the-great-exchange-july-aug-2016 by Modern Reformation

MODERN REFORMATION VOL.25 | NO.4 | JULY-AUGUST 2016 | $6.95

The

Great

Exchange PA RT

DISCOVERY AWAITS YOU Join us for a weekend conference and learn what it means to begin “Finding Yourself in God’s Story.” There will be great music, great teaching, and laughter. You’ll come away with renewed joy, hope, and confidence in God’s work for you and in you—and you’ll discover how your life story makes sense only in God’s story. This is the perfect event to invite friends and family to learn the “Core Basics” of Christianity.

F I N D I N G Y O U R S E L F I N G O D S S T O R Y. C O M

V O L .2 5 | N O.4 | J U LY-AU G U S T 2 0 16

FEATURES

16 The Great Exchange

36 Justification by Faith Alone

B Y K AT E T R E I C K

B Y J O H N D. KO C H , J R .

26 From the Rooftops!

46 Victory through Suffering

S H A I L I N N E W I T H M I C H A E L S. H O R T O N

BY IAIN DUGUID

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

F O R M O R E I NFO A ND TO R E G I STE R , VI S I T WWW.ROOTEDMINISTRY.COM

Keynote Speaker:

MICHAEL HORTON

Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westmister Seminary California, host of the White Horse Inn, editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine and the author of many books including Christless Christianity.

Rooted exists to transform student ministry by fostering grace-driven and cross-centered leaders through rich theological and contextual engagement.

V O L .2 5 | N O.4 | J U LY-AU G U S T 2 0 16

DEPARTMENTS

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

BOOK REVIEWS

BY ERIC LANDRY

“How (Not) to Be Secular” REVIEWED BY JEREMY LARSON

“Life Under Compulsion” REVIEWED BY MICAH EVERETT

T H E O LO GY

Words for Communion

“When Lightning Struck”

B Y P I E R C E TAY L O R H I B B S

REVIEWED BY WILLIAM BOEKESTEIN

68 GEEK SQUAD

There Is Only One Stage of Justification BY R. SCOTT CLARK

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

The Apology of Tertullian: Then and Now

72 B A C K PA G E

BY SHANE LEMS

Did Luther Invent Justification? B Y M I C H A E L S. H O R T O N

COVER ILLUSTRATION BY SIMON PEMBERTON

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 © 2016 All rights reserved. I S S N - 1 07 6 -7 1 6 9 M o d e r n R e f o r m a t i o n ( S u b s c r i p t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ) P.O. B o x 4 6 0 5 6 5 E s c o n d i d o , C A 9 2 0 4 6 ( 8 5 5 ) 4 9 2- 1 6 74 i n fo @ m o d e r n re fo r m a t i o n .o rg w w w. m o d e r n re fo r m a t i o n .o rg S u b s c r i p t i o n I n fo r m a t i o n U S 1 Y R $ 3 2 . 2 Y R $ 5 0. U S 3 Y R $ 6 0. Digital Only 1 YR $25. US Student 1 YR $26. 2YR $40. Canada add $10 per year for postage. Foreign add $9 per year for postage.

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

LETTER from the EDITOR

In this issue of Modern Reformation, we’re returning to the doctrine of justification because we believe that the “Great Exchange”—sin for righteousness—at the heart of our doctrine of justification is also at the heart of our ongoing Christian life. As many have reminded us, the gospel isn’t just the ABCs of the Christian life; it is the A–Z of the Christian life. If we approach the doctrine of justification as the fuel for our ongoing Christian life, how does that change the way we see God at work in us and through us? How does that set some of these debates in proper perspective? How are we drawn to worubstitution is at the heart of the story ship and glorify the God who was made sin for of God’s people. Rather than staying us, so that we might become the righteousness removed far from his cursed creation, of God in him? the Creator became one of us. God To help us think through this important the Son became a son of Adam: living the life issue, we’ve asked a diverse group of writers to we could not live and dying the death we all weigh in on the “Great Exchange.” Kate Treick deserved. This “Great Exchange”—all of my sin is a writer, photographer, wife, and mother exchanged for all of Christ’s righteousness—is who takes a fresh look at this old doctrine and good news indeed! shows how it works itself out in Sadly, this truth that should the lives of two kinds of people unite all professing Christians, in the church. Professor of Old instead is one of the many points Testament Iain Duguid takes us to on which we are divided. the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52 “ THE CREATOR Our Eastern Orthodox friends and 53 to show us how the Servant’s BECAME ONE believe that Protestants are too life of faithfulness is credited to OF US.” focused on the forensic nature of the account of those who find their salvation, as if God were merely a hope and satisfaction in him. John divine bookkeeper making sure his D. “Jady” Koch, an Anglican pastor tally sheet is balanced at the end of and theology student, reminds us a very long workday. of the issues still under discussion between Our Roman Catholic friends believe that too Roman Catholicism and the Reformation. much talk about the free nature of this exchange And we’re pleased to feature an interview with threatens to short-circuit the inner transforrapper Shai Linne who talks about the lyrics to mation at the heart of their understanding of his rap “Justified” and the place of theology in justification. hip-hop music. Even in some Protestant and Reformed Thanks again for reading Modern Reformation! circles, the doctrine of justification has fallen Keep in touch by e-mailing us at editor@modern on hard times, as theologians wonder how reformation.org. much our reading of Scripture is colored by Reformation debates rather than the culture of Second Temple Judaism in which the Gospels and Epistles were written. ERIC LANDRY exec utive editor

