by recounting an experience I had right after coming to Duke. I was told that a lot of students

went to a kind of conservative, evangelical, Presbyterian church. So, one Sunday I had free, I made my way over to that church to see this “conservative, evangelical, biblical theology” they were getting. I remember the pastor was preaching on depression. He said, “I’m going to preach a sermon on depression. I know a lot of you are suffering from it.” I thought this was curious because I couldn’t think of anywhere Jesus got into depression. A lot of times Jesus caused depression! So the pastor took as his text something from one of the Psalms, “Why are you cast down, O, my soul?” or something. From there he launched into this kind of thing about how we should try to think positively. We should try to have a vision of higher things. And I sat there, really disillusioned, because I thought, “Gee, I thought they took the Bible. They took the stuff whole. But hey, he sounds like a Methodist.” It was just kind of a Norman Vincent Peale with a little Christian tinting. So that stands out in my mind as just one example, but [there are] other ones. I think those of us in the mainline sort of think that, well, we may be soft on Scripture—but

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

somewhere there are evangelicals who are taking this stuff straight and following it whole. And then when you find out that evangelicals also are capable of buying into the kind of American consumerist mentality where the Gospel becomes another form of therapy, it’s downright disillusioning. MR: Professor Lindbeck at Yale says that it used to take a liberal audience to swallow Norman Vincent Peale. But as the case of Robert Schuller indicates, conservatives now eat it up. WW: Wow! That’s great; that is a great quote. Professor Lindbeck has certainly been helpful for me. On this point of the therapeutic, it’s curious. I preached out in southern California in a large church. (I won’t mention the name of the church, but it’s mostly glass.) On the way to the airport after the service, my wife said to me, “Do you know, if you hadn’t read Scripture this morning and preached, I don’t think Jesus would have ever been mentioned.” I said: “Look, I know Jesus. He’s uncomfortable in these circumstances. He doesn’t like this. We do well just to avoid him.” But it is interesting that the culture in which we preach is just the air we breathe, the water we drink. It has its way with all of us, and so the Gospel becomes just another lifestyle choice or another commodity that will make you feel a little less miserable about living in California. And that gets sort of corrupted. There are times when I want to say to some evangelicals: “Hey, people, we got here before you did.” We used to run the culture. We used to say, “Gee, if we can just get a few more forward-thinking, concerned people elected to Congress, we can run it.” Well, I think the Gospel is more abrasive and contentious with the world in which we live than we preachers usually appreciate. MR: You have often said that trying to “translate” the Bible into the acceptable idiom of the culture is frequently just accommodating to the culture. For the narrative of God’s action in Christ throughout redemptive history trumps all the best the world can offer. WW: Indeed. Our story is about a cross; it can’t easily be put in the world’s terms. This past Easter, I told the people: “There was a day when I thought my problem was how to get critical, modern, twentieth century people to believe that a Jew who was dead three days then returned and came back. I just thought that was hard for you all to swallow. But then I realized that last year, by my count, there were seven movies where people came back from the dead—Meet Joe Black, The Titanic, something about a snowman. Then I realized that it isn’t that you people are skep-

4 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

tical and critical. It’s that all of you easily believe in immortality. I mean, you all believe you’re just so wonderful that you’re going to just go on forever, that there will always be some spark of you.” “Well, no, we’re Christians, and that means we believe you’ll die. And you really will die. You won’t appear to die. You won’t live on in our memories. There’s nothing related to you like a butterfly or anything. I mean you’re dead. And the only thing that can be done about that will have to be done by God. It’ll have to be some stunning act of God, or really there is no hope.” It just struck me as interesting to realize: “Gee, my problem is not that people don’t believe in the afterlife. It is that they just believe ridiculous things about it. They all believe in the afterlife. They just believe in a pagan afterlife.” And so Christians need to get together on Easter and say, “Hey, the ending of the movie X, Y, or Titanic—it’s stupid, okay?” (And I don’t just mean the bad acting.) It is that death is really horrible. And if Jesus Christ is not raised from the dead, then there’s no happy ending. I mean, there’s no way to redeem any of that. I think we preachers have our hands full. We have all of these moments where we just have to keep telling people, “Well, I’m sorry, this sermon isn’t about this or that. It is about death; this is about the Gospel.” MR: Think of C. S. Lewis’ line that we’re like children making mud pies in the slums because we don’t know what it would be like to have a holiday at the sea. Do we give them enough of a vision of what God has in store for us because of the work of Jesus Christ? Do we give them enough of that to really sink their teeth into? Part of the boredom some of us had growing up in evangelical churches was that we really didn’t have Christ placarded before us. The drama of redemption was reduced to timeless principles. WW: Wow! That’s a great way of putting it. Judaism and Christianity are just opposed to timeless principles. We’re more into drama. That’s why early Christians weren’t allowed to go to the play. The church had the sense to know that that was our competition out there. And that’s also why we, on Good Friday, in our chapel, we get in there in the dark and we extinguish the candles one by one. We tell the story of Jesus’ death, and we turn out all the lights. And we toll the bell. The musicians and I call it the “scarethe-hell-out-of-the-pagans-service.” MR: Do you put that on the top of the liturgy? WW: Sort of. I preach the sermon. I stand up and say: “You’re all going to die. I don’t care if you’ve

