the-garden-of-god-jul-aug-2015 by Modern Reformation

VOL.24 | NO.4 | JULY-AUGUST 2015 | $6.50

J U LY 3 0 AUGUST 1 2015

WHITE HORSE INN

WEEKEND PASADENA, CA on the CAMPUS of PROVIDENCE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE

WHO IS JESUS? You have to know him before you can follow him. Join the hosts of the White Horse Inn and Reformation-minded friends from around the country for our third annual White Horse Inn Weekend.

ROBERT GODFREY

NANCY GUTHRIE

MICHAEL HORTON

KIM RIDDLEBARGER

ROD ROSENBLAT

V I S I T W H I T E H O R S E I N N.O R G / W E E K E N D F O R M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N. S PA C E I S L I M I T E D.

DAVID ZAHL

features VOL.24 | NO.4 | JULY-AUGUST 2015

The Gardeners BY A NDREW M. DAVI S

The Seed BY MA RT I N LUT HE R

COVER PHOTOGRAPHY BY JOSH MEISTER; STYLING AND LETTERING BY ASHLEY SHUGART

The Garden BY MICHAEL S. HORTON

The Harvest BY MARY J. MOERBE

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

TELL US YOUR STORY What have White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation meant to you, your family, or your church? Your stories encourage us in our work, and weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d love to hear them.

WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/TELL

departments 04 05 11 16

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

BIBLE STUDY ›› Sanctified in Christ:

55 62 64

BY E RI C LA NDRY

INTERVIEW ›› The God of the Mundane Q & A with MAT T RE DMO ND

CHRIST & CULTURE ›› Big Star Talks to God BY DAVI D Z A HL

THEOLOGY ›› The Son of God in

Adam’s Shadow: Sin and the Incarnation BY JA ME S DUG UI D

Living from the True Vine BY MAT T HEW RI CHA RD

BOOK REVIEWS BLOMBERG, GUINNESS, AND KLOHA

GEEK SQUAD ›› The Biblical Methods

of Church Growth BY D. G. HA RT

BACK PAGE ›› Pure Self-Interest BY MI CHA E L S. HO RTO N

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Executive Editor Eric Landry Managing Editor Patricia Anders Associate Editor Brooke Ventura Marketing Director Michele Tedrick Design Director José Reyes for Metaleap Creative, metaleapcreative.com Review Editor Ryan Glomsrud Designers Ashley Shugart, Harold Velarde Copy Editor Elizabeth Isaac Proofreader Ann Smith Modern Reformation © 2015 All rights reserved. ISSN-1076-7169 Modern Reformation (Subscription Department) P.O. Box 460565 Escondido, CA 92046 (855) 492-1674 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org Subscription Information US 1 YR $32. 2 YR $58. US 3 YR $78. Digital Only 1 YR $25. US Student 1 YR $26. Canada add $8 per year for postage. Foreign add $9 per year for postage.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

LETTER from the EDITOR

ERIC LANDRY executive editor

Bone tired. New parents know the feeling. So do harried executives. And seniors during finals week. Sadly, many Christians go through much of their pilgrim lives feeling that they’re not doing well if they’re not bone tired. If you look at the schedules of some of your local churches (see page 51 for a sample), you’ll find ample activities to keep you busy. But burning both ends of the candle leads to physical burnout—and in the church it leads to spiritual dropout. Is this the life Jesus calls us into when he makes us part of his kingdom? Sustainable discipleship might seem particularly unrealistic when much that passes for Christianity today values success over faithfulness, a quick fix more than patient enduring, and a life centered on ourselves more than on others. For this issue, we gathered authors from across the reformational spectrum to chart a different—more sustainable—way forward into the future God is creating for us. Together they remind us that following Jesus is not dependent on our ingenuity or activity; instead, the pilgrim life is a gift that keeps on giving, upholding and sustaining God’s people in faithfulness. In the first feature article, Baptist pastor Andrew Davis pushes back against the trend toward celebrity pastors that is as ancient (1 Cor. 3:4) as it is modern (have you purchased

your Joel Osteen’s Best Life Now board game yet?). Davis demonstrates that a local church with its flesh-and-blood pastors, elders, deacons, and members can do more to provide for our spiritual health than any podcast, YouTube, or Facebook persona ever can. Next, our editor-in-chief Michael Horton paints a picture of the real church at work. In his most recent book, Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World (Zondervan, 2014), he shows that the true drama is seeing God at work in our everyday lives. In this article, he applies the same thinking to our churches: a church that tries to be extraordinary ends up missing what is most necessary for a church to be and do. German Reformer Martin Luther joins our pages with a reprint of his sermon on the parable of the growing seed from Mark 4. Here, Luther famously declares that God’s word has its own working power, a power he trusts to do the work of Reformation even while he sleeps (or drinks beer!). Our final feature article from Mary Moerbe, diaconal writer for the Cranach Institute (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod), takes up the question many of us face: “Now that I’m a member of a church that takes its mission seriously and has leaders in place to build me up to maturity, what do I do with the rest of my time?” Too many of us still consider ourselves as the center of our own Christian lives, but the end result of such thinking is regret, exhaustion, and ultimately failure. Our hope in this issue is to show you the way out of the rat race marketed to us as the normal Christian life. It’s okay to ignore the well-meaning motivational speaker trying to get you to do something “great” for God. Instead, feel free to rest in the great work God has already done for you, trusting him to uphold you in this life and in the life to come.

“‘GOD’S WORD HAS ITS OWN WORKING POWER.”

INTERVIEW

THE GOD of THE MUNDANE Q & A with MATT REDMOND

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

INTERVIEW

f you’ve ever felt like the pastor of your church didn’t really understand what it was like to be just a “regular Joe” with a family, a job, and responsibilities that were more pressing than his insistence that you live a radical life for Jesus, then you

need to read this interview with Matt Redmond. Redmond is a former pastor, now a banker, living the same kind of mundane life as the people in the churches he once served. In his book, The God of the Mundane: Reflections on Ordinary Life for Ordinary People (Kalos Press, 2012), Redmond wrestles through the difficult questions of God’s work and God’s calling in the midst of our everyday, ordinary lives. In this interview, Eric Landry, executive editor of Modern Reformation, asked Redmond to apply some of the lessons he learned about the mundane life—both in and out of the pulpit—to contemporary church life. We think you’ll be encouraged by what you read here, and we encourage you to pick up The God of the Mundane. You mention at the beginning of your book that it is the work of a pastor, written for people in the pew, but definitely from a pastor’s perspective. What would be different about this book if it were the work of a layperson?

This is going to sound a little strange, but I have not read the book since we edited it chapter by chapter. And that was about three years ago. So I cannot remember a lot of what I said outside of the quotes people send me. That said, my time outside of ministry as a layman has been hard. The last three years have made me press in deeper to what I wrote and what I still believe. But I think I would be more sensitive to those in the business world. I hope I was sensitive. Man, I really hope I was kind to those who have to suffer the demands of middle managers. If I could go back, I could write as a guy

whose wife has to clean houses to make ends meet. I would write as a man who wanted to cry at his desk because his father is dead and his daughter is getting tested for Asperger’s and the check-engine lights in both cars are shining brighter than the Morning Star. And the boss wants to know why the last person at your desk didn’t apply for a credit card. And you feel impossibly stuck. There were days where honestly I questioned the thesis of my own book, because it was so hard for me to believe that such a small job with small pay but high stress could be meaningful in the kingdom. I would also write about the kindness of God all along the way and how he reveals his faithfulness in very mundane ways. There’s drama, sure. But the real theater is in the wings, where the ones holding the cue cards are standing in the shadows.

One other thing: I recently read an article by a pastor about the need for us Christians to expose ourselves to diverse races and the poor. Here’s the thing: I already do that at work, five days a week. Something I did not do very much as a pastor. If I could go back, I would write knowing that about so many others and encourage them. Personally, I felt like much of this book was a gutcheck to my own ambitions, self-doubts, conceit, and fears. I would imagine other folks feel the same: “Yes, that makes sense!” If that’s true, why doesn’t this message of the ordinary and mundane Christian life take root among us? Why isn’t the ordinary life for ordinary people more attractive?

a. About five years ago, I was running on fumes

and had moved home to Birmingham. We were working with a church plant. We were so glad to be home, but there was a dark cloud over me as a minister. The sheen had worn off. I needed to read something that would help me love ministry and people again. I started reading Eugene Peterson’s books for pastors, and they were like water in the desert for a weary traveler. The one thing I immediately saw in his writings was the problem in the church of the cult of personality. We have a celebrity problem. It’s a worldliness we are unwilling to look long and hard at. And I cannot help but think that problem is linked to our desire to do something big for God. And to see others do big things for God. Doing something that people notice is always attractive. And the more people can see the great deeds we do, the more attractive it is. I know there is an irony in that. Here I am doing an interview about a book I wrote. I know that very few people write a book that gets them an interview. But to myself, I’ve had to preach my own message that it would be worth all the writing and editing and hopes and dreams if only my friends read The God of the Mundane and are encouraged. The message of embracing an ordinary life really cuts across our culture, and the church is not immune. We write and encourage the reading of biographies of men and women who do great things for God. I like those books. But my own

temptation is to want to be like them. Rarely do I read them and want more of Jesus. What is it about pastoral ministry that makes so many of us “pushers” of the extraordinary life to our people?

a. Back when I was a youth pastor I wanted to

see the results of my work. If I did not see results or the results I assumed should be taking place, I figured I needed to do something differently. What better way to justify our own ministry than to point to the extraordinary? We rarely judge growth among our people by the fruits of the Spirit. They really are kind of boring when showing up in ordinary life. And let’s face it: we can’t seem to be kind to others at work. But there is something else that may be more to blame than anything else. A pastor’s primary field of work is the Scriptures and the souls of men and women. They are his chief concern throughout the day. He thinks about them and studies them all the time. And it is the most natural thing in the world for him to expect those things to hold the same kind of gravity for the people in his congregation. I am not suggesting that plumbers and schoolteachers and accountants and realtors and housewives should not care about the Scriptures

“THE MESSAGE OF EMBRACING AN ORDINARY LIFE REALLY CUTS ACROSS OUR CULTURE, AND THE CHURCH IS NOT IMMUNE.” MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

INTERVIEW

and the souls of their friends and neighbors. But plumbers have to think about pipes. And teachers have to plan lessons, and accountants have to reconcile spreadsheets, and realtors have to sell houses. They are going to struggle to read the same books and spend the same amount of time with the Scriptures. I don’t think pastors do this on purpose. I didn’t. But I think it does happen, because most pastors have not bought in to thinking that the vocations of those in the pew are actually a pushing back of the effects of the Fall. How do the people in our pews push back against the Fall? Is there any hope there for real victory, for real progress?

We would all agree the Fall is pushed back when a person believes the gospel for the first time. No question. We can never minimize this. But above are two ways we do not always consider, because they require faith that God is spreading his glory even when we cannot see measurable progress. What do you think life will look like for someone who is satisfied with their station in life, who doesn’t mind the mundaneness of their existence, who is living in accordance with the right story?

a. For some people it would

look like a wasted life because it’s so boring. But I imagine it would look a lot like the lives There are two ways, I of our close friends. My wife believe. At least two. First, and I are part of a supper club by living out the fruits of the with two other couples. We get Spirit wherever they are. If it together at least once a month MATT REDMOND is true the chief end of man as couples. Often the wives is to glorify God and our salspend time together and we vation is to that end, then guys do too. We have a group the indwelling presence of text that we use to talk daily. the Holy Spirit is part of it, And all of us have had serious surely. And when his life is hurts and pains and worries manifested in us through about the health and wellness love, joy, peace, kindness, of our young children at some The God of the etc., at home and in the workpoint. There are failures that Mundane place and to the waitress at test our faith. We are always (Kalos Press, 2012) the diner. When we create praying for one another. We homes and communities and are always encouraging one friendships where the fruit of another. Rejoicing with one the Spirit can be seen and felt another. Grieving with one and known, we push back the Fall. Second, we another. Each one of us is fighting to believe can push back the Fall by actually doing our the story of the gospel in our relationships jobs in a way that honors God and shows the and to believe it is truly the only good news intention of his creation. When tellers balance we need. their boxes and plumbers fix dripping faucets I mention these great friends because when and doctors make the sick well and teachers I think of the Christian life, I think of grieving patiently help a student see the wonder in a with those who grieve and rejoicing with those petri dish, then the Fall is pushed back, if only who rejoice. I picture men and women looking a little at a time. for opportunities to be kind to each other and

FOR FURTHER READING

“THEY ALSO NEED TO HEAR... THAT THEIR WORK AND THEIR HOMES ARE PART OF GOD’S DESIGN FOR THE GOOD OF THE WORLD.” encourage one another. Praying for one another a lot. Listening. We do all this and more. If you had it to do over—plant a church, work with an established church—how would you lead the people into the ordinary Christian life? What would be different about this do-over church from other churches? Essentially, what’s the prescription for change?

a. This is tricky, because I left the ministry. And

the last thing I want to sound like is an armchair pastor. But there are advantages to having served in churches and now working in the business world. My hope is I would be far more encouraging about what men and women are already doing. Meaning in vocation is mercurial for men. It’s hard to get a hold of, and your boss may not care if you feel fulfilled in your work. We are reduced to metrics, and sometimes even when you are number one in the market in sales, it feels hollow. And women are constantly bombarded by a Buzzfeed style of Christian living through social media giving them “10 ways to love their sons better,” “5 things your daughter needs from you,” “12 places you must take your kids during summer vacation.” Do men and women need to hear where the Fall has affected them the most? Yes. But they also need to hear repeatedly in sermons, Bible studies, lectures, personal counseling sessions, and for the love of all that is holy, at missions conferences, that their work and their homes are part of God’s design for the good of the world. Since I started working in the business world, a few things have happened to us that were

discouraging. That’s actually putting it too mildly. They were devastating. First, we went through a period where we literally had no extra money. This is not an exaggeration. We could not even live paycheck to paycheck. And in the middle of all that we were having our daughter tested for Asperger’s. Which was not cheap. That was a hard time. Still hard. And there were days, for us it was a year or longer, where the only good news was the gospel. Both parents died within fourteen months. We ached for an encouraging word. I tell you these things because this is what is going on in the pew every single week. And in the midst of it, they have to clock in, meet sales goals, change diapers, clean up vomit, cook dinner, balance the drawer, be kind to customers, and keep up friendships and family communication. And chances are, one of the cars will break down. What is the prescription for change? Walking into the pulpit knowing this. How can we help our kids and our congregations to see the moment-by-moment significance of their kingdom life, even in those moments when it doesn’t seem like anything significant is happening at all?