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

THEOLOGY

Words for Communion by Pierce Taylor Hibbs

e live in a web of words. They are inside us and around us, making our world comprehensible and bridging us to one another. In all times and places, we use words to foster relations—to convey ideas, mitigate conflict, console the grieving, and give shape to feelings. Words do so great a work in sewing our individual and communal experiences together that we cannot help but be curious about some transcendental purpose for them, something that explains why they are so integral to every facet of our existence. What are words ultimately for? Of course, some find this question hopelessly speculative. Rather than focus on some ultimate purpose for words, should we instead,

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

with Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker, be content to say that language is simply an “instinct”—that words are for the construction of a social fabric mysteriously necessitated by our alleged evolution? We could leave it at that and content ourselves with the pragmatic solution. I understand the sentiment behind that argument. We certainly have used words since before we can remember, and they serve a wide array of social ends, so we can see why Pinker might call language an instinct. There is something deeply rooted in us as humans, a yearning for fellowship and mutual understanding that cannot be attributed to mere choice on our part. But proponents of an evolutionary explanation of language seem to offer little more than a focus

THEOLOGY

on the immediate, practical purposes for words in human societies. They see no higher purpose for words and no need for a metaphysical account of the origin of language. Why can we not simply be content with a purely practical answer as to what words are for? Probably because the practical answer isn’t very satisfying. It doesn’t, for example, account for the presence of poetry, narrative, or song— three linguistic forms that are held dear as grammar and syntax yet serve little practical purpose. The Iliad didn’t help the Greeks find food, and it’s not likely that Beowulf helped the Danes build better weapons. If humans are purely material beings and language is simply an evolutionary by-product, then why do we bother with these things? Not because language was an aberrant gene that drove our species to the top of the food chain, but because it was a gift from our Creator to be used for his glory and for the service of one another. We speak because we were spoken by the Trinity, by the God who speaks. In light of this, words are not just conventional symbols reflecting our impulse for social engagement. They are not the capital of humanity; words are the creaturely currency of deeper divine communion. In that sense, words

are ultimately for communion between persons, and this has endless implications for how we use them every day. Now, I can already hear protests from a gallery of secular linguists: “Heresy!” (They have their own religion, after all.) “Words belong to us! You have no basis for bringing God into this.” That would depend on how we understand human beings. Are we evolving social animals who exist for the simple purpose of procreation, or are we masterfully crafted image-bearers who exist to glorify God and enjoy him forever? Christians, of course, believe the latter; and once we take up this position, we must ask what it means to say that language, of which our words are a part, is ultimately rooted in the Trinity. We might help ourselves answer this question if we broaden our understanding of language to not just something we use but something we do. Language, understood in this broader sense, is a behavior we undertake to commune with other persons. If we understand language as communion behavior, rooted in the self-communing Trinity, then words are ultimately rooted in God, and we have every basis for bringing him into this, for he is the very wellspring of purpose and meaning.

“We speak because we were spoken by the Trinity, by the God who speaks.... Words are the creaturely currency of deeper divine communion.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

How, then, can we understand language as communion behavior? We communicate with other persons and, in doing so, commune with them—we “link” our mind or soul to that of another. At the same time, when we commune with others, we are further drawn to communicate with them, to express ourselves for their good. So, communication and communion are intertwined. Wherever you have one, you have the other. In this sense, we can just as well call language “communicative behavior,” but I use the phrase “communion behavior” to help us better focus on the ultimate purpose of language: words are for communion. Communion behavior finds its origin in the Trinity. The persons of the Godhead have eternally communicated with one another and thus partake in a life of unending communion. Scripture testifies to this in passages such as John 17:5, where Jesus references the eternal glory he shared with the Father before the world began. The Spirit was there as well, as the One who glorifies the Son (John 16:14). This is communion behavior—language of the highest order—because for the Trinity, language is rooted in mutual and eternal self-love and glorification. The Father, Son, and Spirit have always “spoken” to one another in a language all their own, a language of love and glory that fosters unfathomably deep communion. As creatures of this self-communicating, self-communing God, we are marked by the image-bearing gift of language. We speak in order to relate to one another, to God, and to the world he spoke into existence. In light of this, language is far more central to reality than we often imagine. Reflecting on the Trinity, Herman Bavinck wrote that “in the doctrine of the Trinity we feel the heartbeat of God’s entire revelation for the redemption of humanity” (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:333). We might add that in language we hear the very heartbeat of the Trinity—the pulsing life of the Godhead in selfcommunion. This deep inner life of the Godhead is what we are marked with as his creatures! That is an incomparable, illuminating, and potent

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

“I use the phrase ‘communion behavior’ to help us better focus on the ultimate purpose of language.”

gift: incomparable, because it is so deeply rooted in God himself; illuminating, because it reveals the purpose of our lives (communion); potent, because it suggests the power of language. Of course, there is a chasm between the Trinitarian God and his image-bearing creatures; and in a fallen world, we do not always value the gift God has given us, or see how revelatory language can be, or use its potency in positive ways. Sin has affected all of creation, language included. On the one hand, God’s eternal self-communion is an undying flame of love and glory. The persons of the Godhead are so intimately bound up with one another that their communion does not serve the purpose of drawing them “closer” together per se, for they exhaustively know, love, and glorify one another. Our God is one. For us, in a sin-stained world, language is all about closing gaps and gathering the scattered. Without it, we would be a mass of upside-down puzzle pieces spread across a global table. Words have the power to turn us over and snap us into one another. Our incessant use of them, our constant need to communicate, and our trust that we can, in fact, close the gaps between ourselves, tells us that communion itself is why we are here. We need to keep this in mind as we use language. In an age of instantaneous engagement— texts, blog-post comments, responses to online