got gold, or transplanted organs, or whatever. You’re all dead.” But to understand some of the drama and to realize this thing is big. MR: Do you think that we have more clamoring for drama in the service because there’s not enough drama in the preaching? WW: That’s an interesting thought. Yeah, but I also think that in Protestantism we try to make the sermon bear the weight of the service. MR: We neglect the rest of the liturgy? WW: The liturgy, the building, lots of it. I mean, when I first came to Duke Chapel, I had this huge neo-Gothic building. And I was thinking, ”Oh, man, this thing looks out of date. It’s just so archaic, and, oh, it just confirms students’ thoughts that Christianity is something out of the past.” But I grew to love the building because of one great thing about it: it really steps on you. It’s bigger than you are, and so when some smart kid walks in there and says he scored 1350 on the SAT, the building kind of says: “Well, you don’t know anything, okay? You can’t think this thing through. It’s large.” But our problem isn’t just the flattening of buildings, but also the service. The sermon, important though it is, is symbiotic on a lot of other stuff happening. I often think that some of my toughest, most prophetic, judgmental sermons are preached in the context of communion, of the Eucharist, where the purpose of the sermon is to make people really, really hungry and empty. They begin to realize that they have nothing but empty hands. Then you say, “Oh, good, you’ve come to the right place. Have some bread, have some wine.” MR: Are you sure you’re a Methodist? (You don’t have to answer that.) When preachers adopt the world’s terms and categories, they usually claim that they are just trying to make Christianity understandable to those hearing them. But you have suggested in various contexts that this “translation” is actually about keeping as far away as possible from calling our people to repentance and to renew their baptism. WW: That’s a great way of putting it. “Translations” are different than what we might call “redescriptions.” The latter are honorable attempts to redescribe what it means to be a Christian, and to do that in a way that is faithful to this peculiarity of the Gospel. But “translations” are the attempt to communicate one belief system or theology in the terms of another—as if that could really be done. It can’t; things are lost in translation. Translators try to make things seem “normal” to

someone from the other system. Well, Christianity is not normal to the world; it is peculiar. People kid me about the word “peculiar” coming up frequently in my speech, but preaching the Gospel in the middle of a big university, I’m surprised—almost on a weekly basis—by how the Gospel just doesn’t make sense in the conventional, culturally approved, officially sanctioned modes of making sense in our world. The Gospel is not easily translatable, transferable, etc. Another thing that George Lindbeck has helped me to see is that the Gospel is about the creation of a culture—a counter-culture. And how are cultures created? They’re created through words. It’s just not that easy to take, say, process theology or process philosophy and then claim, “Oh, well, the Christian faith is sort of doing that.” The problem with these transpositions is Jesus. Jesus is so delightful. He just keeps evading the grasp of contemporary attempts to confine him within something we can handle. MR: We think of consumerism, for instance. Is it possible to “translate” Jesus to people who really view themselves, more than anything else, as consumers? WW: No, I think it’s really, really hard. As a related example, when I think about the church debates about homosexuality (my church is in the throes of that debate right now), it is increasingly clear that sexuality just isn’t a big enough category for Christianity. I mean, even more than Christians believe in being straight, we just don’t believe that much in sex at all. Jesus never got into the subject. It just seemed to bore him. It just seemed to be fairly irrelevant. Why didn’t he get into it more? Well, the standard kind of liberal answer is, “He was an uneducated first century Jew and didn’t know that the purpose of human life is orgasm.” Well, that’s not a good answer. I think a better answer is that he had a very different view of a human being than we do. I mean, there’s a reason that Calvin Klein does kiddie porn in his ads, and that is that he’s working out of a framework which says there is no higher purpose of the human being than consumption. If we can teach you to consume blue jeans, we can get you to consume people. And there’s a great fit between sex and that. MR: And so eventually you can consume God, too? WW: Oh, sure, and so God becomes another commodity that’s here to make me feel better and take away briefly some of the pain of having to live in Pittsburgh. But, in reality, the Gospel can make life more painful.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

You put your finger on something really important in consumerism. During my seminary days, I remember [Yale University Minister] William Sloan Coffin complaining, “I don’t understand how you lure people to the Gospel by appealing to their selfishness and then end up with Jesus.” We are supposed to ask, “Are you depressed? Well, come to Jesus, and you’ll feel better.” “Do you drink too much? Well, give your life to Jesus. We’ll work on that.” How do you get from there to: “You want to live? Die. Take up your cross. Follow.” So, again, I’m just continually impressed by how odd Jesus is and by what a very different way his way is. I kind of give the students credit because when you preach on the university campus, you have so many opportunities for people to interrupt with “What? What in the world are you talking about? You cannot be serious.” MR: Do you find in working with these students that you actually have more “success”—or, phrased differently, that you can provoke more real conversations—by not tiptoeing around the scandal, but by actually bringing the scandal out in the open? WW: Yes, I do. You might expect me to say this, but this stuff is generational to a degree. There’s some kind of generational thing going on here right now. I think particularly of two things about many in this generation of young adults. One, a lot of them are displeased. C. S. Lewis once said, “One of our problems is people are just far too easily pleased with present arrangements,” while the Gospel tends to do real well among people who say, “Gee, is there more to life than this? Can we do any better?” Well, we don’t get too much of that. I mean, we get a number who are mad at their parents. And we can work with that. That’s good. Let us help you have a more interesting life than your mother had. You can follow Jesus. So there is a dissonance. I notice that the churches that highlight the cultural disgust seem to “do well” among the young. While the churches that are still in the mode of, “Let us help you adapt and adjust to present arrangements,” find the kids responding: “Well, we know alcohol is better and quicker. And if I want to adjust to present arrangements, I’ve got other ways of doing it than you.” I think one reason why my church is doing so poorly with the under-thirty crowd is that we don’t have any cultural disgust. The other thing—of my two points above— that I like about this crowd (and maybe this is merely a byproduct of their cultural disgust) is that they’re really reaching and yearning for a richer, thicker description of the world than has been presently available to them. When I was thinking about my baccalaureate