My first reaction is to say, “I don’t know.” But I would assume that if a pastor makes it clear to his people he actually believes that what is happening at work and at home is important work for the kingdom, then they will buy in. We’ve elevated many church-related activities to the level of a sacrament because they are part of the church and the leaders can track who is there. A pastor can’t track what is going on at home and at work. And he needs to communicate that changing diapers at home and kind words in the break room at work are hugely important in the kingdom. Can you imagine a sermon on this? It’s hard to picture. And I get it. Pastors and church leaders feel the pressure to keep the machine going. And if you preach a sermon or series of messages (gasp) on how important the work you do outside the confines of the 501(C3) is, then you risk getting people to volunteer. So I get it. But I think this is one of those shadows of the gospel that could bring relief and comfort for Christians. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BINGELISTENERS REJOICE You can get your fill of theology everywhere from the car to the treadmill. Previous White Horse Inn broadcasts are available for download or streaming 24 hours a day.

WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/ARCHIVES

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

BIG STAR TALKS TO GOD by DAVID ZAHL

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

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

nce upon a time, being a Big Star fan was like knowing a secret handshake. You knew something that others didn’t, and to meet a fellow fan was to meet a new friend. This is no longer the case. Nearly forty years after they initially broke up, and despite the fact

that three of the four original members are no longer with us, the short-lived Memphis rock band’s profile is higher than it arguably ever has been. A well-publicized boxed set saw the light of day in 2009, Keep an Eye on the Sky, followed by a surprisingly popular documentary in 2013, Nothing Can Hurt Me. The soundtrack sold more copies than expected. New books were published. It may not exactly be “children by the million,” as Paul Westerberg once fantasized in reference to the group, but the timeless tunes and romantic doom of Big Star clearly have staying power.

These power-pop pioneers have been referred to as “the greatest American cult rock band this side of The Velvet Underground.” Which is a nice way of saying that their influence on the wider rock scene is inversely proportionate to their commercial success. Their British contemporaries, Badfinger, are probably a more appropriate reference point than the Velvets, both in terms of musical style and fortune—what happens when you marry a passionate Beatles fixation with a whole lot of raw talent, and then filter it through Murphy’s Law. What can go wrong did go wrong for these guys.

The comparison isn’t exact—when Big Star’s records failed to get noticed, they took it out on their audience, sabotaging what many consider to be their masterpiece, Third, with disaffected performances and oddball production choices. A quick comparison of the demo of “Downs” to its studio incarnation will assure even the most casual listener of nefarious intent. In contrast, when Badfinger’s records suffered the same fate, they took it out on themselves (two of its chief songwriters committed suicide). And unlike Badfinger, the closest Big Star ever got to having an actual hit was when one of their lesser songs was resurrected to serve as the theme for the sitcom, That 70s Show (“Hanging out! Down the street!…”) A modest achievement, to say the least. Despite the increased interest, one aspect of the Big Star story still gets short shrift: the fact that their records are undeniably religious, almost

embarrassingly so. It’s true—arguably the “hippest” American band of the ’70s (certainly the one that indie rockers tend to name-drop most) made music that, especially on their first record, bordered on proto-Christian rock. Much of this was due to the influence of band cofounder Chris Bell. Bell died in 1978, long before the Big Star cult had a chance to gain much traction, which means he continues to occupy the most tragic role in a story rife with tragedy. And while he may not have been the “Young Werther with a Rickenbacker” that some might like to believe, still, if his songs are anything to go by, the guy was not at peace. John Jeremiah Sullivan once described Bell’s voice as “too sensitive for life,” and he was onto something. “You listen to him sing, and… you know the guy with that voice isn’t going to last,” he writes. Bell came by his religion honestly. Take a few sample lyrics of Bell’s “My Life Is Right” off Big Star’s debut #1 Record: Once I walked a lonely road I had no one to share my load But then you came and showed the way And now I hope you’re here to stay You give me life If it weren’t for the chiming power chords and Beatle-esque production, the track might fit in a megachurch. Which isn’t to say Bell’s songs aren’t sincere or heartfelt—in fact, if they were any more so, they would be unlistenable. Chris left just before the second album was recorded, but not before contributing a couple of (amazing) songs to their live set, the titles alone of which tell us all we need to know: “I Got Kinda Lost” and “There Was a Light.” As is often the case, Bell’s talent came with its fair share of personal demons—drug addiction and clinical depression being chief among them. For every sufferer who finds Christianity to be “the balm of Gilead,” another finds in it a vehicle of self-reproach and denial. Religion often seems to have equal potency for those looking to escape reality and those needing to bear it. Listening to Bell’s work all these years later, one can’t help but wonder which category he fell into. Chris’s songs betray a faith that is inescapably semi-Pelagian, meaning he understood God’s forgiveness to require, at least to some extent, human sweat and willpower. God may have “[come] and showed the way,” but it’s up

to his followers to walk the straight and narrow if they want his blessing. If Chris did indeed embrace a God-helps-thosewho-help-themselves point of view, unconsciously or not, it should come as no surprise that his faith proved incapable of offering him the comfort or deliverance—or just plain good news—that he seemed to be longing for. The song “Try Again,” also from #1 Record, paints a sad, albeit honest, picture of where this kind of theology leads: Lord I’ve been trying to be what I should Lord… And Lord I’ve been trying to do as you would But each time it gets a little harder I feel the pain But I’ll try again His tortured semi-Pelagianism would reach full fruition in the chilling “Better Save Yourself,” recorded long after he had left the band. On first listen, it may sound like Bell is speaking to someone other than himself, but given the pained tenor of the lyric and delivery (“I walk the streets / I’m all alone / I just can’t think / What I’ve been doing wrong”), it’s no stretch to assume he includes himself in the unsettlingly past-tense castigation of the chorus: You should’ve given your love to Jesus It wouldn’t have done you no harm… You better save yourself If you want to see his face

“FOR EVERY SUFFERER WHO FINDS CHRISTIANITY TO BE ‘THE BALM OF GILEAD,’ ANOTHER FINDS IN IT A VEHICLE OF SELF-REPROACH AND DENIAL.” MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

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

“ODDLY ENOUGH, THE RECORD CONTAINS THE BAND’S BEST AND MOST EXPLICIT BURST OF CHRISTIANITY, THE JANGLING YULETIDE ANTHEM KNOWN SIMPLY AS ‘JESUS CHRIST.’” In Bell’s dark world, salvation is not in God’s hands but one’s own. There is no assurance to be found in this scheme, certainly none available to an honest sinner. To a person as sensitive as Bell, someone inescapably attuned to the ins and outs of his own “doing wrong,” this makes a perfect recipe for anxiety, despair, and even suicide. In fact, elsewhere in the song he admits to having attempted to do himself in, not once but twice. Perhaps there is something merciful about the fact that his death was ultimately not of his own doing, but the result of a car crash. The other great talent in the band was Alex Chilton, the one-time singer for teen sensations The Box Tops (“The Letter”), who was not without troubles of his own. As his blue-blooded pedigree might suggest, Chilton seems to have been a man at odds with himself. An aristocrat in a working man’s game, a Memphis native who favored Liverpool over Graceland, a punk who actively de-prettified his voice, a gifted songwriter who would rather play covers. Alex’s downward-sloping career is a strange but fascinating portrait of conflict, both inner and outer. At least it has come to be understood and mythologized in that way.

But perhaps that characterization lets Alex off the hook too readily. If reports are to be believed, he mistreated others just as much as himself, including physically. Perhaps he was simply another troubled former child star, a cynic with an iconoclastic streak and an ear for melody that he understandably didn’t value very much. Whatever the case, the third and final Big Star album, Third, is commonly recognized as the epitome of creative self-sabotage in rock. Beautiful songs obscured by apathetic performances, antagonistic production choices, and an anarchic recording environment—the atmosphere is one of deep despair and drug-addled disintegration (and maybe a little psychosis). Chilton never even bothered to put together a final running order for what turned out to be an absolute tour de force. Oddly enough, the record contains the band’s best and most explicit burst of Christianity, the jangling yuletide anthem known simply as “Jesus Christ.” With Bell long gone, the song was a Chilton original, by all accounts a non(if not anti-) religious guy. Surrounded by such inspired bursts of nihilism as “Holocaust” and “Kanga Roo,” it comes from out of nowhere, beginning with an atonal instrumental prelude before launching into lyrics poached from a number of Protestant hymns. Its only cousin on the record might be “Stroke it Noel,” a relatively straightforward number in which Chilton urges us to “keep an eye on the sky”—not for aliens but bombs. Some assume “Jesus Christ” is half serious, others hear 100 percent earnestness—all agree that the song is in keeping with the supremely off-beat tone of Third and even one of its highlights. Whatever the motivation behind its authorship, “Jesus Christ” ranks high on the list of best rock songs about our Lord, a Christmas classic, the context of which couldn’t have been more “Nazarene”: Angels from the realms of glory Stars shone bright above Royal David’s city Was bathed in the light of love Jesus Christ was born today

As opposed to Bell’s anguished first-person prayers, “Jesus Christ” espouses a more objective approach to the divine, a prime example of what is commonly referred to as “God-centered music,” proclaiming the attributes of the Creator rather than focusing on the feelings of the creature (aka “me-centered”). In fact, the song’s discordant intro actually underlines its radical straightforwardness. For the one and only time on the record, the clarity of voice and sentiment (“And the wrong shall fail / And the right prevail”) is matched by the clarity of production, a clarity that could be achieved only by abandoning the acerbic first-person that haunts the rest of the album. “Jesus Christ” serves as a break in the clouds in every sense, the most radical left-turn in a record full of them, its joyful tone interrupting the otherwise dour feeling of Third, almost actively defying anyone to categorize Alex or his work. Plenty of great bands are fueled by creative friction, usually between two principal players, so it should come as no surprise that Bell and Chilton’s

differences extended to the spiritual as well as the sonic realm. One cannot help but wish they could have met somehow, that Chilton’s ironic detachment might have been pierced by the emotional stakes that Bell couldn’t avoid, or that Bell might have received some of the comfort afforded by a gospel that is glorified rather than hemmed in by the limitations of its recipients. Alas, such a convergence was not to be, and maybe that is for the best. Instead of adding another dimension to the most neurotic Southern Anglo-pop band the world has never known, it might have dimmed the volatile light that continues to shine from the Big Star constellation. And we need all the light we can get if we are to keep an eye on the sky.