THEOLOGY

“If language is communion behavior, then positive construction and empathy should be our initial responses.”

sermons—we would do well to revisit James 1:19: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak.” We have an unprecedented ability to respond to what we read without really processing it spiritually. We might (I hope) process what we read critically and then fire off responses about the insensitivity, ambiguity, or incoherence of another’s message. But where is the spiritual dimension to our responses? At what point in our processing of another’s language do we remember that we are engaging in communion behavior, and that we should make every attempt to help our words give grace to those who read them (Eph. 4:29)? Sin has bent us so that we are often critical before we are constructive or empathetic. But if language is communion behavior, then positive construction and empathy should be our initial responses. This is not a mere ethical guideline for our use of social media. The very gospel is at stake. Now, more than ever, the world can watch how we communicate. The Internet has no walls, and how we use words says a lot—not just about ourselves but about how we understand and follow the God who speaks. As we engage with others via social media, we must remember that

language is not a triviality; it’s a testimony. God took us at his own Word. Will the watching world take us at ours? Considering language as communion behavior calls us to revisit the role of prayer in the Christian life. We often pray for consequences rather than for communion. We sometimes view prayer as our biblically prescribed wish list, restricting our prayers to requests. We ask God to heal our aunt’s cancer and help our brother find a job. There is nothing wrong with asking for these things—indeed, we’re commanded to pray about them—but we ought to remember that prayer goes deeper than this. Prayer is a calling to commune with God; to grow closer to him by expressing ourselves in our everyday concrete thoughts, joys, angers, frustrations, and curiosities. Prayer should be less of a practice and more of a lifestyle, for it is built upon who we are as creatures seeking communion. Each day, it is helpful to ask ourselves if we talked to the Trinitarian God because we had to, or because we wanted to; because of how things went that day, or because of who we are. No matter how much we immerse ourselves in our everyday tasks and relationships, we will still be wanting if we do not draw lifeblood from the self-communing God via language, sharing fellowship with the One who gave himself so that we might speak eternally with him. For Christians, words are the lifeblood of communion and the salt of relationships. Every day, we will have opportunities to exemplify our definition of language as communion behavior: to show that life itself is not rushing toward the cold coals of nonexistence but toward the burning hearth of communion. That is, when it all comes down to it, what words are for. PIERCE TAYLOR HIBBS currently serves as the associate director for Theological Curriculum and Instruction in the Theological English Department of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has written several articles on the nature of language and the linguistic theory of Kenneth L. Pike. He, his wife, and their two children reside in Quakertown, Pennsylvania.

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

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

The Apology of Tertullian: Then and Now by Shane Lems

hen Christians see the moral foundations of American culture crumble before our eyes, we have a tendency to panic or worry. As we watch the gradual deterioration, it’s good to get a historical reminder that Christians have dealt with these situations before. During the second and third centuries in the Roman Empire, Christians were a minority and the government did not always treat them fairly—average citizens were quite immoral and didn’t know much about (or care to know much about) Christian doctrine, and Christians themselves were generally misunderstood and disliked. Minus the intense physical persecution, the situation in America is fairly similar.

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

It was during this time of intense suspicion and marginalization that Tertullian, a Christian apologist who lived in the Roman Empire around the turn of the second century, began to write. He was born in North Africa, studied in Rome to be a lawyer, and then moved back to North Africa. When he was around forty years old, he began to follow Christ; he also became a presbyter and prolific author. Sadly, he did join the ascetic and “charismatic” Montanist sect later in his life, but many of his traditional writings have been a great blessing to the Western church. Cyprian, Augustine, Calvin, and Luther all benefited from his work. B. B. Warfield even said that Tertullian “rendered a service to the Church which it is

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

no exaggeration to call inestimable” (see The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Tertullian and Augustine, vol. 4 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008], 4). One of the most helpful works of Tertullian’s pen is The Apology, which he wrote around AD 200. Tertullian addressed this work to the rulers of the Roman Empire to demonstrate that they, while calling themselves just, were acting unjustly toward Christians. Although ancient, there are many parallels between our ancient Roman brothers and sisters and our own contemporary situation. Tertullian has a few helpful points on defending and living the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” in an increasingly unfriendly culture, interacting with Roman philosophers, lawyers, and historians to make his case. Sometimes he uses these Roman sources in a positive way, showing how Christians are in line with certain Roman customs, morals, and beliefs; other times, he cites them in ways that show their inconsistencies (cf. Paul in Acts 17:28). Tertullian opens The Apology by laying out his case before the Roman rulers: “Your hatred [of] the name Christian is unjust.” The rulers detested the Christians, but knew almost nothing of who they were or what they believed. How

“How can it be just or fair to call people ‘mad’ and punish them without knowing their beliefs and practices?”

can it be just or fair to call people “mad” and punish them without knowing their beliefs and practices? The rulers “hate us unrighteously while they continue in ignorance.” Even criminals in society were treated better than Christians—they were permitted to hire defense attorneys while Christians were not. Christians were tortured if they confessed Christ; common criminals were not tortured and only had to confess their crimes. To be fair, plenty of rumors were circulating at the time The Apology was written: it was said that Christians killed and ate children, practiced incest, utilized pimps, and practiced wicked deeds in secret. Tertullian begged the Roman rulers to show evidence of these rumors, quoting a Roman proverb: “Among all evils, none flies so fast as rumor!” In an appeal to natural law, he explained that while the rumors had spread, time had not proved any of them to be true. He asked the rulers if they could prove that Christians committed the crimes of which they were accused; if not, then they were not acting as fair civil servants of the state, but rather as tyrannical dictators who were defying old Roman law. Tertullian went on to explain how Christians were not criminals but actually good citizens, obedient to Roman laws. Christian women were modest and did not practice prostitution; marriage between men and women was honored in a way that the old Roman laws would approve: “The Christian husband has nothing to do with any but his own wife.” In fact, Tertullian argued, Christian morality was closer to old Roman law than the non-Christian morality of the day! Tertullian also gave testimonies of people who used to live immoral lives but began to live morally after becoming Christians. Tertullian spent considerable time refuting two charges against Christians (both of which were considered treasonous): first, Christians did not worship the Greco-Roman gods; and second, they did not offer sacrifices to the emperor. He pointedly said, “We do not worship your gods because we know that there