4 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

sermon this year, I try to keep ever before me that they’re the ones that produced the Blair Witch Project movie. I find that curious because we’ve been telling young people for decades: “Boys and girls, there is nothing to be afraid of in the woods. We can explain everything. Anything we find that we can’t explain, we can get a government grant and do research on it and explain that. And yet you people come along and say, ‘I’m sorry, when the lights go out, there’s something out there trying to eat me.’” I’m just thinking we’ve got a generation that is bored with our conventional modes of explaining ourselves—psychology, sociology, economics, politics. I want Christianity to ride in on that and to say, “Oh, well, we’ve got a much more intellectually interesting way of talking about the world than, say, psychology.” MR: A young woman named Sarah Hinlicky wrote an interesting editorial for First Things last year called “Talking to Generation X.”1 Her argument to the church growth movement was basically: “We know you’ve tried very hard to get us to church. That’s part of the problem. Many of your appeals have been carefully calculated for success, and that turns our collective stomach.” WW: Oh, it does. I got an e-mail from this guy. He’s out in San Francisco. He, at my urging, got established out there and went to church. He said that a minister stood up and read this really ridiculous story about something Jesus had done. And so the guy thought, “Hey, this is going to be good.” But then the minister said, “I’ve got problems with this story.” My acquaintance said, “What crap! I mean, why would you give your life to something that you’ve got problems with? Stand up and argue that this story is true. That would be interesting. It is not interesting to hear that you think you are so smart, you know more than the Bible. And so I said to the minister: ‘Hey, you don’t even believe in the Bible. Why would you worry if you didn’t believe?’” This guy told me that his generation is “yearning for some kind of weird, different account of what’s going on because we’re feeling that something must be weird to make things like this.” MR: In many evangelical congregations, one can often tell immediately what literature the pastor has been reading, what his views are on the latest book, what he’s just been influenced by, etc. So many of them seem to be just sort of shooting from the hip. The guy usually claims a high view of Scripture on paper, but it seems that in actual practice, when he mounts the pulpit, he thinks his authority comes from somewhere else— from his ability to read sociological trends or something. As you address potential preachers, how do you prepare them to be faithful to biblical preaching?

WW: Where do confidence and conviction come from? I don’t mean to sound corny, but it kind of arises out of love. I mean, you end up loving the Bible. For me, it was very important to really work at becoming more respectful of Scripture and less respectful of myself. Walter Bruggeman said we need to take Scripture with a kind of obedient playfulness, and I like that image. For me the hardest thing was submitting and saying: “OK, I’m going to make-believe that this ancient book knows more than I do. And let’s see where we go with that. Let’s just see how far that will play.” So I would say to pastors: We work with such great material. It would be hard to find a stranger, more abrasive document than the Bible in so many ways. (And I mean strange and abrasive as compliments.) Again, working with kids, I think where my generation said, “That’s weird; let’s explain it”; they say, “Gosh, that’s weird; let’s enjoy it.” The Bible is just full of weird stuff. So for me, in my own development, it meant just constantly telling myself the Bible has the ability to command, and I don’t need to make excuses for it. I don’t need to say: “This was Jesus on a bad day. I’m sorry he meant this. I don’t know why he hated rich people. I don’t know what he had against mothers and mothers-in-laws. I don’t know why he would make a comment like that.” The church hasn’t taken discipleship very seriously. I mean, I can’t think of where Jesus ever said: “Do you agree with this? Does this make sense to you?” He just said, “Follow me, and take up your cross.” We’ve got to do business with that. You have a feeling sometimes when a minister says, “Now I’m going to be very biblical,” that you are then going to get a lot of his concerns, rather than the Bible’s concerns. MR: Do you tell seminarians that it’s okay for them not to be able to answer every question—how you are supposed to file your taxes, or what color car to buy, and stuff like that? WW: That is fine. I remember in seminary, they said, “Now every sermon ought to answer a question, and every sermon ought not just to set up a problem, but to move toward a solution.” Well, there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that doesn’t seem to move toward a solution. There’s a lot of stuff that I’m deeply concerned about the Bible doesn’t seem to care about at all. And I think one thing Scripture does is that it creates a world. It’s a different world. As John Calvin said: “It’s like putting on a pair of glasses.” And when you put on a new set of bifocals, stuff gets out of focus. And other stuff gets in focus that you hadn’t seen before. Sermons that are biblical keep doing that to the congregation. They

say, “Hey, try these on. Look at your life again.” Earlier, I was criticizing a preacher preaching on depression. So this minister, like the world, is telling us that we shouldn’t be depressed. I don’t know; Jesus was rejected. And, perhaps, it takes a lot of guts to be depressed when there is a flush economy. I mean, Bill says that we have the best of all possible worlds. We’ve got a good economy. What else could we ask for? Well, I think depression can be a sign of intelligence—that you know that God may have created us for more than tech stocks. After a sermon where I said something like that, this woman came up to me and said, “I’ve been under treatment for depression for twenty years.” Immediately I thought she was going to light into me with, “What do you know about depression and all?” But she said, “I’ve never thought of it like that. I was taught to think of this as an ailment. It may just be that I’m very perceptive.” At our best, I think preachers help people see their lives in light of eternity, as God looks at our lives. MR: What do you find characterizes the men and women who are showing up at your seminary today—especially out of this young generation we’ve been talking about? What is it that’s drawn them there? What sorts of things are occupying space in their brain or heart that put them there, and what do they want to do when they’re showing up at a seminary? WW: Well, for the best of them, it’s Jesus. I teach this course called “The Theology and Practice of Ordained Leadership.” The first thing I have them do is write an account of their vocation. I love reading those papers because I come back into class next time and say: “I read your papers. Let me just say, ‘Jesus is amazing. I wouldn’t have called a lot of you in here, but he has.’ This year he seems to be working on patios for some reason because a lot of you got called on a patio. I don’t know what this means. I’m just reminded that the church is of God and that we’ve only got a church because God wills to work in the world this way.” This is the folks at their best. I do worry, though, that the churches they are called into aren’t half as interesting as their vocation. I worry about them in the dullness of many churches. But, nevertheless, I just keep seeing God saying: “Hey, I’m sending you some really good people. Now don’t screw it up. You people, honor their vocation. Give them something interesting to die for.” Now others of them come to seminary for kind of nontheological reasons, of course. This is the person who says, “Well, after my second divorce, I thought maybe I should try seminary.” And those are the people who think that ministry is some kind of profession. I don’t think it’s a profession; it’s a vocation.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 5