David Zahl is director of Mockingbird Ministries and editor-inchief of the Mockingbird blog. The above article is adapted from A Mess of Help: From the Crucified Soul of Rock N’ Roll, published in December 2014 by Mockingbird Ministries (www.mbird.com).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THEOLOGY

THE SON of GOD in ADAMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S SHADOW SIN AND THE INCARNATION

by JAMES DUGUID

y parents sent me off to college with, among other things, a copy of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Despite the majesty of Calvin’s theology, reading through the

Institutes can be a difficult endeavor. Most difficult are the parts where Calvin engages in extended refutations of his contemporary opponents. As a college freshman, I had the hardest time with the Osiander bits. Andreas Osiander (1498–1552) was a Lutheran theologian in Germany with some original, strange, and just plain wrong theological ideas. Calvin discusses and refutes several of these ideas in the Institutes. Since that time, Osiander hasn’t inspired a lot of followers, and as a result I found the refutation of this long-dead theologian a little tedious and irrelevant. The issues under discussion were not ones I really cared about. As I have matured, though, I have come to have a greater appreciation for the Osiander bits. The issues may be strange, but they often connect to key doctrines of the faith in ways that make them more relevant than they might at first seem. I want to look at one of these issues in this essay and show how it can help us understand an important doctrine better: the doctrine of the incarnation. One particular claim Osiander made concerns the question, “Would the incarnation still have occurred, if the Fall had never happened?”1 In other words, if Adam had never sinned, but remained perfect, would the Son of God still have taken upon himself a human nature and become flesh? Osiander says, “Yes.” Osiander keys in on passages in the New Testament such as Colossians 1:15, where Christ is described as the image of God, and uses them to understand

Adam’s creation in the image of God. He thinks that the image in which Adam was created is the incarnate Christ. In other words, when God creates Adam, he looks down the corridors of time to the future incarnation and fashions man after the pattern of the Messiah. But, he argues, if this is so, God could not create man without determining to send his Son in the flesh, whether or not man should sin. Now, if you are thinking, “This seems like a vain and futile speculation,” you are not alone. This is largely the substance of Calvin’s objection. “Those who propose to inquire or seek to know more about Christ than God ordained by his secret decree are breaking out in impious boldness to fashion some new sort of Christ.”2 Calvin shows by many examples that Scripture everywhere identifies redemption from sin as the sole purpose of the MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THEOLOGY

incarnation. To pick just one: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). This is Calvin’s general argument, and it is a good one. But I would beg the reader’s patience in spending a little more time with this speculation. I want to zoom in on one particular piece of Osiander’s argument, because I believe it may help us to a deeper understanding of the mystery of the incarnation. Osiander argues as follows: if the Son would not have become incarnate without sin, then his incarnation would have depended upon Adam’s choice, and it would have been something contingent, an accident of history. In this case, Adam would be primary and Christ secondary. In Osiander’s opinion, this would imply that Adam was the pattern and image after which all men were created. Thus Christ would be in the image of Adam, rather than Adam in the image of Christ.3 The appeal of this argument is clear. After all, is it not honoring to Christ to say that he is first in

“INSOFAR AS JESUS IS GOD, HE IS ETERNALLY ABOVE AND BEFORE ALL THINGS, AND ONE CAN INDEED SAY THAT ADAM WAS CREATED IN HIS IMAGE, SINCE ADAM WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND JESUS IS GOD.” 18

all things? Surely the incarnation is of such grave importance that we shouldn’t say that it is an accident or something that happened by chance. At this point, we might expect Calvin to respond with something about predestination. After all, though the things of this world and the choices of men are contingent and in some sense accidental (unlike God, who is eternal), nevertheless, since God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, there is some sense in which even these things are necessary parts of his plan. If God decreed both Adam’s fall and the incarnation, it is not obvious that the incarnation can ultimately be called accidental. Though this response would be entirely consistent with his theology, this is not where Calvin goes. Instead, he focuses on what Scripture actually teaches about the incarnation. Scripture says that Christ was made like us (Heb. 4:15), that Christ was a descendant of Adam (Luke 3:38), and most strikingly, that Paul actually calls Jesus the second Adam, not the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:47). Calvin writes: “Paul, calling Christ the ‘Second Adam,’ sets the Fall, from which arose the necessity of restoring nature to its former condition, between man’s first origin and the restoration that we obtain through Christ.” 4 If this is how Scripture speaks about Jesus, then something must have gone wrong with Osiander’s argument somewhere. So what exactly is wrong with Osiander’s argument? It arises from a confusion about the nature of the incarnation. Insofar as Jesus is God, he is eternally above and before all things, and one can indeed say that Adam was created in his image, since Adam was created in the image of God and Jesus is God. But in the incarnation he becomes human, and insofar as he is human, his preeminence is not a given. In fact, Philippians 2:5–7 makes it quite clear that to become incarnate, the Son of God had to empty and humble himself, take the form of a servant, be born in the likeness of men (or, we might say, in the image of Adam), and obey to the point of death. For Christ, then, to become incarnate is already humiliation. It is to enter into the

“WHEN WE GRASP THIS, WE REALIZE THAT THERE IS A SORT OF FALSE CHRIST-CENTEREDNESS OPERATING WITH OSIANDER. THIS BAD CHRIST-CENTEREDNESS SHORT-CIRCUITS SUFFERING AND THE TASK OF DEALING WITH SIN FOR THE OFFER OF IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION.” contingencies of creation, to be acted upon and to react in the world of finite creatures. As Galatians 4:4 says, he was “born of a woman, born under the law.” Born into a genealogy, he had parents to whom he had to submit and duties and obligations imposed upon him from outside. As God, he never had to obey the law as something required of him by an external authority; rather the law was identical with his own character, the expression of his will. But as man, he had to submit his will to the Father. And what did the Father call him to do? The calling given to him by God, which he inherited as the true Son of David, was to be the second Adam. And though he did not receive the sin of Adam, he had to live in Adam’s world—a world cursed by the choice of another, a curse that in the end he must bear in all its terrible fullness. The shape of Christ’s life led to glory only through suffering. As he reiterated to his disciples throughout the Gospels, the Christ must suffer and die before he entered his glory. Colossians 1:18 teaches us that we should connect Christ’s preeminence with his resurrection: he is the firstborn from the dead. Paul’s statement about the death and resurrection of believer’s bodies may also be applied to Christ: “It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:43–44). Christ is indeed exalted above all things, but not before he had borne the old perishable body of the first Adam down into the grave. When we grasp this, we realize that there is a sort of false Christ-centeredness operating with

Osiander. This bad Christ-centeredness shortcircuits suffering and the task of dealing with sin for the offer of immediate gratification. Satan in the wilderness presented Jesus with this option: “You are too good for this degradation; only bow down and worship me, and I will give you the power and glory of the nations, without the need for this cross business.” But Jesus knew that exaltation was not something intrinsic to his humanity, but rather something that awaited him on the other side of the cross. In our Christ-centeredness, we must be careful which Christ we put at the center. The Christ of the Scriptures had no time for the sort of Christcenteredness that thought him too good to be the second Adam. Unlike the first Adam, he would not grab glory and preeminence for himself, but would rather suffer patiently while he waited for his exaltation from the hand of his Father. It is precisely for this reason, because he is the Lamb that was slain to deal with our sin, that he is worthy to open the scroll and receive all the power and glory of the nations (Rev. 5:9–12).

James Duguid (MDiv, Westminster Theological Seminary) is a doctoral student in Semitics and Egyptian Languages and Literature at Catholic University of America. 1 This subject is treated in Andreas Osiander, An filius Dei fuerit incarnandus, si peccatum non introiuisset in mundum (Montergio [Königsberg], Prussia: Ioannis Lufft, 1550). 2 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.12.5. 3 This argument is found in Osiander, An Filius, folio Hi. 4 Calvin, 2.12.7.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

B I B L E ST U DY

SANCTIFIED IN CHRIST Living from the True Vine

by MATTHEW RICHARD

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (John 15:1–6)

t is certainly obvious from this parable that Jesus deserves all the credit in declaring you and me clean and connecting us to him. As dead helpless branches, you and I have been forgiven at the cross and then grafted into the true living vine by the power of the Lord’s word and promise pronounced upon us. Once connected to Christ by his word, though, notice that the calling is not for us to work toward becoming more connected or more grafted into Christ, but to abide and remain. Thus you can confidently know that you have been cleansed and are fully grafted into the vine through the Lord’s powerful word (his word that delivers the benefits of Calvary to us). Yes, you can say with confident joy that you are completely justified because of Jesus’ death on the cross and that you are also completely sanctified (that is,

made clean) by the word spoken to you. Listen dear friends, you are reckoned saints, for Jesus is your complete sanctification as well! Being completely sanctified means that you are not subjected to the enemies of assurance. Often those enemies take the form of adjectives such as more, greater, true, further, higher, real, and nearer. Although all communicate that the branch’s grafting to the vine is lacking, in Christ you are not lacking anything. These enemy adjectives can strip assurance and create the impression that the goal of the branch is to move closer to the vine in order to obtain something that it is lacking. But this is not the case for you. Why? You have every spiritual blessing in Jesus because he has declared you clean. Yes, his word has declared you clean; it is what it is. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

B I B L E ST U DY

Being completely sanctified also means that it is not up to the branch to try and produce fruit (that is, good works) as a bargaining tool for continuing connection to the vine or as a payment for the status of being declared clean. Rather, this complete sanctification is the source of all the good works (fruit) that the forgiven Christian gets to bear. The implications of this are clear. The good works that you do have no power to make you “cleaner” or “more connected” to the vine. They’re a result of being connected to Jesus by the word and faith, not the cause. The fruit of good works can be thought of as marks of faith and grace; they are descriptive, not prescriptive. While it is spot-on to confess that good works are not the cause of sanctification and do not preserve faith, it must be noted that evil works do destroy faith (Eph. 4:30; 5:5; 1 Cor. 6:9ff; Gal. 5:21; Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5–6). What this means is that even though we are cleansed by God’s forgiving word, we are daily in need of the Vine Grower’s (that is, the Father’s) work upon us because the old Adam still clings to us. The Father does not act upon us by applying spiritual cosmetics to our sin, nor does he give a bracing pep talk to encourage the old man to reform his ways. Instead, he puts an end to the old Adam and sin through the waters of baptism (Rom. 6:1ff ). The Vine Grower prunes and strips the branches of unneeded leaves. Thankfully, God will not allow or permit the branch to simply exist in an unpruned status. It must be fertilized and tended, to keep it from degenerating into a wild and barren branch. To not act upon it would be to allow it to decay into nothing. (For more on this, see page 212 of Luther’s Works, Sermons on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 14-16, Concordia Publishing House.) The branch is pruned to make it bear more fruit—but fruit for whom? Martin Luther once said, “God doesn’t need our good works, but our neighbor does.” This is true in the parable before us, for the vine does not produce fruit for itself. As branches, you and I are not the source of good works—the vine is. What this means is that we don’t produce good works, we bear good works

(Eph. 2:10). God prepares good works for us—we don’t do good works to become Christians; we do them because we are already Christians. A proper understanding of the doctrine of vocation helps us understand that God not only prepares good works, but he also gives us the opportunity to serve our neighbor with them in our callings. Our daily tasks are opportunities God gives us to bear fruit. There are several cautions for us to consider when we think about the Christian life in light of this parable. The first item of caution is to note that the branch does not turn into a vine, nor is the branch established as a separate entity from the vine. Jesus says that apart from him we can do nothing. Historically we have seen that some traditions err in creating what is called double justification—Christ is the basis of justification, and Christians are responsible to exert their effort to validate that justification and enact their own regeneration. This unfortunately causes people to move away from Christ

“GOD NOT ONLY PREPARES GOOD WORKS, BUT HE ALSO GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE OUR NEIGHBOR WITH THEM IN OUR CALLINGS.”

by teaching them that Jesus gets them started, but then they are to go on their own as autonomous beings. May this never be! Christian growth is not about arriving at some point where a person needs Jesus less. The Christian life is not the establishment of the unholy trinity of “me, myself, and I” as an independent autonomous vine; it is rather to abide in Christ—the true and only vine—by faith, continually receiving the word and sacraments that are for us. Second, when we think about the idea of cooperation, we must be careful not to understand cooperation as if it means that we work alongside the Vine Grower in producing fruit together. In other words, after the Holy Spirit has begun his work of rebirth in us—through the word and holy sacraments—we do not cooperate with him as if we and the Holy Spirit are both vines, each giving 50 percent. Rather, we cooperate when we are made living branches in conversion. Indeed, as branches of God the Holy Spirit, you and I only do good to the extent that he rules, leads, and guides. If God the Holy Spirit would withdraw his gracious hand, we could not for one moment remain in the faith, let alone bear good fruit. Branches are dependent upon the vine and cooperate as they receive all that is good and salutary from the vine itself. Third, since good works are the fruit of Christ’s justifying grace and sanctification in the life of a Christian, we don’t need to display our fruit. When I examine my own spiritual fruit, I end up eating it. My sinful nature grabs hold of my good works, hoists them up, and says, “Look at what I did!” Anytime we boast of ourselves as branches and fruit-bearers, we are putting the focus back onto ourselves and degrading the life-giving vine. Because good works are the fruits of the Spirit, we get to look to Christ and his word rather than ourselves and what we are doing. This is important to remember: if we look to our good works to spur on more good works, then our endeavor will prove to be futile at best. Jesus, the true vine, is the author and perfecter of faith. We abide by fixing our eyes on Jesus and his word for us. Finally, may we never succumb to the ideology that an overemphasis of the true vine leads to licentious sin. Yes, being declared righteous by the powerful word certainly does grant great freedom—freedom from guilt, sin, death, and selfrighteousness. It frees us from a position of slavish

“BECAUSE GOOD WORKS ARE THE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT, WE GET TO LOOK TO CHRIST AND HIS WORD RATHER THAN OURSELVES AND WHAT WE ARE DOING.” fear to childlike love of God. But does this encourage freedom to sin? Does it embolden us to serve our sinful nature? Do Jesus and his word promote and distribute sin? Of course not. The word of the cross is death to the old Adam, not a license to the flesh. Sin is never a fruit of the vine. If licentiousness does exist, this perversion of freedom is due to our sinful nature. Indeed, a focus on the vine does not lead to a neglect of good fruit, but its nurture and growth. In summary, dear friends, you are completely justified because of Jesus’ death on the cross and completely sanctified (made clean) by the word spoken to you. You are reckoned saints by the Father, for the Son forgives you of all your sins. Be of good cheer: your sins are forgiven. There will be no cutting off and casting away, for you are in Christ Jesus. You are clean; you abide in Jesus, the true vine, who through the Holy Spirit will bring your new birth to full fruition. Jesus is the true vine, we are the branches, and we live this sanctified life from the true vine.