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“We pray…for security to the empire, for protection to the imperial house, for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.”

are no such beings.” Rather than being immediately punished for this, Christians should be permitted to offer a defense for this to the Roman leaders. Saturn, for example, “did not spare his own children” and people sacrificed their children to him. Much blood was willingly shed in the name of Jupiter, so why were Christians condemned, Tertullian asked, for worshiping a donkey-like figure (a rumor) when the state religion upheld gods who whose behavior and demands were far more questionable? According to ancient writers, Saturn wasn’t even a god but a mortal man. And if he had children, how could they be gods? It makes no sense for us, Tertullian said, to call these “gods” since they came from man. Furthermore, history had proven that worship of these gods had not helped the Roman Empire one bit: “[The Roman Empire’s] greatness was not the result of their religion.” Some Roman citizens worshipped one god, while others worshipped another. “You despise, therefore, those [gods] whom you reject; for in your rejection of them, it is plain you have no dread of giving them offence.” If it was clear that the Roman gods were more

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

immoral than the Christian God, hadn’t helped the Roman Empire, and possibly weren’t even gods at all, then why should Christians be condemned for not worshipping them? Why were Roman citizens granted religious liberty but not Christians? “We alone are prevented having a religion of our own.” In another section of The Apology, Tertullian discussed supernatural beings (demons and angels), arguing that if it were legal for Roman citizens to believe in supernatural beings, then Christians should also be permitted to believe in supernatural beings legally. Speaking to the charge that Christians would not offer sacrifices to the emperor, Tertullian affirmed their respect and reverence for him: “We pray… for security to the empire, for protection to the imperial house, for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.” Of course, he wrote, Caesar is under the dominion and authority of God, so Christians cannot call Caesar “Lord” (as in “Supreme Majesty”), but they can call him “lord” (as in “Your Honor”).

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

He went on to argue that citizens of Rome were even more immoral and violent than their gods! The gladiator shows were loved because of their violence, and Roman culture of the day even knew of murders by drowning, freezing, starving, and feeding people to animals. How could Roman rulers hate Christians for their “immorality” if Roman gods and citizens were more immoral? In comparison to the violence of Roman religion and culture, Christianity condemned all such inhumanity. “We may not destroy even the fetus in the womb,” Tertullian explained. Roman rulers were acting unfairly because they allowed non-Christian citizens to be inhumane but condemned Christians for rumors of their inhumanity.

THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY Tertullian also wrote positively of Christian beliefs: Christians worship one invisible God,

who created all things out of nothing; their God is great, powerful, and transcendent; and while in many ways he is incomprehensible, he is knowable because of who he has shown himself to be in creation. There is also “ampler and more authoritative knowledge” of God: “written revelation for the behoof [benefit] of everyone whose heart is set on seeking him, that seeking he may find, and finding believe, and believing, obey.” He went on to explain the deity of Christ and briefly summarized his life, death, and resurrection, all of which were verifiable through witnesses. “We have set forth this origin of our sect and name, with this account of the founder of Christianity.…Torn and bleeding under your tortures we cry out ‘We worship God through Christ.’” He clarified the tenets of the faith so that the rulers would no longer be ignorant of it. The Christians served Roman society through their love for one another and their fellow Romans. They are “knit together as [a body] by a common religious profession,” and they

“Tertullian defended Christians as a loving people who worship the true God and love others in a simple manner that is not bizarre but beautiful.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

love their neighbors and even their enemies. In addition, Christian worship is not cultish or secretive; Christian alms are not forced; breaking the bread is not cannibalism; rather, prayer, Scripture reading, and singing are the core of Christian worship. Tertullian defended Christians as a loving people who worship the true God and love others in a simple manner that is not bizarre but beautiful. Tertullian closes the treatise by talking about Christians suffering for the Name. They don’t want to suffer, he said, but they willingly do suffer because they expect the resurrection and to become partakers in the fullness of God’s grace. “We conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued.… The more oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.” He ends with these words: “When we are condemned by you, we are acquitted by the Highest.”

PARALLELS TO TODAY There are quite a few themes we could discuss at length, but space prevents me from listing them all. However, I’d like to close with a few observations for further thought. First, there are some cultural parallels between then and now; many people have strange religious beliefs and practices, and many people live very immoral lives. Second, while people may say that they like the idea of pluralism, they generally don’t like a plurality that allows for the sort of exclusive claims that the historic Christian religion makes. The laws of the state are not always consistent and just. Solid Christian living gives apologetics credibility. When we honor those in authority (even, and especially, those with whom we disagree), despise violence, and commend morality, we demonstrate an integrity that is honoring to Christ. If we would love our neighbor, then a good, careful understanding of culture and law will enable us to winsomely engage

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

“As Tertullian said, ‘We go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued.’”

non-Christians. We need to be able to lovingly explain the truths of the faith to those who don’t know it, not self-righteously despise those still dead in their sins. Most importantly, we need to be prepared for the possibility that even honorable and righteous conduct will not always result in the desirable outcome of “bringing many sons to glory.” Christ is both a stumbling block and foolishness to those who are perishing; and if it is enough for servants to be like their master, then we shouldn’t be surprised when we find ourselves stricken, smitten, and afflicted for the sake of the gospel. Brothers and sisters before us have faced similar—indeed, worse—cultural situations. Instead of giving in to panic, we can learn from those who have gone before us and ultimately remember that no enemy of Christ shall triumph over his church. As Tertullian said, “We go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued.” SHANE LEMS (MDiv, Westminster Seminary California) is the former pastor and church planter of the United Reformed Church in Sunnyside, Washington. He is currently pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Hammond, Wisconsin. He blogs at www.reformedreader.wordpress.com.