MR: I can’t remember whether it was the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches whose motto was, “The church follows the world’s agenda.” WW: Oh, yeah, it sounds like either one of those organizations. MR: Did you ever think, though, that you would see the day when evangelicals would adopt that type of liberal mission statement? As some evangelical, church-marketing gurus put it: “Now remember the first principle of Christian communication is the audience, not the message, as sovereign.” WW: That is just amazing—and, again, it is particularly disillusioning for a compromised, liberal, mainliner like me. One time Jerry Falwell told me, “You may not approve of our ministry.” And I said: “Mr. Falwell, the only thing I’ve got against you is that you sound a lot like a Methodist at times. I mean, we were the ones that clearly wanted to be called significant. We were the biggest denomination in the country, and we thought we had an obligation to make America work. Now you’ve tried that, and let me tell you that you won’t believe what you’ve got to pay theologically to get invited to the White House.” I think of all the “outreach”—that silliness. I used to have a preaching professor who, periodically, when students would preach in class, would ask as soon as the student would finish the sermon, “Can anybody tell me why Jesus Christ would need to be crucified to make this sermon work?” It was a harsh judgment. But when I drive past one of the burgeoning, so-called “evangelical” churches in our town, I wonder. I noticed that they had a big ad in the paper for Easter: “Come to our Easter service, where the pastor will be preaching on ‘Better Family Life Today.’”

raised his hand. He said: “Let me ask you this. Did he mean that as a promise or a threat that he would be with us to the end of the age?” I said, “I gather you’ve met Jesus before.” When Jesus said, “You know, fellows, I’ve only had about three years to harass you and to relentlessly work on you, but now I’m with you always, and even …” MR: It’s like having your mother-in-law live with you for the rest of your life. WW: With a vengeance. Again, the marvelous thing about being a Christian is that Jesus keeps breaking free of our boundaries, and he’ll break free of the church growth movement or the user-friendly churches. And he keeps judging us. His own witness comes up against us. I had one of my classes read a thing on the Jesus seminar. The next week the students said: “Now, let me get this straight. A group of professors got together in California and voted on Jesus, and decided the most interesting thing about him was that he walked around and said a lot of interesting things. Why am I not surprised by this?” We are infinitely resourceful in trying to tame Jesus. MR: We talk a lot in MR about the contrast between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory. Do you see a parallel here? We’ve lost confidence in the Word of the cross because, well, it’s the Word of the cross. Think especially of Mark’s Gospel, where the disciples keep looking for glory all the way down to, “Hey, can my two boys sit one on your right and on your left?” Or even at the ascension: “Now are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Evangelicals, like the great Protestant establishment at the turn of the twentieth century, seem to be so triumphalistic about it all. WW: Yeah, where are Lutherans when you need them?

MR: A perfect day to do that on. MR: Probably at the bar. WW: I’m thinking, well, where in the heck does he get that out of the Bible? I mean, remember, Jesus breaks up families. He’s against all that. He tries to rescue people from their parents—walking around with these twelve unattached men. We’re not that into the family. That’s called “the death rows of the late capitalist culture” or something, but I just thought, “Amazing—when we’re supposed to be talking about a dead body.” We were talking about Matthew 28 earlier. Well, I was at a Bible study with some students and I said, “It ends, and Jesus said, ‘Go into all the world, baptizing, teaching, and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Then, as I was launching out into my instruction, this student

4 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

WW: I’ve recently been reading on Luther’s “Heidelberg Disputation,” where he just slashes and burns this theology of glory. Luther is attacking the “ladder theology” where you take this step on the ladder, and then the next, and up and up. And eventually you can just rise higher than Jesus. But Jesus was lifted up on a cross. As one theologian commenting on the Heidelberg Disputation put it, “When you people get organized and really [start] marching off to noble ideals, this is where it ends. You put God on a cross.” We need to be continually reminded of the [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 5 1 ]

| The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition

B O OK

Calvin in His Multiple Contexts

ow exactly has Calvin been accommodated? The title of Richard Muller’s most recent