Matthew Richard is pastor of Zion Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Gwinner, North Dakota. He is a graduate of Lutheran Brethren Seminary, Minnesota, and Concordia Seminary, Missouri.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

JOIN. SHARE. LEAD. Through your monthly support as a partner of White Horse Inn you will help others rediscover the riches of the Reformation. Our partnership benefits include a subscription to Modern Reformation, private partner podcast or CDs, books, and invitations to special events.

WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/SUPPORT

features

E LIVE IN AN AGE OF

unprece-

dented richness in discipleship materials. Vaults of old trea treasures of spiritual classics are unlocked daily to enrich this generation, and new treasures are being continually crafted by contemporary Christian leaders. The rise of the Internet, social media, tablets, and the like make these discipleship materials instantly available. The sermons available are almost limitless, even from deceased heroes such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones. We can download audio of Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” to our iPhone and listen to it while waiting for a connecting flight. We can live-stream outstanding evangelical conferences from anywhere in the world right into the comfort of our homes. Almost any church has archived sermons available for free.

But this abundance of resources has not come without a corresponding danger—that individual Christians will consider themselves sufficiently fed by celebrity pastors and leaders (living or dead), and will feel no need for covenant membership in a healthy local church. There is a new generation of anonymous, isolated cyber-disciples rising, and it is to them I would speak. I want to make a case for covenant membership in a healthy New Testament church as the God-ordained pattern for true discipleship, for true progress to Christ-like maturity. I will focus primarily on Ephesians 4:7–16 to make this point. My desire is that anyone who reads this will be drawn in a compelling way to a right relationship with the local church. CHR IST’S W ISE P ROVI S I O N FO R DIS CIP LESHIP : THE LO CAL CH U RCH

In Ephesians 4:7–16, the Apostle Paul unfolds with amazing clarity the wisdom of God in organizing the church for spiritual growth. He addresses here the variety of gifts given to Christians, showing how all of them ultimately work together to the end of spiritual maturity for every disciple of Christ. Paul asserts that spiritual gifts are grace from God, given to each Christian “according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (v. 7). Every single Christian has received some kind of spiritual gift package measured out carefully by the wisdom of Jesus. Verses 8–10 reveal Christ lavishing these gifts after he ascended to sit higher than the heavens, filling all things. Without these spiritual gifts operating as he intends, the body of Christ could never be brought to maturity. Verse 11 highlights five vital roles that Christ provided in order to accomplish maturity for all disciples: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds (pastors) and teachers…” Though 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 both mention other spiritual gifts (for example, administration, serving, and giving), these five have one key theme: the delivery of the word of God to the body of Christ. “Apostles and prophets” are mentioned earlier in the Epistle—the foundation upon which the church is built as they testify to Christ Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). In the era of redemptive history in which the Bible was being written, the apostles and prophets revealed God’s

“PASTORS AND TEACHERS—BY SOUND EXEGESIS, PASSIONATE PREACHING, AND CAREFUL TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURE— GIVE TO THE PEOPLE OF GOD EVERYTHING THEY NEED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS.”

word directly to God’s people, saying, “Thus says the Lord.” As the word revealed to the apostles and prophets was written down in Holy Scripture, it became the foundation of the faith of God’s people, with Christ Jesus the crowning theme. So the first two of these five roles represent the inerrant word of God, mediated to the church by human mouthpieces, and eventually written down for all time. The next three roles all function as delivery systems to get that inerrant word to the people of God all over the world. Evangelists take the word to those who have not heard it before to draw them into the body of Christ by repentance and faith. Pastors and teachers then settle in with those converts and complete the Great Commission by teaching them to obey everything Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:20). Comprehensive obedience in discipleship is the goal of the ministry of the word, that every area of life be conformed to the will of Christ as revealed in his word. Pastors and teachers—by sound exegesis, passionate preaching, and careful teaching of the Scripture—give to the people of God everything they need for life and godliness. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THE CYBER-DISCIPLE

THE CHURCH MEMBER

VS.

WOR D

Receives solid doctrine through the ministry of the word, administration of the sacraments, and proper use of church discipline

Receives solid doctrine

GIFTS

Receives the personal gifts of the pastor, elders, deacons, and fellow members of the church

Receives the gifts of the pastor/organization

SIN

Fights for and with the members of the body by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit

Fights the battle alone

LOV E & SERV ICE

Grows in his love of and service to his fellow members as he is loved and served by them himself

Receives the service of the pastor/organization

SUBMISSION

Listens to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, submitting to whatever he likes, and disregarding whatever he doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t

Submits to other members in love through the oversight of the church according to Scripture

“AS ‘EACH PART DOES ITS WORK,’ IT DOES SO IN LIGHT OF FAITHFUL TEACHING OF THE WORD BY PASTOR-TEACHERS, WITH INCREASINGLY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF GOD’S FINAL GOALS FOR THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD.” Verse 12 is a key link to verses 13–15, and is vital to understanding the role of the local church in the discipleship of every Christian. Verse 13 defines well the goal of discipleship: “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Verse 15 displays Christ as the “Head of the Body,” into which each member of it grows up in “every way.” The connection between verse 11 and verses 12–15 is that the word of God (as delivered faithfully by the five roles mentioned in verse 11) primes the pump for the body of Christ to do the “work of ministry” (v. 12) needed for the full maturity of each member. The timeless mechanism of discipleship is the whole church doing these specific “works of ministry,” not merely the faithful unfolding of the word of God, however vital that is. In verse 12, the works of ministry are done by “the saints,” and verses 15–16 make this even clearer: “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up into him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (italics added). Plainly, daily progress toward the final goal of universal conformity to Christ is achieved not merely by the five roles (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers), but also by “the saints,” the “whole body,” “each part” working properly by doing the work of ministry. The word primes the pump for this and is present at every moment of ministry, for it is conformity to “the faith” (that is, Christian doctrine) and the “knowledge of the Son of God” that is the core of our unity. It is by “speaking the truth” (that is, accurate Christian doctrine) “in love” that we grow up,

and the essence of that growth in discipleship is both doctrinal and practical. We are no longer children, blown and tossed back and forth by the winds and waves of false doctrine as delivered by satanic cunning through false teachers (v. 14). The word flows through every act of service, every dollar given by generous givers, every wise and orderly act of those gifted as administrators, every vision for future ministry urged by those with gifts of faith, every passionate prayer offered, and every moment of sweet and loving hospitality. As “each part does its work,” it does so in light of faithful teaching of the word by pastor-teachers, with increasingly clear understanding of God’s final goals for the church in the world. Finally, Paul’s use of the “body” analogy clearly implies that each part is connected in a healthy way to the whole. The text itself speaks eloquently of the interconnection of the body, the way that “joints and ligaments” hold our bodies together. Just as no member of our body can live if it is severed from the rest of the body, no individual Christian can be healthy if not rightly connected to the church. Our fingers, ears, and internal organs all receive lifesustaining nutrients from our digestive system, oxygen from our respiratory system, and antibodies (when needed) from our immune system, all of them delivered by our circulatory system. Each part must do its proper work for the whole body to be healthy and growing. So it is in discipleship—we must be rightly connected to a healthy local church to grow into Christ-like maturity.

Andrew M. Davis is senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Durham, North Carolina.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

OU CAN BECOME

anything you want to be.”

I think I may have said that to my own kids before. Happily, upon further reflection, it’s not true. God handcrafts human beings, through nature and nurture, to fulfill a specific role in the web of relationships in society and, above all, in Christ’s body. “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them,” Paul instructs us in 1 Corinthians 12. “There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in them and in every everyone it is the same God at work” (v. 4). All of these gifts of the Spirit are “given for the common good,” not just for private use.

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ’s body, the church. “Now if the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.… If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (1 Cor. 12:15, 17–18). It may be un-American to tell our youngsters that they can’t become whatever they decide to be, that they have specific propensities; that through their social and ecclesial influences, they will develop some of them for the good of the whole body of Christ, as well as for the neighborhood. But that’s what Paul says, and it’s also something that we see in the natural order, which makes “the body” such a great analogy for the church.

will build his church until he returns. But the way many church leaders talk these days (as in past eras), you’d think that Jesus gave a great suggestion instead of a Great Commission. We’re told that the ordinary means of grace—preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and teaching disciples to obey everything that Christ commanded—may have been useful in the first century, but it’s time to reboot. What we need is “a new kind of Christian.” The church needs to “reinvent itself.” Or as one leader puts it, “The future of the church will be ‘The Revolutionaries’: the millions of believers who have stopped going to church and have decided to be the church instead.” “The Great Commission just said ‘Go,’” wrote the nineteenth-century revivalist Charles Finney. “He did not give us any particular methods for doing so.” That’s an odd thing to say, since Jesus explicitly revealed the methods mentioned above. There is a naive view in many Christian circles that assumes the message remains the same, regardless of the ever-changing methods.

“JUST AS A BODY, THOUGH ONE, HAS MANY PARTS, BUT ALL ITS MANY PARTS FORM ONE BODY, SO IT IS WITH CHRIST’S BODY, THE CHURCH.”

GIFTS, D IS C IP LESHI P, AND SERVIC E

It is a good thing we have limits. It’s not a call to a herd mentality, to simply accept our lot and station with mediocre resignation. Rather, accepting limits means that as we mature, we can invest our time and resources where God has gifted us and made us indispensable to the health of the church and society. It’s no surprise that young people in societies like ours cannot decide on a major until their last year of college. There’s a lot of anxiety about callings. And part of that, I think, is the pressure of being told all of your life that you can be whatever you want to be, that you have unlimited possibilities. It’s the same with the church as a whole. In fact, more so, because Christ, the Lord of his church, has revealed the message and means by which he

T H E V I N E I N T H E G A R D EN

The church is not simply an institution with a systematic theology, but an organism with a form of life. In front of a computer, I’m in charge of what I want to learn, do, and become. Or at least I think I am. In the visible church, however, I am not in front of anything. Rather, I’m in the middle of the action. I have some intimations, but I really don’t know what I will become after the church gets through with me. By being assimilated to its faith and practice, I do not lose my identity. On the contrary, I find it “in Christ,” together with his body. The church is not just where disciples go; it’s the place where disciples are made. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

Although it is a bit of a caricature, I think that there is some truth in the generalizations that I’m about to make. The tendency in Roman Catholic theology is to view the kingdom of Christ as a cosmic ladder or tower, leading from the lowest strata to the hierarchy led by the pope. Anabaptists have tended to see the kingdom more as a monastery, a community of true saints called out of the world and a worldly church. Lutheran and Reformed churches tend sometimes to see the kingdom as a school, while evangelicals, at least in the United States, lean more toward seeing it as a market. But God sees his kingdom as a garden. The dominance of organic metaphors for God’s kingdom in Scripture is striking. The first psalm compares the heir of the covenant to “a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither.” In contrast, “The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away” (Ps. 1:3–4). In the end, the ungodly will not stand in God’s forest (vv. 5–6). The kingdom is like a sower who scattered seeds that fell in different soils and some, in shallow soil, were withered by the scorching sun. Others, lacking any root, “withered away,” and some fell among thorns and were choked. “Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matt. 13:1–9). The kingdom is like a garden where an enemy sows weeds among the wheat. You can’t tell the two apart until the harvest, so Jesus warns the disciples not to try to weed his garden until he returns (vv. 24–30). “He put another parable before them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches’” (vv. 31–32). In John 15, Christ identifies himself as the true vine and the Father as the vinedresser: “Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I

in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.” (John 15:1–5) United to Christ through faith, we are simultaneously united to our fellow branches. We are not the vine but a branch inextricably connected to the Tree of Life. What are some of the common threads we can draw together from Jesus’ organic analogy of his kingdom? First, it is his kingdom. Second, there is no personal relationship with Christ, the vine, apart from his church, the branches. Third, the growth of this kingdom (and each member of it) is slow. Who would ever have imagined that a tiny mustard seed would become a massive tree with branches filling the earth? Yet it isn’t something you can measure day by day. Fourth, it takes a lot of work. The gardener is always doing something to tend the vine in view of his harvest. H OW D O ES G O D ’S G A R D EN G R OW ?