BECOME A SILENT CO-HOST 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

V O L .2 5 | N O.4

FEATURES

26 From the Rooftops!

THE GREAT EXCHANGE

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE

VICTORY THROUGH SUFFERING

Great Exchange by KATE TREICK

illustrations by SIMON PEMBERTON

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:21) There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Rom. 8:1–2) Consider two members of the body of Christ. She is well-respected in her community, in charge of two annual events each year. Her children have learned to listen well and can even be seen taking notes or drawing on the bulletin quietly during church. They stand to sing together, and she appreciates the harmonies echoing through the sanctuary. During the time of confession, she notes that the pastor has incorporated the lyrics to her mother’s favorite

hymn; and in the silence that follows the corporate confession, she thinks back over her week. “There must be something I did, Lord,” she confesses. “Nothing comes to mind right now, but forgive my sins.” He is incarcerated and has fifteen years left in his sentence. When he entered the state prison, he was lost, full of rage and bitterness, consumed by anger toward the foster care system that had let him down his entire life. He was angry with the judge who had sentenced him to eighteen years, and at his lawyer who had been unable to keep him out of prison. But in those first months, faced with the reality of life in prison, he had met a chaplain who served as librarian, who had been incarcerated

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

himself at one time. The chaplain had begun to outline the history of redemption and had given him some key books to read, one at a time. When the light of the gospel shined its light into his life, he was transformed. Where there had been bitterness, there was hope. Anger was replaced by peace, and wandering by newfound purpose. The orphan had come home, and his worship was deep and full of gratitude. When confessing sin with fellow inmates who constituted his local church, he poured out his heart to God, profoundly moved by the grace he had been given.

*** Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 33) When I first met Mark, he was incarcerated. I was in college, and my church choir was touring the prisons of California—Tracy, San Quentin, Corcoran—bringing the gospel through testimony and song. Our purpose was to share the gospel, but the deep truth we discovered was that our brothers in prison always encouraged us. They had a profound understanding of their sin and a joy in their salvation that both refreshed and challenged us. They would thank us for coming to them, bringing another part of the body of Christ into their own local congregation, and we would rejoice in the faith, joy, and unity of the Spirit among our brothers in prison. The next time I saw Mark, I was a pastor’s wife living in Chattanooga, Tennessee. We had gone to the home of one of our parishioners who had organized an informational meeting for Metanoia Ministries, the prison ministry of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).1 And there was Mark, not simply giving a testimony about this ministry but serving as its director. Mark recognized me from the concert many years before, and we rejoiced in God’s providence at our meeting again. Mark explained

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

that our brothers and sisters in prison need the encouragement of the church outside the prison walls. He set forth opportunities to serve, and many of us were challenged to become involved with Metanoia. Mark’s life had been transformed by the gospel. “My own story is very radical,” he explained to me in a recent interview. “This guy led me to Christ on a Thursday night, and I read the New Testament and Psalms and Proverbs six times, cover to cover, that weekend.” Mark had been scheduled to face the judge that week, and his attorney insisted that he plead “not guilty.” But Mark was now deeply aware of his sin and his guilt. “I knew I needed to go plead guilty. I believe when a person is converted, it alters the course of your life. That conversion experience altered the course of my entire life. Christ paid for my sins, so whatever they did to me didn’t matter.” It was the doctrine of justification that changed Mark’s life. “Many people don’t have to face those things,” he noted. Living comfortable lives with church on Sunday, many people who follow Christ are in reality unaware of the depths of their own sinfulness. But when faced with the incomprehensible truth that “he who knew no sin became sin so that we might become the righteousness of Christ,” Mark was slain and raised to new life. “Those lyrics,” he said, “they don’t have anything else to stand on.” My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand. I pondered this for a moment. “Some,” Mark continued, “put their hope in attorneys or the parole board.” But with his hope planted firmly on the rock of Christ, Mark began a radical transformation. “People ask, ‘How did you survive fifteen years in prison?’ I didn’t survive; I thrived in prison.” The reason for his flourishing was simple: Christ had set him free.

*** When did you last let the wonder and joy of this declaration wash over your soul? “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). In the words of Calvin, Becoming Son of man with us, He has made us sons of God with Him; that, by His descent to earth, He has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, He has conferred His immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, He has strengthened us by His power; that, receiving our poverty unto Himself, He has transferred His wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon Himself, He has clothed us with His righteousness.2 The Great Exchange of our mortality for his immortality. Our weakness for his strength. Our poverty for his wealth. Our iniquity for his righteousness. We should pause and consider this for a moment. In this exchange, the spotless Son took on all of my sin. He absorbed it, and then he was broken under the wrath of God. He drank the dregs of the cup of wrath so that I might drink deeply of the cup of living water. He took all of my need, all of my shame, all of my sin, and it was crucified with him on the cross. He was raised to life for my justification: with his new life came a new life of righteousness for me, made available by a likewise grace-filled gift of faith.