Calvin dominate, alternatives exist. The 1940s found T. H. book, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological L. Parker indicting nineteenth-century work on Tradition, begs this question. Muller argues that twentieth-century Calvin Calvin as it searched for the elusive “center” around which scholarship suffered from a Barthian read- Calvin’s thought crystallized, centers which tended ing. Neo-Orthodox scholars routinely to reflect nineteenth-century points of interest. laid Calvin on their Procrustean beds, More recently, A. N. S. Lane and David Steinmetz, stretching and chopping the reformer’s among others, have sought to place Calvin in his corpus until it fit within their dogmatic various contexts. The fruits of this labor are agenda. In much of the modern period, twofold. We now recognize Calvin’s growth as a Calvin studies chiefly served as launching theologian throughout his career and his conpads for the dogmatic-theological enter- sciousness of the patristic and medieval tradition, prise, rarely did they present his thought making selective use of them. in a sixteenth-century context. In turning to the prefaces of Calvin’s works, According to Muller, contemporary where he defines his method, Muller sees the charscholarship stands at a crossroads. One acteristics of humanism. Calvin, like virtually every path leads to a Schleiermacherian-cen- other sixteenth-century Protestant theologian, saw tered hermeneutic, the other sees Calvin himself as primarily a biblical commentator, not a as a “genitive theologian,” with Calvin as systematician. Scripture was to be elucidated via the theologian of experience, wisdom, christocen- philological and linguistic methods, and exegesis The trism, and so forth. With The Unaccommodated Calvin, was to be brief and clear. Extended doctrinal explaUnaccomadated Muller seeks not to guide the traveler but to redraw nation was to be omitted from the commentary. But Muller does not consider Calvin’s humanisCalvin the map. The book is divided into two parts. The first tic context at the expense of the scholastic. Calvin by Richard A. Muller part asks Calvin to define the theological task. A had much to say about the “schoolmen,” usually series of Calvin’s prefaces provides the answers. bad. A close examination of Calvin’s thought, Oxford University Press , 2000. Special attention is given to the reformer’s method. however, finds him making use of Aristotelian dis$65.00, 308 pages These answers are then considered in light of tinctions and scholastic tradition. Consciously or Calvin’s contemporaries, successors, and inter- not, when Calvin drew from the well of exegetical preters. Part Two addresses Calvin’s theological tradition, he drank certain waters of the schoolprogram: the Institutes. The work is then placed in men. Muller’s conclusion argues for a Calvin who its sixteenth-century context. From this position, blends “humanistic methods in rhetoric and piety some modern editions of the Institutes are criticized with nominally scholastic materials.” and applications are drawn and applied to contemJust as there is continuity between late medieval porary scholarship. theology and Calvin, so too, Muller notes, there is Muller begins his work by sketching out the lay continuity between Calvin and early reformed of the land. Although Neo-Orthodox studies of Orthodoxy. A detailed examination of the Institutes

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 7

aparati finds Calvin’s successors retaining his thought with both clarity and detail. Seventeenthcentury reformers drew upon “the architectonic structure of the Institutes.” Translation: Calvin’s theology, his patterns of argument, and distinctive propositions helped give rise to Federalism (covenant theology). Muller here argues that one must measure continuity by more than a repetition of phraseology; awareness and adherence to content are the criteria. Muller rounds out Part One with an analysis of William Bouwsma’s John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, which demonstrates Muller’s historical method by way of critique. Bouwsma proposed an anxious, neurotic Calvin, a thesis primarily drawn from Calvin’s concept of “abyss” and “labyrinth.” Yet a careful study of Calvin’s use of the words does not find him using them disproportionately. Why then are they to be the foci of study? Calvin doesn’t use them to refer to anxiety. What then is the rationale for “abyss” or “labyrinth” as terms which he unconsciously uses to refer to his own anxiety? Bouwsma uses these terms as a psychologically interpretive grid to Calvin’s thought, precisely what Muller is cautioning us to avoid. Ultimately, it appears as if these words are more apt to describe the twentieth-century historian than the sixteenthcentury theologian. In Part One, Muller argues for “Calvin the biblical commentator” who refused to do excursive theology characterized by digression in his commentaries. Muller fleshes out this thought in Part Two, directing our attention to the Institutes, the format to which Calvin turned when he desired to more fully discuss the dogmatic relationships of a passage. The Institutes may be conceived of as a series of disputations or a loci communes, that is, a series of discussions on the “common places” of Scripture. The point is that we need to look at Calvin’s commentary to understand his thought. The Institutes is but a directory and commentary on passages, not a solitary system. Muller then turns his attention to the structure of the Institutes, specifically addressing Calvin’s conception of the “right order for teaching.” The questions revolve around the various structural changes Calvin implemented between the first edition of the Institutes, in 1539, and the definitive edition of 1559. From the outset, one must recognize the changing nature of the Institutes. What began as a small catechetical device grew into a series of “disputations,” a textbook for the theological student. The catechetical work, typical of the era, followed the order of the Apostles’ Creed; the collection of disputationes, influenced by Melanchthon, followed the Pauline ordo salutis (order of salvation).

4 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

After establishing Calvin’s framework for his Institutes, Muller compares and contrasts modern editions. On the whole, the various modern editions, replete with extended discussions, interpretive “helps,” and headings and subheadings myriad, leave the reader viewing the Institutes through the spectacles of Neo-Orthodoxy. By ignoring the sixteenth-century context of such theological methods as loci communes, common places or topics, and Calvin’s own identification of the Institutes as such, the twentieth-century editor is apt to force the Institutes into a systematical grid. To read the Institutes in this fashion is to do Calvin an injustice. So, too, is reading the Institutes apart from his commentaries; the exposition of the “common places” of Scripture inform and are informed by the exposition of the Canon. Muller proceeds with another case study. R. T. Kendell’s Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 serves as the object of the lesson. Kendell sees Calvin viewing faith, solely, as intellectual proposition, while the later Calvinists, he observes, incorporate some use of the will, thus a proported discontinuity. Muller notes that Calvin did not intend to participate in the intellectualist-versus-voluntarist debate. While Calvin does use some of the terminology of the intellectualists, such as faith as cognitio or scientia (knowledge,) he also describes faith as illuminatio (illuminating.) Calvin argues for the Augustinian concept of faith as a gift of God, through which God regenerates both the intellect and the will. Kendell’s errors are, as Muller argues, both basic and obvious in nature and can best be explained as the product of a dogmatic agenda. Muller concludes with a summary and an agenda. Calvin is to be viewed within his contexts. To do anything less will yield a Calvin who appears remarkably like what the researcher had thought all along. The Institutes is not a textbook/manual of systematic theology and ought be read in the context of his commentaries. Calvin used humanistic tools to mediate, to some degree, scholastic tenets. Muller’s book is an extremely valuable contribution to the work about sixteenth-century historical theology. For as much value as this book has concerning Calvin, perhaps it should be viewed as a textbook of historical methodology. Muller’s survey of the literature is masterful. His work is characterized by a careful and detailed examination of the primary sources, reflected with elaborate documentation. Muller has attempted to control his biases, raising them to the conscious state and employing deliberate methodology to his argument. That is the text; now to the subtext. The MR reader will experience something analogous to walking in halfway through a movie. This book is