To be sure, there are aspects of the church’s life and ministry that are left to godly wisdom. Churches reflect their time and place. And yet, every church should be defined by the “marks” that Christ gave us: preaching, sacraments, and discipline. Let’s go back to Pentecost, to Church 1.0, and regain our perspective. After all, it’s the same church that Christ promised to build and to be present with in saving grace to the end of the age. Through the prophets God promised that he would pour out his Spirit in the last days. Jesus promised that when he ascended to the Father, he would send his Spirit. Through his word, the Spirit would raise the spiritually dead to life and expand his kingdom to the ends of the earth. Finally, it happened. Jesus ascended to the Father, and they both sent the Spirit for the ground campaign. The Spirit’s anointing of Christ’s followers empowered them to proclaim the gospel, as tongues of fire rested upon each of them. Peter, the one who had denied Christ three times, even to a little girl, was now boldly proclaiming Christ as the fulfillment of the prophetic longing: “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless

“UNITED TO CHRIST THROUGH FAITH, WE ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY UNITED TO OUR FELLOW BRANCHES. WE ARE NOT THE VINE BUT A BRANCH INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO THE TREE OF LIFE.”

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

A YEAR OF SIGNPOSTS—FOLLOWING THE CHURCH CALENDAR

realize that following the church calendar is not the practice of some churches. It has, however, been effective in many of our churches that have inherited it from ancient practice, and it’s being discovered by others today. It helps to have signposts in the year that focus our attention on the momentous events in the life of the Christ and the founding of his new covenant assembly. It is another way of getting us to orient our church life around the divine drama: Advent (culminating in Christmas), Epiphany (the appearance of the wise men—or, more properly, the appearance of Christ to the Gentiles), Lent (Jesus’ wilderness temptation of forty days, culminating in Good Friday), Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. We enter into personal confidence in the truth of God’s word only by growing up into church practice, as we experience it in community as the people of God. Our beliefs are shaped as much by concrete worship practices (such as the songs we sing and the prayers we pray) as they are by the propositional structures that form them. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” He is telling us that one of the chief ways of getting God’s word into us—not just in a rote mindless way, but so that it will “dwell in [us] richly in all wisdom”—is through what we sing. This singing is not only a matter of praise but also of education, “teaching and admonishing one another.” Does our music

serve this purpose and fit these criteria? It is ineffective to sing traditional psalms and hymns without thought, but it is surely no better to substitute contemporary “clips” from the Psalms and vacuous phrases about our state

ADVENT

Fourth Sunday before Christmas EPIPHANY

12 days after Christmas LENT

46 days (approx. 6 weeks) before Easter EASTER

First Sunday after the Paschal full moon (a Sunday between Mar. 22 and Apr. 25) ASCENSION

39 days after Easter PENTECOST

10 days after Ascension

of consciousness. A fresh initiative, across the denominational landscape, appears to be emerging that seeks to produce new music with fresh creativity and theological and musical integrity. A revival of traditional Christian practices whose practical success

has the record of impressive centuries of vital witness will not look—should not look—like the first century, fifth, twelfth, or sixteenth centuries. But it cannot look like the twenty-first century stripped of these antecedents. We will, no doubt, find our way back to these resources as people of our time and place. In doing so, we will be surprised at how similar some of our problems are to those faced by our brothers and sisters in past ages. We’ll be lifted out of our snobbery toward the past, as if our generation were the only important one in the history of the church. And we will also encounter new questions that they will help us answer: How can we enjoy the Sabbath in our day of commuter churches? What will regular catechism practices look like in today’s over-committed and often broken homes? Is there an emerging approach to church music that reaches beyond the dead end of traditional-versus-contemporary and contemporary-versus-traditional? If style isn’t neutral, what criteria should we develop so that God’s word may dwell in us “richly in all wisdom”? These are all exciting questions, if we have already accepted the challenge to move in these directions. We can expect variety as we step up to the plate ourselves, in our time and place, understanding and incorporating—but not slavishly imitating—that which has gone before.

This article by Michael Horton originally appeared in the January/ February 2001 issue of Modern Reformation.

“[THE CHURCH] HAS TO DEFINE ITS VISION, MISSION, MESSAGE, AND METHODS BY ATTENDING TO EVERYTHING THAT CHRIST COMMANDED FOR HIS CHURCH.”

men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it….This Jesus God raised up and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.…Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:23–24, 32–33, 36) Nothing could be more important to announce to the world. And through this word, the Spirit began to fulfill the prophecy of Ezekiel 37, as the “dry bones” came together and stood together on their feet: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the

promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”…So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37–39, 41) They heard the gospel, were convicted and converted, baptized, and thereby added to the church. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (v. 42). T H E FO C US ED V I S I O N

The Great Commission was now beginning to be fulfilled. In both instances—the Great Commission and Pentecost—the fuel of the kingdom is the ministry of the word, the sacraments, and church discipline. It is not only the apostles’ teaching but also “the fellowship” of the saints in Christ’s visible body: baptism and the Supper, along with “the prayers” that illustrates for us what the new covenant church looks like—or should look like—today when the Spirit shows up to unite sinners to Christ, to preserve them in that sacred bond to the end, and to expand that end-time sanctuary to the ends of the earth. Some churches are known for emphasizing the apostolic teaching. More liturgical traditions focus on “the breaking of bread and the prayers,” others on “fellowship” or sharing material things in common, and still others on evangelism. We easily let ourselves off the hook, especially as pastors: “We’ll let evangelicals do the evangelism and then we’ll teach them” or vice versa. We’re so eager to go niche. However, every church needs to do these four things every week. To do that well, you have to keep your focus sharp and limited. The church is not another social institution. It can’t be anything it wants to be. It has to define its vision, mission, message, and methods by attending to everything that Christ commanded for his church.

Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

IN JANUARY 1521, POPE LEO X EXCOMMUNICATED THE GERMAN REFORMER MARTIN LUTHER . LATER TH AT SPR ING LUTHER WAS CA LLED TO THE DIET OF WOR MS, A GATHER I NG OF POLITICA L A N D ECCLE SI A STICA L OFFICI A L S I N THE PR E SENCE OF EMPEROR CHARLES V, TO DEFEND HIS BELIEFS. WHEN HE FAMOUSLY REFUSED TO RECANT, STAKING HIS POSITION ON THE WORD OF GOD, HE WAS DECLARED AN OUTLAW AND A HERETIC. LUTHER WENT INTO HIDING AT THE WARTBURG CASTLE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF ELECTOR FR EDER ICK III OF SA XON Y.

In his absence, his former friend and colleague

Luther’s confidence in the word is particularly

Andreas von Karlstadt continued the ministry

striking in our own era, a time when almost any-

in Wittenberg. Von Karlstadt moved quickly

thing but the word is given prominence in our

to reform the mass. On Christmas Day 1521, he

churches. Pastors jump at program after pro-

performed a mass in the German language and

gram to do the work that Luther ascribed to the

expunged many of the most offensive elements

word. Culture warriors fret over who is elected

from the service. The next month, the city coun-

and what legislation is enacted at the expense

cil in Wittenberg affirmed most of von Karlstadt’s

of the power of the working word. Even regular

reforms. Luther returned from hiding in March

church-goers are often suckered by the books at

1522 and began a series of eight Lenten sermons.

the top of best-seller charts rather than putting

This second sermon of that series takes up the

their confidence in the living word.

power of God’s word.

This sermon reflects Luther’s maturing

This sermon is remarkable in several respects.

“Protestantism.” No longer a loyal son of the

First, Luther hardly comes off as the radical that

church, but no wide-eyed radical either, Luther

the pope and the emperor made him out to be. In

stakes his life, his ministry, and the everyday faith

fact, he distances himself, at least implicitly, from

of his congregation on the word. May his words

the recent more radical reforms of von Karlstadt.

redirect our eyes to the power and wonder of the

Luther is the unexpected voice of reason and

word that works even while we sleep.

moderation. Second, he has great confidence in the powerful working word of God. This sermon

And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if

contains one of Luther’s most well-known and well-

a man should scatter seed on the ground.

loved quotes:

He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how.

I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s

The earth produces by itself, first the blade,

Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I

then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.

slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my

But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in

friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so

the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

greatly weakened the papacy that no prince

(Mark 4:26–29).

or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything.

THE SEC O N D SERMON, MAR CH 10, 1522 MONDAY AFTER IN VOCAV IT

EAR FRIENDS, you heard yesterday the chief characcharac teristics of a Christian man, that his whole life and being is faith and love. Faith is directed toward God, love toward man and one’s neighbor, and consists in such love and service for him as we have received from God without our work and merit. Thus, there are two things: the one, which is the most needful, and which must be done in one way and no other; the other, which is a matter of choice and not of necessity, which may be kept or not, without endangering faith or incurring hell. In both, love must deal with our neighbor in the same manner as God has dealt with us; it must walk the straight road, straying neither to the left nor to the right. In the things which are “musts” and are matters of necessity, such as believing in Christ, love nevertheless never uses force or undue constraint. Thus the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with it, because it is performed as if it were a sacrifice and work of merit. Therefore it must be abolished. Here there can be no question or doubt, any more than you should ask whether you should worship God. Here we are entirely agreed: the private masses must be abolished. As I have said in my writings, I wish they would be abolished everywhere and only the ordinary evangelical mass be retained. Yet Christian love should not employ harshness here nor force the matter. However, it should be preached and taught with tongue and pen that to hold mass in such a manner is sinful, and yet no one should be dragged away from it by the hair; for it should be left to God, and his Word should be allowed to work alone, without our work or interference. Why? Because it is not in my power or hand to fashion the hearts of men as the potter molds the clay and fashion them at my pleasure [Ecclesiastes 33:13]. I can get no farther than their ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force any one

“IT IS NOT IN MY POWER OR HAND TO FASHION THE HEARTS OF MEN AS THE POTTER MOLDS THE CLAY AND FASHION THEM AT MY PLEASURE…THAT IS GOD’S WORK ALONE.”

to have faith. That is God’s work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart. Therefore we should give free course to the Word and not add our works to it. We have the jus verbi [right to speak] but not the executio [power to accomplish]. We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God’s good pleasure. Now if I should rush in and abolish it by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know where they stand, whether it is right or wrong, and they would say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external show, a fool’s play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints, and hypocrites. For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. But that is done when I teach only the Word of God, preach the gospel, and say: Dear lords or pastors, abandon the mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this. But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law. He who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain outside. In the latter case the Word would sink into the heart and do its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his error, and fall away from the mass; MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

“IN SHORT, I WILL PREACH IT, TEACH IT, WRITE IT, BUT I WILL CONSTRAIN NO MAN BY FORCE, FOR FAITH MUST COME FREELY WITHOUT COMPULSION.”

tomorrow another would do the same, and thus God would accomplish more with his Word than if you and I were to merge all our power into one heap. So when you have won the heart, you have won the man—and thus the thing must finally fall of its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of all are agreed and united, abolish it. But if all are not heart and soul for its abolishment—leave it in God’s hands, I beseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not that I would again set up the mass; I let it lie in God’s name. Faith must not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work. This is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you will not be able to carry out your plans. And if you should carry them out with such general laws, then I will recant everything that I have written and preached and I will not support you. This I am telling you now. What harm can it do you? You still have your faith in God, pure and strong so that this thing cannot hurt you. Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens (Acts 17:16–32), a mighty city, he found in the temple many ancient altars, and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but he did not kick down a single one of them with his foot. Rather he stood up in the middle of the market place and said they were nothing but idolatrous things and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the Word took hold of their hearts, they forsook them of their own accord, and in consequence the thing fell of itself. Likewise, if I had seen them holding mass, I would have preached to them and admonished them. Had they heeded my admonition, I would have won them; if not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the Word to act and prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things [Psalm 33:6]; the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners. In short, I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept [cf. Mark 4:26–29], or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word

so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany; indeed, I could have started such a game that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? Mere fool’s play. I did nothing; I let the Word do its work. What do you suppose is Satan’s thought when one tries to do the thing by kicking up a row? He sits back in hell and thinks: Oh, what a fine game the poor fools are up to now! But when we spread the Word alone and let it alone do the work, that distresses him. For it is almighty, and takes captive the hearts, and when the hearts are captured the work will fall of itself. Let me cite a simple instance. In former times there were sects, too, Jewish and Gentile Christians, differing on the law of Moses with respect to circumcision. The former wanted to keep it, the latter not. Then came Paul and preached that it might be kept or not, for it was of no consequence, and also that they should not make a “must” of it, but leave it to the choice of the individual; to keep it or not was immaterial [I Corinthians 7:18–24; Galatians 5:1]. So it was up to the time of Jerome, who came and wanted to make a “must” out of it, desiring to make it an ordinance and a law that it be prohibited. Then came St. Augustine and he was of the same opinion as St. Paul: it might be kept or not, as one wished. St. Jerome was a hundred miles away from St. Paul’s opinion. The two doctors bumped heads rather hard, but when St. Augustine died, St. Jerome was successful in having it prohibited. After that came the popes, who also wanted to add something and they, too, made laws. Thus out of the making of one law grew a thousand laws, until they have completely buried us under laws. And this is what will happen here, too; one law will soon make two, two will increase to three, and so forth. Let this be enough at this time concerning the things that are necessary, and let us beware lest we lead astray those of weak conscience [I Corinthians 8:12].

Taken from “The Second Sermon, March 10, 1522, Monday after Invocavit,” Luther’s Works: Sermons I, eds. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 51:III–78. Reprinted by permission.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

USYNESS IS BOOMING.