JUSTIFICATION

Justification is God’s gracious and free act where he forgives sins and judges a person to have kept the law perfectly. Lutheran and Reformed theologians teach that God justifies anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, regardless of their works. The Greek word translated “justification” is part of a family of words communicating righteous character, judgment, or acceptance. The Apostle Paul uses justification in Romans 4:25, 5:16, and 5:18. In these cases, justification means to be in right standing with God: forgiven of all sin and counted as perfectly obedient to the law. Justification should give the sense of a judge in a court of law declaring a verdict.

*** “One of the striking things I find between the Christian in the church and the Christian in the prison,” Mark observed, “is that the Christian in the prison does not need any reminder of his sin.” In our opening illustration, the woman in the pew might not have a deep understanding of her own sin, or a desire to ponder the greatness of the forgiveness she has received. She is not faced with that reality unless she gives it a long, hard look, listening to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It is a challenge Mark has found commonplace since being released from prison. “If you talk to Christians about sin, many don’t even understand the depths of their own sin. I find it to be a truth that confronting Christians with their sins is often a difficult thing.” Whether we are lulled by the rhythm of our busy lives or actively involved in justifying our sin, an unwillingness to face sin is perilous to our souls. We cannot overlook the basic truth that “if I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“WE ARE SET FREE FROM JUSTIFYING OURSELVES, WITH ALL OF THE DEFENSIVENESS THAT SUCH JUSTIFICATION ENTAILS. GROUNDED IN THE ABUNDANT FORGIVENESS OF CHRIST, WE ARE FREED TO FORGIVE OTHERS.”

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

would not have listened” (Ps. 66:18). We cherish sin when we love it more than we love Christ. Indeed, we who trust in Christ for our salvation should be the most transparent when it comes to our own struggles with sin. We can relate to Paul in Romans 7: “So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” But who among us would admit it? When we embrace the fullness of the Great Exchange, we are freed to do just that. We can be honest about our sin, with ourselves and others. We are set free from justifying ourselves, with all of the defensiveness that such justification entails. Grounded in the abundant forgiveness of Christ, we are freed to forgive others.

*** Some of us have less difficulty embracing the first half of the Great Exchange. Some of us see our sin on a daily basis, and we trust in Christ’s forgiveness. No, we cannot comprehend the depth of love that would take all of our sin and bear it on our behalf. I can’t wrap my mind around a completely Holy Love who would die for me, taking on the wrath that would destroy me so that I might live, but I believe it nonetheless. Indeed, that part of the Great Exchange is more familiar. When asked why Jesus had to be crucified, even a room full of Sunday school kindergarteners

is likely to provide an orthodox answer: “Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins.” His death was foretold. The spotless Lamb—the blood over the door. A sacrifice on my behalf, trudging to the temple, offering a lamb, a dove. A scapegoat, an atonement. But that is only the beginning of the Great Exchange. Yes, my sin is washed away, but I am not left with a blank slate. Christ did not forgive my debt to leave me with an empty account; he has instead deposited the riches of all that he

“ WHEN THE FATHER LOOKS ON ME, HE DOES NOT SIMPLY SEE ONE WHO HAS BEEN FORGIVEN—I AM CLOTHED IN CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

has to my credit. When the Father looks on me, he does not simply see one who has been forgiven—I am clothed in Christ’s righteousness; I have the record of the perfectly obedient Son. I am clothed in the sinless perfection, the alwayschoosing-the-right-path reality of Christ’s completely obedient life.

*** When we grasp the fullness of this doctrine— that we have been justified, both forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ and imputed the full measure of his righteousness—it has the power to transform us from the inside out. Rooted in our new identity as completely forgiven, completely accepted children who stand with the righteousness of Christ credited to our account, how are we then to live? This doctrine has implications that permeate every part of our lives, but I’m going to offer observations on just three specific areas: our view of ourselves, our relationships with others, and our worship.

RIGHTEOUSNESS

Righteousness can be a character trait or a legal status. God’s righteousness usually refers to his character. In some cases, a person is righteous because of having a good character and having a right legal status. Christ was both legally righteous and actually righteous in character; he always did the right thing. Christ’s righteousness, then, refers to his character and his perfect law-keeping. When speaking about humans, it becomes more complicated. Romans 4:3 says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Here righteousness does not refer to his character, which is more or less mixed. Abraham’s righteousness was his legal status before God that he received when he trusted in God. When Scripture uses righteousness to talk about people who trust in Christ, it speaks about a legal status, not a character trait or attribute.

OUR VIEW OF OURSELVES Each of us tends to fall into unique traps when it comes to our view of ourselves. Some are prone to self-righteousness, setting the curve of their own judgment just beneath their own behavior, and fail to see their sin, because they view it as less destructive than the sins of others. The log in their own eye is vast, but they are attuned only to the specks in the eyes of others. For this soul, a proper view of justification brings him low, revealing his sinfulness and God’s immense grace. The Holy Spirit softens this heart, and newfound compassion and gratitude develops. This person is freed from justifying himself, resting instead in the perfect and complete work of Christ. Some might think that the person who naturally tends toward despair has a better understanding of justification—after all, she does not have a high view of herself. But in truth, this person seeks to justify herself to the same degree as the self-righteous person—she

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

knows she falls short, but she is still expecting it of herself. Both fail to rely on Christ alone for justification. For this individual, a correct view of justification brings hope and security. Her view of herself changes: she is no longer an orphan fending for herself, but a beloved, adopted child of God. Her soul begins to resonate with the truth: For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom. 8:15–17)