the latest exchange in an ongoing argument concerning Calvin and his successors. It may be a work by which Muller places his adversaries in check. Until rather recently, the seventeenth-century Calvinists were portrayed as the colloquial bad guys. Pious, humble Calvin was a good soul, but with the ascendance of Theodore Beza, things took a turn for the ill. Soon Calvin’s Bible-friendly exegesis would be replaced with the cold, hard rigors of Protestant scholasticism, the very scholasticism that Calvin so often repudiated! Here, it was thought, was the paragon of discontinuity between master and successors. Enter Richard Muller. In what is now sometimes referred to as the “Muller thesis,” scholasticism is viewed as method. The seventeenth-century reformed thinkers retained, and expanded upon, Calvin’s doctrines, utilizing the methods of the schools which were now forming, that is, scholasticism. There is a certain organic maturation between Calvin and Casper Olevianus, or Francis Turretin; thus their phraseology is often disjointed from Calvin’s. Yet there is a continuation of content, of internal structure of argument, and of “architectonic structure.” Muller now raises the stakes by arguing that not only is there continuity between Calvin and his successors, but between Calvin and his predecessors. Borrowing a page from the book of Heiko Oberman, who has convincingly argued for similarities between late medieval theology and the Reformation, Muller now finds himself cataloging data for “Calvin the humanist” and “Calvin the scholastic.” Undoubtedly there are those who will argue with this presentation, and yet they must now reinterpret the data that Richard Muller has marshaled. A daunting task, “as if Calvin can be saved from the scholastic past and detached from the increasingly scholastic future of Reformed theology in the sixteenth century.” This book is a technical volume, written for the professional or graduate student. Nevertheless, many lessons may be drawn for the lay reader. First, be wary of any book whose title resembles “Calvin, Theologian of (fill in the blank).” Second, buy the Beveridge edition of the Institutes, at least until the Muller edition comes out. Third, when reading the Institutes, if you come across a Scripture reference, do not assume that it is the modern equivalent of a proof text. Rather, it tells you, “please see my commentary on this verse.”

Reviewed by Josh Rosenthal (M.A., Concordia University; M.A.R., Westminster Theological Seminary, California) is a doctoral student at the University of Arizona, where he studies with Heiko Oberman.

SHORT N OTIC E S Reason for the Hope Within edited by Michael J. Murray. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999 xvi + 429 pp., $28.00 (paper) Christian philosophers and theologians need each other. Christian philosophers who are poorly versed in biblically based systematic theology tend to reinvent old Christian heresies. Christian theologians who lack philosophical training often present the faith’s great truths less clearly and cogently than they should. Vigorous orthodoxy benefits when the line between philosophy and theology is blurred. This book contends that seminary apologetics courses would profit from incorporating more contemporary Christian philosophy. The past thirty years have seen a remarkable recrudescence of Christian philosophy, much of it touching the questions of traditional apologetics. Yet it is done at a much higher intellectual level and in a remarkably different intellectual key. In fact, since most apologetics books presuppose no particular theological or philosophical training, the seminary courses using them are often aimed so low that many of the best and most illuminating defenses of Christian faith are excluded from the start. As Murray states, the “gap between the work being done in Christian philosophy and in seminary apologetics is totally inexcusable.” These sixteen essays by younger Christian philosophers attempt to bridge the gap by presenting the fruits of technical Christian philosophizing at a level accessible to those untrained in the technicalities. All the standard apologetic topics—proofs of God’s existence, the problem of evil, faith and reason, other religions, hell, religion and science, the authority of Scripture, and more—are covered, some by past contributors to MR. The aim throughout is to defend orthodox Christian faith in ways that will, first and foremostly, edify believers by helping them “to understand the deep, puzzling, seemingly paradoxical riches of the Christian faith” so that they thus come “to appreciate in more profound fashion the glory of the Creator they love and serve;” and then, secondly, to show believers how this deeper understanding and appreciation can help them to share their faith. This excellent book could aid many to start to obey our Lord’s command to love the Lord our God with all of our minds.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 9

Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment

Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer

edited by Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark. Paternoster Press, 1999 xix + 344 pp., $24.99 (paper)

by J. I. Packer. Paternoster Press, 1998–1999 Vol. 1, Celebrating the Saving Work of God, 235 pp.; Vol. 2, Serving the People of God, 392 pp.; Vol. 3, Honouring the Written Word of God, 336 pp.; Vol. 4, Honouring the People of God, 368 pp., $9.99 per volume (cloth)