People

are busy everywhere you look, even on your computer screen. Instead of time-saving devices, we want gadgets that do more and more right alongside us. Busyness has become business as usual, if not business itself. Family is left first thing in the morning, and individuals pursue interests and activities of their own as their chance to be balanced and accomplished. Businesses encourage busyness as a sign of progress and success.

What may be surprising is the extent to which churches have jumped onto the busy bandwagon. A variety of Bible studies, social activities, meetings, outreach, and other congregational activities can take over your calendar. What does their busyness mean? What does it say when a full weekly calendar becomes a primary focus within a congregation? Does it raise theological concerns? TIME LESS

Congregations are experiencing society’s shortcomings firsthand, particularly family problems—from superficial attention to splintering commitment. That is because the church is also a family, joined by the blood of Christ. Sadly, as children and siblings, we are giving up time together with our Father to seek our own personal interests and to choose who or what is worthy of space on our calendar. Congregations admittedly need volunteers and leadership for various tasks and upkeep. But it is common now for members to sidestep shepherding Christ’s flock and building maintenance in order to pursue personal preferences. Yet God has not given us the church for pursuing hobbies, nor as a chance to escape the house and children for a few extra hours. Just the opposite—in his word, God turns us to face the realities of a sinful heart and world. He turns us to our ongoing need for his gifts and salvation, and he turns us to our neighbors, who frankly may or may not be our favorite (or most interesting) causes. Entire congregations can enter the rat race, albeit in a slightly different way. Congregations may try to entice new people with activities, only to have their resources spread so thin that members must take on more and more. A sense of urgency morphs the encouragement “Let us not grow weary of doing good” (Gal. 6:9) into a command to do your best every moment of every day, bearing in mind that you’re “doing it for the church!”

“ARE CONGREGATIONS KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES, OR HAVE THE TIMES INVADED THE CHURCH? FATHERLESS PEWS REFLECT FATHERLESS HOMES, AND BROKEN MARRIAGES REVEAL INFIDELITY TOWARD BOTH NEIGHBOR AND GOD.”

Historically, church has been a timeless place. In worshiping the eternal God, prayers were offered up morning and evening—sometimes hourly!—in the sanctuary and with every meal in the home. Infants grew into adulthood repeating the same psalms, hearing the same readings, and receiving the ageless gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation through God’s holy word and his holy gifts, the sacraments. But times have changed. Just as activities often keep families outside the home, small groups, progressive dinners, and off-site programming take church-goers away from the sanctuary. Congregations are moving toward divisions rather than family unity. Bible studies are increasingly divided by age, interest, and sometimes sex and marital status. Leading personalities use their personal interests and causes to pursue accomplishments, while administrators turn to busyness and business models to manage God’s church. Are congregations keeping up with the times, or have the times invaded the church? Fatherless pews reflect fatherless homes, and broken marriages reveal infidelity toward both neighbor and God. Individualism as independence is sovereign, rest elusive, and a quick bite replacing the family dinner, even when that family dinner is the Lord’s Supper in our Father’s house.

CH U R C H BUR NO UT

Church busyness is not without consequences. In a November 2014 blog post on Holy Soup, Thom Schultz wrote about “The Rise of the Dones,” a growing phenomenon of long-time believers who leave MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

active church lives to stay home entirely. Joining the “de-churched” in walking away from the institutions of church, the Dones are simply burned out from congregational activity. They have come to consider themselves better off with the Bible at home than with the burdens accompanying congregational life. We should be bold to admit that there is great capacity within the body of Christ to tend to many needs. Good works are to be encouraged. A great many things can be done well, but only to a point. Matthew 25 warns us that there are those awaiting Christ who are in danger of burning out their lamps, and that they actively seek fuel for themselves from others! “Test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22 English Standard Version). We need to test the spirits of our congregations and leadership to be sure that congregations are adding—rather than borrowing or draining—oil for lamps of faith. In the last several decades, many well-intentioned pastors and congregations have grasped the Field of Dreams motto, “If you build it, they will come.” Staffs and congregations have been torn apart by struggle and debt. Neighboring congregations have felt the sting of stolen sheep, as members wandered from one congregation to another. Statistics measuring growth or loss rang out as a ticking clock, building urgency for congregations to accomplish more and do better, as busyness becomes a primary focus for the church business in general. The motto’s current encore seems to be: “If you offer it, they will come.” Once again, an urge to grow stretches resources and schedules, leaving fewer family dinners together, pensioners paying the bills, and many members drifting from one interest to another before trying a congregation down the street. The congregation’s operating model shifts with every business meeting, and instead of a permanent church family, a person’s commitment is to a six-week course or volunteering for the next food drive in another three months. GOD’S CALENDAR

The realm of Christ is very different from this world. In so many areas of life, we must work, earn, and pay—the emphasis is on us and what we do. But within God’s mercy, the family of God is centered on a heavenly Father who provides for all that we

need and more, as well as his Son, who becomes “my brothers’ keeper” (Gen. 4:9) by being our perfect sacrifice and bringing us into his family. In the eternal church, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit free their calendar for us. They give us everything we need, setting aside time for us to worship and rest. Our Lord seeks, finds, and restores, giving forgiveness, new life, and renewal through the gospel. In the sanctuary of the church, we are largely passive, receiving his gifts and marveling at his generosity. Yet earnest church-going people continue to ask, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Exhausted members wonder, “Is our busyness the real foundation of the church?” How would your congregation reply? Jesus answered, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:28–29). We must ask ourselves whether well-intentioned zeal is shifting the focus away from God and onto ourselves. Are church activities inhibiting rest in the Lord? Are programs, studies, and even small groups trying to save the church, or even the world, rather than trusting Christ to provide for his body? T H E G O O D P O RT I O N

In Luke 10:38-42, Jesus addresses Martha who is distracted “with much serving.” He doesn’t say the meal doesn’t need to be cooked or the dishes washed, but that doing too much is a distraction from the presence and word of God. Jesus says, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41–42 ESV). Busyness is different from service. Busyness is not how we love our neighbors as ourselves, nor is it usually best for those neighbors we are closest to. Although many activities start with good intentions and personal interests, busyness is due to anxiety and troubles about many things. Obviously, that is not the way we may want to think of our causes, programs, and weekly-activities-filled church. Besides, if we took away all that busyness, how would we know our life counts for Jesus? How would we know we were doing enough to fulfill our Father’s will? That is the crux of it. On one hand, we are driven and energized by interests and busyness—by our

THE (NEW AND IMPROVED!) CHURCH CALENDAR

This Week at the Local Church S U N D AY

T H U R S D AY

Prison Ministry, 9:00–11:00 11:00 am Deacons’ Meeting, 12:00–1:00 pm Phoebe Class, 3:00–5:00 pm

Women’s Ministry Fit Class 1

M O N D AY Son Spinners Bible Study, 6:00–7:00 pm Body Profit: Crossfit, 7:00 pm Addicts in Acts Bible Study, 8:00–10:00 pm Holy Fit Nutritional Counseling: How To Shop, 8:00 pm

T U E S D AY Single Moms’ Support Group, 6:00–8:00 pm College & Career: Vocation, 6:00–8:00 pm Body Profit: Crossfit, 7:00 pm Men’s Bible Study, 7:00 pm Grief & Loss Counseling, 7:00–8:00 pm Doulos Ministry: Fellowship Night, 7:00–8:30 pm

Proverbs 31 Bible Study, 7:00 pm

W E D N E S D AY MOPs Fellowship 10:00–11:00 am Women’s Bible Study 11:30–12:30 pm Praise Fellowship Bible Study 6:00 pm Aeropagus Book Club 6:30–7:30 pm DiVeST Outreach 6:30–8:00 pm Proverbs 31 Dinner 6:30 pm

9:00–11:00 am

Women’s Ministry Fit Class 2 11:00–1:00 pm

Praise Fellowship Outreach (Elmswood Center) 5:00–6:00 pm College & Career: A Hope and A Future 5:30–6:30 pm

Phoebe Group 5:30–6:30 pm Body Profit: Crossfit 7:00 pm

F R I D AY Women’s Ministry Fit Class 1 9:00–11:00 am

Women’s Ministry Fit Class 2 11:00–1:00 pm

Holy Fit Nutritional Counseling: SUGAR!!! 11:00–1:00 pm

Doulos Ministry Outreach (Grafton Orphanage) 12:00–2:00 pm Talitha Bible Study & Sleepover 6:00 pm Aeropagus Book Club: Fellowship 6:00 pm Men’s Bible Study BBQ 7:00 pm Son Spinners Outreach 9:00–11:00 pm

S AT U R D AY A Little Leaven Bake Sale 10:00–12:00 noon Body Profit: Crossfit 4:00 pm Ministerio Palabra Viviente 6:00 pm Addicts in Acts 6:00–8:00 pm Doulos Ministry Bible Study 8:00 pm College & Career (Parents’) Date Night 8:00–11:00 pm

Does your church calendar look like this one, which we’ve adapted from a large Southern California church? If so, you might be having difficulty fitting in your normal life with all of the other activities the church wants you to participate in. A sustainable church recognizes that you have different callings: in your family, at work, and in your community. Gathered together on Sunday and shaped by God’s service to us in word and sacrament, disciples are sent out to live in the world for the world rather than in the church for the church.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

“BUT WITHIN GOD’S MERCY, THE FAMILY OF GOD IS CENTERED ON A HEAVENLY FATHER WHO PROVIDES FOR ALL THAT WE NEED AND MORE, AS WELL AS HIS SON, WHO BECOMES ‘MY BROTHERS’ KEEPER’ (GEN. 4:9) BY BEING OUR PERFECT SACRIFICE AND BRINGING US INTO HIS FAMILY.”

own activities and exertions—but on the other hand, we continually need our Savior! We need to escape judgment according to works and live in Christ’s mercy! We are to live by faith and not by works of our hands. We need rest in the care of the One who provides, so that we do not grow weary in either faith or good works. Pressuring ourselves to the point of no longer resting in God is counterproductive. Our anxiety contributes nothing. It only hinders us from the good portion available to us: Christ present, speaking his word. The church, as the bride of Christ and adopted children of the Father, is a blessing to the world because of the gifts she receives. She receives first,

and only then she can share. In a beautiful paradox, she receives timeless gifts she constantly needs, turning again and again to her Beloved so that she might turn to her brothers, sisters, children, and neighbors to share with them the blessing of those gifts. RE ST I N T H E LO R D

Receiving is an underappreciated discipline in our culture. It is as vital as infants receiving their food, and as foundational as children receiving their education and growing responsibilities. In fact, all of us receive our entire lives, from guidance to our daily

bread. Yet now many people do not want to receive rest—or a great many other blessings—so much as they want to seize or grab for it. In the family of God, rest is not a vacation or a hiatus between terms. It is not a destination, escapism, or any other activity. Rest is something we receive, typically as we sit down with the rest of the family. The Divine Service is where the family of God gathers around a common meal to listen and speak with our Father. There we receive the unique gifts of his word along with sacraments. There Christians of all ages, able-bodied or infirm, weary or rested, are taken into the care of the Father and granted haven in his home. We respond with psalms and prayers, songs and praise, but greater than our response are the blessings we receive as members of God’s body, including unity in Christ’s body. Joined by one Lord, one faith, and baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:5–6), we receive God’s call—with actual words!—and his gifts. We rest from our own labors in thanks for the labors on our behalf. Faith in someone else’s work is an alternative to busyness! And an hour or so of Christian family togetherness in worship does not tie up your schedule so you must be away from your domestic family. Instead, it frees you to seek and grant forgiveness together. It serves as a present opportunity with your brothers and sisters in Christ to listen and receive God’s gifts, united as the body of Christ, even with the faithful who have gone before us. There is something precious and life-giving about the things we receive within the church home, within the sanctuary, where we gain wisdom, forgiveness, and experience from the Father. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Service—grounded in word and sacrament—is so powerful that it expresses itself in the home too, as people feed the hungry around the dinner table, clothe their little naked ones, and generally go about their days serving their neighbors. God is at work in so many things that never get written into our schedules. In Christ, by his word and sacraments, timeless grace comes to us, his children, who frankly are running out of time. His final coming will cancel all scheduled activities left on the calendar. Thanks be to God that Christ’s efforts more than make up for our failings! We are blessed that we can do good without making busywork by sharing what we ourselves

“BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE DIVINE SERVICE— GROUNDED IN WORD AND SACRAMENT—IS SO POWERFUL THAT IT EXPRESSES ITSELF IN THE HOME TOO, AS PEOPLE...GENERALLY GO ABOUT THEIR DAYS SERVING THEIR NEIGHBORS. ” continually receive from the Giver of all good things. We may give according to his gifts, and we may work for God’s kingdom, receiving his gifts and trusting his Son and Spirit to accomplish his will. As children of God, we are blessed to recognize there is much more at work in the church than what we do. In his divine mercy, no amount of busyness or imagined self-importance can undermine what Christ has done for us: earning our salvation, reconciling with the Father, and giving entrance into his eternal family. In the Divine Service, not only do we treasure time with our divine family, but we ourselves are treasured, remembered, and built up as the redeemed people of God.