Imagine this scenario: a young thief is brought before a judge. She is guilty; she cannot afford her fine. The judge acknowledges her guilt, but instead of sentencing her, steps down from the bench and pays her fine. Then he stoops down to look her in the face and says, “I have a wife and four daughters. I think you are meant to be my fifth daughter. I would like to adopt you and bring you home to be my child.” He pays the penalty, he forgives, and he adopts us. One of our great challenges is to begin to see who we already are in Christ and begin to live as the beloved child rather than the orphan fending for herself. We have been given the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of this inheritance, and indeed we are able to draw on the riches of the Spirit even now as we live our lives in Christ.3 The fruit of his life in us becomes more evident as we rest in the deep and transforming truth of justification and allow it to transform how we see ourselves. We need not live in fear, trying to justify our existence. We are forgiven and loved by the Creator of the universe. We need not scramble after identity in work, causes, spouses, children, ministry—our identity is rooted in Christ. We can rest in the fact that the work the Holy Spirit has begun in us will one day be complete; for indeed, our accurate view of sanctification is

dependent on our right view of justification. We are not straining to earn salvation; we are enjoying the fruit of it.

OUR VIEW OF OUR RELATIONSHIPS Anything as transformative to our souls as the doctrine of justification will overflow into our relationships with others. Again, we are not orphans struggling to watch our own backs— we have been given the deep and abundant resources of our Father, and in that abundance we can minister to others. We do not look to others for our identity, or for our ultimate fulfilment—that comes in Christ alone. We are freed to give to others, even when they are unable to give back to us. We can give up the need to justify ourselves to others, knowing that we are justified before the only Judge. We can listen. We can be generous with our energy, time, and resources. Because we rest in the complete work of Christ, we do not have to please everyone and meet all of their demands—we can love them without standing in desperate need of approval. Because we can be honest with ourselves about our own sinfulness, we can be a safe place for others to confess and work through

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“ ONE OF OUR GREAT CHALLENGES IS TO BEGIN TO SEE WHO WE ALREADY ARE IN CHRIST AND BEGIN TO LIVE AS THE BELOVED CHILD.”

their weakness. We can pray for one another, knowing that we no longer need to hide. We are set free to be the body of Christ to one another, and to be real and transparent friends to the watching world.

OUR VIEW OF WORSHIP The correct view of ourselves and of our brothers and sisters culminates in a glorious transformation of our view of God. I want to emphasize that at its core, our relationship with God is about worship. When the Lord is seated at the top of our affections, we begin to ascribe to him all of the glory that he deserves; we see that: He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 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. 1:4–6) That is the purpose of the universe: “The praise of his glorious grace,” poured out, lavished upon us. We are blessed “in the

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

Beloved”—as children who are “in Christ”—with this abundant grace. When we see our Justifier, we are overcome with gratitude. When we see him descending on our behalf, coming across time and space to rescue his beloved Bride—overcoming death and hell and all of our enemies, cleansing us of our filth and clothing us in the piercingly clean garments of his own righteousness—then we will indeed stand “lost in wonder, love, and praise.”4 KATE TREICK (MA, church history, Gordon-Conwell Theo-

logical Seminary, and medieval studies, Fordham University) is a writer, artist, musician, and pastor’s wife. She lives with her husband Joel and their children Lily and Jack in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. 1 For more information or to become involved with the one-on-one correspondence work of Metanoia Ministries, visit http://pcamna.org/ metanoia-ministries or contact Mark Casson directly at mcasson@ pcanet.org or 559-681-7858. 2 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960 [1559]), IV.xvii.2. 3 Ephesians 1:13–14: “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” Also, Galatians 5:22–23: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” 4 Charles Wesley, “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling.”

SHAI LINNE with

MICHAEL S. HORTON

From

Rooftops! 27

In considering what the exchange of our sin for Chrıst’s righteousness means for Christians, Modern Reformation editors wanted to take a look at how hip-hop artists are exploring the life and ministry of Christ in their work. We were privileged to chat with Shai Linne on justification, racial reconciliation, and Kanye West. Shai Linne has appeared on numerous independent and national Christian hip-hop releases, including his 2005 full-length debut, The Solus Christus Project (see the lyrics for his song “Justified” following this interview), and his most recent album, The Attributes of God (Lamp Mode Recordings, 2011).

Do you think Kanye is a creative genius? Who are some of your musical influences? Creative genius? I’m not sure about that. One thing I know for sure is that Kanye thinks he’s a creative genius. Kanye, to me, is like a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar in some ways. He’s certainly a good producer. However, with many of those at the top in the mainstream, they have scores of talented writers and musicians at their disposal, so it’s much more of a collaborative process than most of us think. Among my

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

many musical influences, I would name Cross Movement, Ambassador, and Timothy Brindle.

Who first told you the doctrine of justification? What impression did it make on you? I don’t remember exactly when I first heard it. One of my earliest memories of rejoicing in it was listening to the late Dr. James Boice preach on it at a Ligonier Conference. I remember him saying, “Justification by faith...is the gospel!” One of my favorite passages in the Bible is Romans 4:4–5. To this day, I marvel that God would declare sinners to be righteous before we actually become righteous. It’s the foundation of my life and something I must come back to again and again.