The United Kingdom’s Paternoster Press often publishes books of interest to our readers. Many of them are not available under any imprint in the United States, but it is easy to log on to Paternoster’s Website (www.paternoster-publishing.com) and order them directly. In one sense, this particular work is aimed at the scholars among us. It is a work of self-conscious historical theology that aims to overcome specific longstanding philosophical and theological assumptions that have distorted our understanding of the development of post-reformational Protestant theology. Too much historical theology has tended to wrench the Protestant scholastics out of their historical contexts, creating artificial divisions between them and the reformers and implying that to describe a theology as “scholastic” is to say more about its content than its method. Too much of it has also succumbed either to unhistorical, “Golden Age” romanticism about an earlier epoch of Church history when everything was right theologically or to the relativizing of doctrinal certainty by allegiance to a Hegelian-inspired dialectical approach to theological development. The eighteen essays in this volume—all but a couple of which focus on a specific reformational or post-reformational Protestant theologian—aim to lay these distorting assumptions and influences to rest. Yet this book’s lessons are crucial to the Church at large. True-blue, ordinary, pew-sitting Lutheran and Reformed believers all-too-often tend to pine for an idealized past, when there allegedly was no serious doctrinal disagreement among sincere believers. And earnest, intellectually committed undergraduate and graduate students are far too frequently tempted to skepticism or cynicism when they first encounter the theological disagreements and dissonances of uncensored Christian history. This volume’s essays by Protestant scholasticism’s leading experts can, when properly digested, counter both the ordinary believer’s unhelpful idealism and the budding intellectual’s untenable relativism. Thus, it can be read with great profit especially by pastors, who can then convey its lessons to students and common folk alike.

In comparing notes with others, I have found that my own experience is not uncommon: It was through reading C. S. Lewis’s works that I learned to value Christian thinking, but it was through devouring J. I. Packer’s writings that I came to love theology. These four volumes capture most of Packer’s more significant fugitive writings, ranging from short devotional pieces published in obscure Church magazines, through op-ed pieces for popular magazines such as Christianity Today, on to meaty introductions to new editions of great historical works and major addresses, and articles originally appearing in collaborative volumes and scholarly journals. It, I fear, may be as close as we get to a Packer systematic theology. Manifest throughout is Packer’s unique blend of pithy, alliterative style and profound spiritual substance. In a short foreword, Packer tells us that behind each piece “lies a conscious attempt over more than forty years to hew to Luther’s line” that theology should arise out of persevering prayer, sustained study of the substance, thrust and flow of the biblical text, and uncompromising fidelity to the truths thus discovered, whatever the costs. I think Luther would be pleased with what his counsel has wrought. These highly diverse examples of Christand-Church-loving theological thinking ring in the ear even as they resound through the heart.

Saving Grace by John Cheeseman. The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999 viii + 136 pp., $7.99 (paper) Are you looking for a primer on Reformed theology that clearly enunciates the great God-centered truths of the Gospel in language accessible to ordinary believers? If so, you need to look no further. Cheeseman’s revision of his 1972 volume, The Grace of God in the Gospel, more than adequately fills the bill. Originally prompted by the need to respond to “certain man-centred emphases which had invaded the thinking and practice of evangelical Christians, [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 5 1 ]

5 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0

Free Space

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 4 6 ]

their families … highly relational, self-motivated individual who can develop and motivate leaders, design and build infrastructure, envision and create ministry deliv-

blood and gore of it all, and the devastation. On Palm Sunday, passion Sunday, it’s kind of our custom to have a student memorize the two chapters of Mark or the two chapters of Matthew—the story of the passion. Just stand up and say; just recite it. It always has this powerful effect, using some nice, attractive student to tell this devastating story, and the story is so good. But it is so judgmental also and where all of our aspirations for glory lead. The best thing we can hope for is just: “Father, forgive them. They still don’t know what they’re doing.”

ery teams, oversee staff, and direct operations. Seminary degree unnecessary and a business background preferred … [someone who will create] a care infrastructure within the church body … a pastor/coach to join its leadership team.

Where Did the Pulpit Go? by Alistair Begg This sidebar has been adapted from “The Eclipse of Expository Preaching,” Chapter

1 of Rev. Alistair Begg’s recently published Preaching for God’s Glory (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), pp. 9–17. It is available through Modern Reformation magazine.

Divine Double Talk and the Parable of the Good Samaritan by William M. Cwirla See Robert Farrar Capon, The Parables of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,

1988), pp. 58–67. 2What Would Jesus Do? See Brian Lee’s article “What Would Jesus

Short Notices

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 5 0 ]

Preach?” in this issue of Modern Reformation. 3For this insight, see Kenneth E. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 33–56.

undermining the biblical gospel of the grace of God,” this irenic work not only presents the basic truths of Christianity, tracing each back to the Scriptures, but also explicitly addresses a number of questions about and objections to the truths expounded at the end of each chapter. Highly recommended.

What Would Jesus Preach? by Brian Lee Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing Company), p. 2. 2Dr. Edmund Clowney first drew my attention to the significance of the resurrected Christ’s instruction of his disciples, especially in its connection with the apostolic preaching throughout the book of Acts in a course at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, “The Apostolic Preaching of

All Short Notices reviewed by Mark R. Talbot Associate Professor of Philosophy Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL

Christ.” I’d like to take this opportunity to implore everyone to purchase and read his wonderful book, The Unfolding Mystery3 (see page 24 for further information on this title). Luther draws our attention to the continuing import of even the most elementary truths as they are presented in the catechism: “Yet even I must become a child; and early each day I recite aloud to myself the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten

E N D N O T E S

Commandments, the Creed, and whatever lovely psalms and verses I may choose,

Ex Auditu by Richard Sibbes

you know the Ten Commandments; you can recite the Creed.’ I study them daily

just as we teach and train children to do. Besides, I must deal with Scripture and fight with the devil every day. I dare not say in my heart: ‘The Lord’s Prayer is worn out;

Adapted and selected from The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, D.D., ed. by the Rev.

and remain a pupil of the Catechism.” From the Introduction to Psalm 117, Luther’s Works

Alexander Balloch Grosart (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1862), Chapters I–IV, pp. 42–49.

14:8.

Spelling and language have been modernized, with some omissions where indicated. This sermon was first published in 1630.

A Tale of Two Catechisms? by Brian Lee Luther’s Works, 43:13. This is from the foreword to his Personal Prayer Book.