Mary J. Moerbe serves as diaconal writer for the Cranach Institute within the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Her books include Family Vocation, How Can I Help?, God’s Calling for Kids, and Whisper, Whisper: Learning about Church for Toddlers.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

SINK YOUR TEETH INTO TOUGH TOPICS

Do we all worship the same God?

Is mental illness a spiritual problem? We know your groups have big questions. That’s why we’ve

created study kits that combine

multimedia content from past issues and broadcasts with group study questions and guides to provide pathways for deeper thinking.

WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/STUDYKITS

book reviews

56 “Blomberg is to be applauded for exposing evangelicals to a wider variety of plausible interpretations.”

57 59

THE PROBLEM OF A “PLASTIC TEXT”: THE KLOHA ESSAY ON “TEXT AND AUTHORITY” MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions BY CRAIG L. BLOMBERG Brazos Press, 2014 304 pages (paperback), $19.99

n the introduction to Can We Still Believe the Bible? Craig Blomberg lays out his agenda for the chapters that follow: “The six areas of scholarship that this book presents … debunk widespread misconceptions about what [twenty-first-century] belief [in the Bible] entails, and they present exciting recent developments in scholarly arenas that are not nearly as well known or understood as they should be” (12). As such, it is a welcome contribution from a respected author and noted New Testament authority. Blomberg evidences firsthand familiarity and, indeed, involvement with contempo-rary disputes regarding the Bible, especially within the evangelical community. His knowledge of the players and arguments is nearly encyclo-pedic and strikes a personal chord for him on several occa-sions within this book. Of foremost concern to the author is addressing media darling Bart Ehrman’s sensational claims about the unreliability of the New Testament documents and their supposedly confected contents. Thus the issue of textual criticism constitutes the substance of Blomberg’s first and best chapter. In it he avers that, whereas the vast majority of scholars recognize that the academy is in a better position than ever to reconstruct with high fidelity the most likely wording of the original writings of the biblical authors, Ehrman postures as if the manuscript corpus is a hot mess, and he does so by exaggerating the importance of textual variants and their numbers. Blomberg retorts by breaking down the data and showing just how “ordinary

and uninteresting are the vast majority of textual variants” (24). Not only are Ehrman’s fraudulent claims exposed as purposeful misdirection by Blomberg’s thorough delineation of the relevant manuscripts, but also by Ehrman’s own damning concession: “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament” (28). The contents of this chapter alone are worth the price of the book. Chapter 2 responds to the question, “Wasn’t the Selection of Books for the Canon Just Political?” Blomberg’s next best chapter guides the reader through the canon debate, treating issues of canonicity, the Apocrypha, and Gnostic texts, while avoiding the extremes of ultraconservatives and theological liberals by making too much or too little of the criteria for canonization and the canon process itself. Less interesting for me are chapthe third and fourth chap ters on Bible translations and biblical inerrancy. The former chapter can seem like evana grousing match within evan gelical enclaves where blows translaare traded over which transla tion trumps which—KJV or ESV, NRSV, or ESV. The latter chapter defends inerrancy as codified in the 1978 Chicago Statement without adding any particularly new arguments to respond to more recent critics such as Christian Smith. In chapter 5, “Aren’t Several Narrative Genres of the Bible Unhistorical?” Blomberg returns to form by explaining and applying the standard grammatical-historical hermeneutic and narrative applications for interpreting Scripture. Such an approach turns out to be both refreshingly learned and liberating for many evangelical interpreters, who stand in constant need of being disabused by fellow evangelicals from their all-too-familiar literalist interpretations of

all-too-familiar biblical texts. Blomberg is to be applauded for exposing evangelicals to a wider variety of plausible interpretations, usually with greater catholic consensus and antiquity. The last chapter treating miracles and the mythologizing of the Bible rehearses oft-repeated apologies for miracles, but it also offers a cogent intertestamental and post-canonical explanation regarding the meaning and use of miracles. Additionally, Blomberg gives biographical testimony about his own experience of the miraculous as antidotal affirmation for his belief in God’s current activity in the personal lives of believers. While there are several valuable chapters in this tome that are decidedly outward looking in their address and useful for pastors, students, and lay leaders (particularly chapters 1, 2, and 5), the other chapters (along with their endnotes) gravitate strongly toward in-house evangelical discussions or, perhaps better to say, rumpus. On not a few occasions, Blomberg can be found defending his methodology and holdings against the unwarranted attacks of Norman Geisler and F. David Farnell. A Brazos imprint seems a ponderous place to engage in Evangelical Philosophical Society blood sport, which comes off as an unnecessary distraction. Another unwelcome component is the publisher’s decision to produce nearly fifty pages of germane polemical annotation through cumbersome double-column endnotes instead of convenient footnotes, resulting in a needlessly fragmented reading experience. Notwithstanding these minor objections, Blomberg is effective in his main task: namely, to assert the ability of scholars to reconstruct the original texts of the biblical books in a fashion greater than any other documents of antiquity; to substantiate agreement on the New Testament canon among the major branches of Christianity; and to demonstrate the essential reliability of our modern-language translations. For this, Can We Still Believe the Bible? will prove useful to evangelicals of all stripes.

Rev. John J. Bombaro (PhD, King’s College, University of London) is the parish minister at Grace Lutheran Church in San Diego, California, and a lecturer in theology and religious studies at the University of San Diego.

Renaissance: The Power of the Gospel However Dark the Times BY OS GUINNESS IVP Books, 2014 192 pages (paperback), $16.00

s the rise of secularism in the West about to usher in a new “Dark Age”? What will the future of Christianity be like in such a world? Is there anything we can do to prevent this bleak future from occurring? The rise of secularism and the fall of Christian influence are topics of great concern for contemporary Christians. There has been a lot of discussion about these issues from many different perspectives—some helpful, some not. Os Guinness ably seeks to answer some of these questions and address some of these concerns in his latest book. Guinness is a well-known Christian writer and social critic. His latest work is a succinct, pithy call for a return to biblical Christianity in response to the rise of unbelief in the world. Guinness begins the book by describing our “Augustinian Moment.” Augustine, the wellknown pastor and theologian in the early church during the fifth century, observed the decline of the once-mighty Roman Empire. The fall of Rome generated a lot of debate and analysis about its causes. The salient point for Guinness is that Christians had risen to places of prominence and influence in the empire, and the power vacuum created by its fall raised questions about the relationship of Christianity to the broader culture. What were Christians supposed to think about the fall of Rome? A thoughtful Christian critic, Guinness believes we face a similar situation today with the decline of the West in world affairs and influence. And so we are led to the same question: How should Christians respond to this decline? The author outlines two common responses, both of which are erroneous. The first response is to uncritically embrace the world and affirm its priorities. The church conforms its beliefs to the world rather than the Bible and therefore loses what makes it distinctive and prophetic. The second response completely rejects the world and everything in it. Common culture is to be rejected as sinful, and attempts to appropriate it are viewed with deep suspicion by the Christian community. This response makes the mistake of MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

overemphasizing the future deliverance of the church and deemphasizing the goodness of the created world. The basic thesis put forward by Guinness is that in either of these approaches Christianity has deviated from biblical teaching. Only a restoration of courageous biblical Christianity will ensure the churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survival in the coming dark times. Biblical Christianity takes the gospel seriously. It believes that the gospel is good news that regenerates and transforms the hearts of those who believe it. The church is supposed to be in the world, though not of it. It should take the good insights of secular culture and use them for the purposes of the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the church needs to remember that its mission is spiritual and that its purpose is not to establish a Christian culture or society. God is the one who will do these things. As the Holy Spirit regenerates hearts and transforms lives, Christians will begin to influence the culture around them as a byproduct of their faith. T h ro u g h o u t t h e b o o k , Guinness lists many ways Christianity has positively influenced Western cul-ture, focusing on five direct lines of influence in particular. First, there is a strong tradition of philanthropy in the West, a tradition based on biblical teaching, particularly the famous parable of the Good Samaritan. Second, Christianity is the basis for the steady flow of reform movements in the West. From Francis of Assisi to Roger Williams to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christianity has produced those who have challenged the status quo and have actively fought against the prevalent evils of their times. Third, many of the great universities in the West (eminent places of learning such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the Sorbonne) were founded as religious institutions

where future ministers and theologians were to be trained. These institutions, along with cathedral schools, preserved classical learning during the so-called Dark Ages and laid the groundwork for the Renaissance and the Reformation. Fourth, the preservation of learning and interest in the natural world championed by Christians led to the rise of modern science and learning. Fifth, the West strongly advocates human rights and human dignity, primarily because of the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s teaching on the image of God in humanity. Guinness makes it clear that he is not advocating for Western culture per se or even suggesting that the West is superior. Instead, he is merely trying to demonstrate the strong, positive influence that Christianity has had on the West. If Christianity has been so essential to the growth of the West, what will happen now that Christianity is culbeing purged from the cul ture? Is there any hope for Christians living in these occatimes? On a number of occa sions, Guinness refers to Ezekiel 37 and the biblical vision of the valley filled with dry bones. The author draws a great deal of comfort from mendthe end of this vision and the life-giving, mend ing work of the Lord. Even though contemporary culture seems to be sliding toward unbelieving darkness, we should not give up hope. God will protect his church through the darkest of times. Just as the word of God made the dry bones into an army of fully restored humans, so also the Holy Spirit may move and revive the unbelieving West. Guinness has hope that God could transform the West through widespread growth of the church, but he also recognizes that God may choose not to do that. He reminds the reader that our ultimate hope is in Christ. It is the Lord Jesus who will establish the perfect kingdom of God and rule

the world in justice and righteousness. The initial breaking-in of the kingdom of God may be seen in the work of the church, but Christ will bring about its final establishment at his return. Since the book is so compact, there are some areas that are not as detailed as might be desired. For instance, though the Bible is often referred to as the basis for a renewed Christianity in the West, there is little exposition of relevant biblical passages. Also, some aspects of Western culture such as capitalism, free markets, and democracy are assumed to be benefits of Christianity without additional explanation or defense. Finally, though Guinness provides a fine discussion of the growing importance of the church in the Global South, some additional discussion of the non-Western churches would provide some helpful context and comparisons. Guinness does have a thoughtful discussion of how Western churches can help those in the Global South prepare for the challenges of modernity. It would be beneficial to see some additional work done in this area. The chapters are relatively short and end with discussion questions and a relevant prayer. This format makes the book a good choice for an adult Sunday school class, small group, or book club. Such settings would allow for extended discussion of the topics Guinness does not expand upon in the book. Overall, this book is helpful and is a good introduction to this general topic.

Timothy Taylor (MA, historical theology) is a graduate of Westminster Seminary California and a passionate fan of bowties and Doctor Who.

The Problem of a “Plastic Text”: The Kloha Essay on “Text and Authority”

ince Bart Ehrman, textual critic and former evangelical, has been issuing his broadsides at the notion of biblical inerrancy, two kinds of response have appeared on the American theological scene. On the one hand, it has been correctly noted that Ehrman does not give the benefit of the doubt to the best textual readings of the New Testament (as one would do, following Aristotle, in treating Homer’s writings or other ancient

“ONLY A RESTORATION OF COURAGEOUS BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY WILL ENSURE THE CHURCH’S SURVIVAL IN THE COMING DARK TIMES. BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY TAKES THE GOSPEL SERIOUSLY.” texts), and that he suffers from an egregious antisupernatural bias. The other approach operates, in effect, with the tag “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”: one can approach the textual criticism of the New Testament much as Ehrman does and still hold to historic Christian faith. The latter seems to be the tack taken by Jeffrey Kloha, associate professor and provost of Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. In his paper “Text and Authority: Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on a Plastic Text,” Kloha claims that, owing to the progress of contemporary textual studies, one need not—and should not—hold that biblical inspiration occurs as single divine events producing an inerrant, once-for-all original text to be recovered as fully as possible through lower, textual criticism. Rather, says Kloha, just as it took the church some time to arrive at its view of the canon of Scripture, so inspiration itself is a continuing process, and the decisions as to what indeed constitutes inspired Scripture must be made by the church as it is led by the Spirit in the course of advances in textual understanding. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

Kloha admits that his approach is diametrically opposite to that of the Lutheran fathers—both those of the Age of Orthodoxy (Quenstedt) and those who formulated the theology of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (Pieper). The present author readily admits that those patriarchs could have been grossly mistaken (errare humanum est). But, if they were, what are the implications of the Kloha recension? First, the mainline biblical scholarship of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in liberal theological circles eliminated an authoritative text through the application of the so-called higher criticism—subjective determinations of the “real origins” of the text and the relegation of the best text resulting from lower or textual criticism to a product of later editing and revision in light of the sociological and theological Sitz im Leben. Kloha achieves much the same result by his approach to lower, textual criticism. The NestleAland text, for example, is not to be viewed as a means of arriving as closely as possible to original, inerrant autographs, but as the current state of a “plastic” process that must never be reduced to the status of a propositionally inerrant revelation. To quote Kloha: “We now have a plastic text of the New Testament. It is plastikos: moldable, shapeable, changeable. . . . The transmission history of the New Testament text has . . . forced us to reckon with the ‘death of the text.’” In light of his departure from the Lutheran fathers’ approach to the nature of biblical inspiration, how does Kloha see himself as a Lutheran—particularly as a conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran? The answer lies in his promotion of an analogy between the divine/ human natures of the incarnate Christ and the divine/human character of Holy Scripture. He criticizes liberal Lutheranism (the ELCA) for overstressing the human side of Scripture, but he is similarly convinced that the classical Lutheran theology, as reflected in the Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, has committed the equal but opposite error of overemphasizing the divine side of the biblical texts.

“SCRIPTURE IS FIRST AND FOREMOST GOD’S DIVINE, INERRANT REVELATION TO A FALLEN RACE; TEXTUAL ACTIVITY MUST OPERATE MINISTERIALLY, NOT MAGISTERIALLY, IN RELATION TO THAT FUNDAMENTAL PERSPECTIVE.” The severe theological difficulty of Kloha’s reconstruction is, to be sure, not just the mistake of pushing an incarnation-to-Bible analogy much too far (we surely know that the Scripture does not in fact have two natures!), but particularly in his disregard of the fundamental Lutheran teaching of the communicatio idiomatum: the truth that in the God-man the divine nature is communicated to the human nature while the human nature is never divinitized. If one wishes to analogize from living Word to written Word, therefore, one must never allow the human side of Scripture (including the work of the lower/textual critic) to overwhelm the divinely inspired character of it. Scripture is first and foremost God’s divine, inerrant revelation to a fallen race; textual activity must operate ministerially, not magisterially, in relation to that fundamental perspective. Second, in Kloha’s view, final theological authority cannot reside in a Bible produced by single acts of divine inspiration. Rather, that authority must lie in the church herself as she

continually reevaluates the results of the labors of textual scholarship. The text, like the canonicity question, is never finally closed, but remains an open and continuing task for the church. Writes Kloha: “Who then decides? As always, the gathered baptized, those who hear the voice of the shepherd and follow where he leads. . . .The church decides, but the church has been and continues to be led by the Spirit into all truth as it hears ever again the Word.” Such a viewpoint would work perfectly in a Roman Catholic context, where an “organic” view of revelation prevails, and where the Magisterium is essential for determining the true meaning and theological application of Scripture in the life of the Christian community; this is the church as the “continuing incarnation of Christ in time.” Needless to say, on such a view it becomes impossible to employ the Scriptures as the final authority by which the church is judged—since it is the church that in reality creates the Scriptures by its handling of them. Indeed, the Preface to the Formula of Concord, declaring that the Scriptures are the authority by which “all teachers and writings must be judged,” can no longer have any significant meaning. And one cannot avoid this catastrophic result by arguing dialectically, as do Roman Catholics and Anglicans, that the Scriptures judge the church while the church is judging the Scriptures, for this leaves the Christian community in a logical and practical impasse: which judgment ultimately prevails? Do we really want to return to the notion that the Spirit somehow manages to keep the church on track in spite of there being no objective, propositional revelation by which the church’s activity can be evaluated? Had this view been maintained by Luther, how could his Reformation ever have occurred? Remarkably, though Kloha’s specialty is the New Testament text, he does not seem to realize that “the leading into all truth” (John 16:13), like bringing “all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26), were special gifts of the Spirit bestowed by Jesus on the original apostolic band, and thus the guarantee that their recounting of divine truth would be infallibly reliable—not a general promise to the church that it would function as the vehicle of revelatory truth. Third, practically, what would the Kloha approach mean in the day-to-day life of the parish?

A pastor would never be able to say with assurance “Thus says the Lord” since all of the sacred texts suffer from plasticity. And the individual believer would be unable to have confidence in the text as he or she reads it as a declaration of God’s will or as a source of life-giving teaching—since its meaning is subject to the latest decisions of textual scholars (such as Kloha). As for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, it really should not attempt to make theological decisions or pronouncements on issues such as women pastors, for as with one of Kloha’s major exegetical illustrations, the plastic text of 1 Corinthians 12–14 may well not at all be prohibiting women to exercise authority in the church but rather may simply be giving advice on the conduct of husband-wife relations. To say, as Kloha does, that these staggering difficulties can be resolved by making Christ and his gospel central to our hermeneutic is piously moving but of no assistance whatever. It smacks of the “gospel reductionism” of the Seminex movement; but, far more important, if the biblical text is indeed “plastic: moldable, shapeable, changeable,” so is the Christ of Scripture and so is his gospel of free grace. We have nothing against odd theological views; indeed, we have successfully championed religious liberty before the European Court of Human Rights on several occasions. America is a free country, and if one wishes to believe in the Great Pumpkin, that is an available option. But historic Lutheranism is not Roman Catholicism, and the two theologies are mutually incompatible—especially when it comes to the locus of theological authority. A plastic Bible cannot support the theology of the Book of Concord. If we think it can, then we make precisely the same mistake the Seminex professors made when they believed that the higher criticism was compatible with Lutheran orthodoxy. Now it’s a question of a new philosophy of lower criticism, but in Kloha’s case that’s a distinction without a difference.

John Warwick Montgomery is Emeritus Professor of Law and Humanities, University of Bedfordshire, England; Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University Wisconsin; and Director, International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism & Human Rights, Strasbourg, France (www.apologeticsacademy.eu).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

GEEK S QUAD

T H E B I B L I CA L M E T H O D S O F C H U R C H G R OW T H

by D. G. HART

as God ordained certain techniques or forms for the church’s growth? The one reliable God-given method is the natural and organic one of baptizing infants born to believing parents. In the past, confessional Protestants, such as Presbyterians and Lutherans, planted new churches in a remarkably calm way. Several families would move away from a community with an existing congregation to one where none existed. Once this group grew to five families, they would send word back to the office of home missions, the secretary of which would look for a pastor to shepherd the denomination’s émigrés. And the rest was history. The denomination would continue to support the mission work until it grew to a size that was self-sustaining. Some of the new growth came from grafting believers from other traditions onto the vine of a particular confessional tradition. Some came from the children who grew up in the new congregation and became families of their own. And, of course, some came from new converts to Christianity. This older model of church growth and planting was inherently organic and covenantal. It ran along lines of familiarity; the core group had grown up in the particular communion. And it was zealous about retaining the covenant children. The church followed those members who had been reared in her bosom, and the success of a new plant depended on another generation of believers remaining in the fold to support the new church. In and of itself, baptism is a technique for church growth unrivaled by modern methods.

What is more, baptism, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches, signifies our “engrafting” into Christ and “partaking” of the covenant of grace (93). It also admits persons into the visible church. In other words, it is a ready mechanism for enlarging the church. But aside from the phenomenological aspects of this sacrament (i.e., how much, how big, how many), baptism also nurtures the qualitative growth of individual believers. In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism (167), the “duty of improving our baptism” is a lifelong endeavor that consists partly in “growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament.” Consequently, baptism gives exactly what churchgrowth experts want—numbers and spiritual depth. More importantly, baptism is what Christ commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Which means that one way to fulfill the Great Commission is to have more babies and see that they are baptized. It is not sufficient, however, to grow churches merely by reproduction and baptism. The church also needs to see that those babies are instructed in the faith. Of course, this preaching is not just for covenant children. According to the Shorter Catechism (89), preaching is a means of “convincing and converting sinners.” One of the proof-texts for that answer is Paul’s teaching in Romans 10 that people will not hear the gospel without preaching. He taught that preaching is the means that God has ordained both to convince and convert sinners, and to build up believers in holiness and comfort. In other words, the word

inscripturated and the Word incarnate are specific about the right techniques for church growth; they are the divinely given and divinely commanded means of word and sacrament. On the basis of scriptural teaching, then, one could well argue that as opposed to the industrial and impersonal methods of church growth, the correct method of growing the church is inherently agrarian and personal. And one of the wisest contemporary proponents of agrarian and local ways is the poet and farmer Wendell Berry who lives and writes in Kentucky. In perhaps his most compelling book, The Unsettling of America, Berry contrasts industrialism and agrarianism in ways that are remarkably—though largely unknowingly—apt for highlighting the differences between church growth expertise and the ministry of word and sacrament: I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the old-fashioned idea or ideal of the farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter’s goal is money, profit; the nurturer’s goal is health—his land’s health, his own, his family’s, his community’s, his country’s. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity?...The exploiter wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly, to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible. The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order—human order, that is, that accommodates itself both to the other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place. The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, “hard facts”; the nurturer in terms of character, condition, quality, kind. (5)

“THE WORD INSCRIPTURATED AND THE WORD INCARNATE ARE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE RIGHT TECHNIQUES FOR CHURCH GROWTH.” the fundamental discrepancy between a minister who works according to the logic of church growth and the pastors who tend God’s flock. Eugene H. Peterson says that every time Berry “writes ‘farm’ I substitute ‘parish’ or ‘congregation.’ It works every time.” Which means that comparing church-growth experts to industrialists is not any more farfetched than comparing a pastor’s duties to those of a farmer. The kind of growth that church-growthers look for has everything to do with numbers and solvency. But the pastor’s orientation looks upon the needs of his flock no matter how large, sees those needs from the perspective of spiritual and physical health, and looks for growth that is qualitative and lasting. Instead of looking for ways to attract outsiders, the pastor knows that his primary responsibility is to feed his own flock and ensure their growth in grace. This explains why so many church-growth experts sound more like professional managers than men of the cloth. And that may also explain why Peterson says of Berry that he has learned “more usable pastoral theology” from him than from any of “his academic professors.”

D. G. Hart is visiting professor of history at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan. His most recent book is Calvinism: A

Not only does Berry bring into bolder relief the differences between marketing models and covenantal patterns of church growth, but he also underscores

History (Yale University Press, 2013). This article originally appeared in an expanded format in the May/June 2000 issue of Modern Reformation.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

B A C K PA G E

P U R E S E L F- I N T E R E S T

by MICHAEL S. HORTON

F YOU WANT A good deed to really count, it has to be done with no thought of receiving something back in return. In technical terms, it’s “disinterested benevolence.” We have the ancient Stoics and the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant to thank for the “stiffupper-lip” approach to life. It has its pluses—there is a sense of duty that overrides one’s own happiness and even concern for one’s own life. In an era of socially encouraged narcissism, Stoicism doesn’t look that bad at first. In recent times, Jacques Derrida argued that a pure gift cannot be given, since every act is tainted by self-interest. Some Christians were raised with an ethic that somehow confused Stoic-Kantian resolve with godliness. Only disinterested duty—to God and neighbor—constitutes a pure act. The problem with this is that God is a triune being, not a Stoic sage in Buddha-like contemplation of himself. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit created a world they didn’t need but desired. “Selfish motives” may often turn out to be a simple expression of a natural interdependence that is itself good. “I took my wife to dinner, but it was also for me: I wanted to get some time alone with her away from the kids.” That’s not sinful; it affirms that your wife is not simply a passive beneficiary of your pure gifts, but rather another human being who has worth in herself, as well as something you need. This goodness of mutual need and desire gets warped by sin, of course—like when you treat dinner out as a staging area for the fireworks later. But she is just as “used” when you presume from on high to bestow dutiful gifts purged of selfinterest. It’s selfish to treat relationships as an opportunity to authenticate your credibility as a gift-giver and to treat others merely as opportunities for your disinterested benevolence. Now here’s a shocker: Even God doesn’t give without regard to his own pleasure. He created the world purely out of his good pleasure, not because he

needs anything from us. He is the giver of all good gifts, and yet freely wills to receive glory and pleasure from creating a world of dazzling variety, with creatures made in his own image as his chief delight. Even more than in creation does God delight in our redemption. “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son” (John 3:16), even “while we were still sinners” (Rom. 5:8). He “predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5–6). There is a purpose in God’s decrees—his own pleasure and glory. It wasn’t out of dispassionate love of duty that Jesus paid for our sins, but “for the joy that was set before him [he] endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). We see it in that great prophecy of his crucifixion: “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied” (Isa. 53:11). There was an end in view that benefited him as well as us. Of course, Derrida is correct: On the basis of a pure law of duty, no gift can be purely given. But what God has actually done for us in Christ proves the Stoics and Kant wrong in the first place. The purity of a gift is not measured by your getting nothing out of it. So what does this mean for us? If the Triune God can choose to receive glory, pleasure, and the return of love from creatures he doesn’t need, then surely we are designed to step into a cycle of gift-exchange. So go ahead and enjoy other people as gifts, and not just as objects of your duty and disinterested benevolence. Go ahead and savor the satisfaction you receive from being part of that living cycle of giving and receiving, where the Father’s generous hospitality never leaves anyone sitting in the corner.

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

COMING SOON In Kim Riddlebarger’s new book, The Lion of Princeton, he provides a biographical overview of Warfield’s life and traces the growing appreciation for Warfield’s thought by contemporary Reformed thinkers. Furthermore, he evaluates the fundamental structures in Warfield’s overall theology and examines Warfield’s work in the field of systematic theology. Coming August 2015.

GIVE A GIFT. GET A GIFT.

As our way of saying thanks, when you donate $100 or

more, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll send you a compilation MP3 CD of your choice. There are several themes from which to choose and they include dozens of extended length WHI episodes.

WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/SUPPORT