Wanted by Michael Horton All of the following qualifications for a minister appeared in Christianity Today magazine:

Zacharias Ursinus, one of the principal authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, lists

preparation to understand preaching as one of the key reasons that catechesis is nec-

A compassionate and innovative team member … dynamic and vigorous individual who

essary: “Those who have properly studied and learned the Catechism, are generally

relates to kids on their level … skills in leadership, program, and people development;

better prepared to understand and appreciate the sermons which they hear from

and team building. Must have strong organizational skills with a progressive mentality

time to time, inasmuch as they can easily refer and reduce those things which they

toward education. Large church involvement will be an advantage. Personal character-

hear out of the word of God, to the different heads of the catechism to which they

istics should include the ability to adjust to and initiate change…. Team building; lead-

appropriately belong, whilst, on the one hand, those who have not enjoyed this

ing change; excellent relationship skills … Gen-X Director/Pastor…. He/she shall design

preparatory training, hear sermon, for the most part, with but little profit to them-

and implement a music program that is broad, exciting, challenging, and diverse … an

selves.” Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian

approachable team leader who is committed to “gift-based” ministry where the laity are

and Reformed Publishing Company:, 1852), p. 15. 3The early editions of Calvin’s

unleashed.… Music degree required and theological degree preferred … dynamic and

Institutes are themselves a summary of the Christian faith which follows Luther’s cat-

catalytic leader…. This servant leader will possess a demonstrated record of relevant,

echetical structure quite closely. Though later editions incorporated additional struc-

transformational preaching, a team orientation in a complex environment of diverse

tural elements, sections commenting upon the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the

backgrounds, interest, and affiliations…. We are looking for an innovative leader who

Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments can still be easily discerned.

has both enthusiasm and energy … [someone] who has a heart for God, a passion for leading God’s people into His presence in innovative and authentic ways…. Candidate

Free Space

must be a team player and a team builder with a proven track record … [able to lead]

February 1999, pp. 10–11.

congregational worship, worship teams, drama, choirs, instrumentalists, audio-visual, and dance … an Executive Pastor who can relate well to affluent, “fast-track” commuters and

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5 1

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

N F R O M

A L L I A N C E

Y O F

C O N F E S S I N G

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

N C O U N C I L

D M E M B E R S

Kenneth R. Jones

Spiritually Uplifting, But…

here seems to be a spiritual resurgence in this country. The Baby Boomer generation

unceasing presence in the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by is engaged in a spiritual quest, evidenced by two major trends: a return to institutional night was abandoned. The daily provision of manna and water churches and the proliferation of spiritual aids such as books, tapes, and conferences. was wholly ignored. No attempt was made to recount Sadly, the net impact upon the church is not and recall the Lord’s booming voice from Sinai, the fear always positive. The return of Boomers to church has of which had inspired promises of full obedience from coincided with the rise of views and practices that the people. Yet Aaron and the people have no problem depart from and even undermine the fundamentals of recalling the worship patterns of the Egyptians, fashionthe faith, the result of a false dichotomy between reli- ing a golden image in the form of a bull, not unlike the gion and spirituality. When the two collide, spiritual- fertility god Apis. ity trumps. The doctrinal statements and confessionAfter this burst of creativity Aaron builds an altar al formulae of orthodoxy, labeled as man-made and before it and proclaims, “Tomorrow is a feast to the restrictive, are abandoned for a spirituality that is Lord.” The calf is clearly not meant to be a new spontaneous and free flowing, offering communion God, rather, it is a necessary aid for the worship of KENNETH R. with God, nature, and oneself—on one’s own terms. the true God, Yahweh. The next day the people JONES Paul’s dictum that “the letter kills but the Spirit gives rose early, offered burnt offerings, and brought life” is twisted to mean that the formal structures peace offerings—as proscribed by the Lord’s comSenior Pastor inherent in biblical religion are barriers to real spiri- mand. They sat down to eat and rose up to play. Greater Union tuality. It is not uncommon for a person to imbibe Human innovation had spawned a worship of nomBaptist Church orthodoxy on Sunday at a conservative church, only inal obedience blatantly in violation of the law. Compton, California When Moses returns to camp, the raucous clatter to chase it with a new age audiotape on the Monday morning commute. Such a combination is a recipe is thought to be the noise of war: “It is not the noise of the shout of victory, nor the noise of the cry of for disaster, or at least indigestion. Precisely this combination of contraries is the defeat, but the sound of singing I hear.” This same primary target of the biblical polemic against idola- sound is so familiar today, the sound of people on a try. Israel is repeatedly chastised for her pragmatic spiritual high, teeming with enthusiasm. Their exciteattempts to creatively reinterpret divine worship, the ment has displaced the fear inspired by the Lord’s episode of the golden calf in Exodus 32 being the voice, their obedience now transformed into playful paradigmatic example of such. The people pleaded energy. God’s spoken Word—“dead orthodoxy”— with Aaron to make “a god that shall go before us; was no match for the novelty of creative worship. for as far as this Moses, the man who brought us up The significance of this episode is captured by out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has the broken shards of the covenant at Moses’ feet. become of him” (Exod. 32:1). The people were look- To accept the dichotomy between orthodoxy and ing for something to inspire them on their journey, spirituality is to reject the covenant Lord. We abana visible confirmation that they could handle the don the Holy Spirit who has so powerfully bound perils of sojourning through the wilderness. himself to the Word when we seek unfettered spirAs always, the commission of the sin of idolatry is occa- ituality. A spiritual quest liberated from true relisioned by the prior omission of true worship. Aaron failed gion is most dangerous indeed. to point beyond the absence of the man Moses to the presence of the Lord—Israel’s true deliverer. The Lord’s

5 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0