Why rap about it? Can this doctrine be understood without a seminary degree? This truth is so glorious that it should be shouted from the rooftops! One of the advantages of rap as a musical form is that, based on word count, it gives the artist the potential to communicate much more information than other forms. Like much of Western hymnody (but, in my opinion, to an even greater extent), the form lends itself to expounding on deep topics. Seminary degrees are nice, but it’s clear from the emphasis in books such as Romans, Philippians, and Galatians that the Lord’s intent is for all Christians to understand, rejoice in, and feed upon the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

What will the fruit of a recovery of this doctrine look like in the life of an individual, in the church? The implications of this doctrine are incalculable. In the individual, recovering this doctrine will help guard against two common tendencies: self-righteousness at one end of the spectrum, and despair at the other end. To be given a foreign righteousness from God frees me from

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

having to establish my own righteousness or seeing myself as superior to others. It also frees me from relating to God based on my bad (or good) performance on any given day. A failure to apply this doctrine, either to ourselves or others, is at the root of most relational conflict between Christians—especially in marriage. Unforgiveness, bitterness, and spiritual pride, among many other sin struggles, will be addressed in the lives of believers as, by God’s grace, we recover (again and again) justification by faith alone. As for the church, one major area of concern for me is racial reconciliation. One sad and troubling fact of recent church history is that many of the churches that embrace and proclaim this doctrine have nevertheless struggled with racism. This tells me it’s not enough for us to preach it, but we must be committed to working out its implications in community with those who are different from us.

You make an interesting point regarding racial reconciliation in the church. How can a right understanding of the doctrine of justification facilitate a better unity among brothers and sisters of different ethnicities? What could this look like practically for both Anglo-American Christians and AfricanAmerican Christians? Understood rightly, the doctrine of justification removes all notions (conscious or unconscious, spoken or unspoken) of ethnic superiority. We’re taught that God’s acceptance of us is not only without regard to the works we do, but also without regard to our ethnic identity. In fact, justification teaches Christians that our primary identity is not our ethnicity but our union with Jesus Christ. This is the Apostle Paul’s point in Philippians 3:4–5: “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews.” It is instructive for us that the apostle identifies particular areas of privilege that he was leaning on prior to his conversion. In this list, we see religious privilege

“IT’S COMMON FOR WHOEVER THE MAJORITY CULTURE IS IN A PARTICULAR SETTING TO ASSUME THEIR EXPERIENCE IS NORMATIVE FOR EVERYONE. IT’S IMPORTANT FOR WHITE CHRISTIANS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS THE ‘NORMAL’ OR ‘BIBLICAL’ WAY IS OFTEN PERCEIVED BY MINORITIES AS THE ‘WHITE’ WAY.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

(“circumcised on the eighth day”), ethnic privilege (“of the people of Israel”), ancestral privilege (“of the tribe of Benjamin”), and cultural privilege (“a Hebrew of Hebrews”), among other things. These privileges were not only insufficient to save him, but they were actually spiritual liabilities because his reliance upon them was keeping him from God! After listing his credentials, he concludes powerfully in verse 7, “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.” Later, in verse 9, he contrasts his futile attempts at righteousness with the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ through justification. We gladly apply this glorious truth to ourselves, but we often fail to consider its implications for those we consider as “other”—that is, ethnically “other,” culturally “other,” educationally “other,” and so forth. There are a number of ways in which the unity Christ died to purchase can be practically pursued. One way is being intentional about pursuing deep friendships with people of different ethnicities in our churches. For white pastors of majority white churches, it may mean having meetings with the African-American members and simply asking them how they’re adjusting to the environment they’re in and if they have any concerns or difficulties. It’s common for whoever the majority culture is in a particular setting to assume their experience is normative for everyone. It’s important for white Christians to understand that what they perceive as the “normal” or “biblical” way is often perceived by minorities as the “white” way. One of the most helpful things a white brother did for me was invite me to lunch and simply ask me “What has your experience been like growing up as an African-American man?” and then listening as I talked for the next hour. It’s one of the most loving things I can remember another Christian doing for me. The doctrine of justification can help us assume the best about the “other.” For AfricanAmerican Christians, it means extending the benefit of the doubt to our white brothers and sisters and not being quick to jump to uncharitable conclusions of racism. For white

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

CHRIST’S ACTIVE OBEDIENCE

Christ’s active obedience refers to his act of keeping God’s law perfectly throughout his entire life (Matt. 5:17–18; Rom. 5:12– 19; Gal. 4:4–6).

CHRIST’S PASSIVE OBEDIENCE

Christ’s passive obedience is an aspect of Christ’s whole obedience, referring to his entire life of suffering under the curse of the law with its climax in his death and burial. Christ’s passive obedience is taught in Acts 1:3, Philippians 2:6–8, Hebrews 2:9, and 9:11–14.

Christians, it means truly embracing the doctrines of total depravity and indwelling sin by acknowledging that you may actually be guilty of holding racist attitudes and beliefs. If we are truly entering into authentic relationships with “others,” then these issues should come to light. A proper understanding of justification by faith alone sets the context for authentic dialogue on issues of racism among Christians. When rightly applied, it will keep us from being overly defensive when we’re corrected on these issues. It will also keep us from condemning others when we correct them. So much more could be said, but that’s a good place to start. SHAI LINNE is an American East Coast Christian rapper. “Justified” originally appeared on his debut album, The Solus Christus Project (Lamp Mode Recording, 2005). You can follow him on Twitter at @shailinne and other Lamp Mode Recording artists at www.lampmode.com.

“JUSTIFIED” by SHAI LINNE

Let’s set the context, I promise you—it’s not complex So far, Paul has been explaining why God’s vexed Mad at us, His wrath is Just, we lack trust Blasphemous, even though we know it’s hazardous Chapter one, verses eighteen to thirty-two He talked about our great schemes and the dirt we do He said people refused to give God His due praise Suppressing the truth in their wickedness, they’re ruthless Therefore, God gave them over to their sinful ways And because of nature, we have No Excuses Chapter Two’s for those who think they don’t fit in this category They think they’re on the path to glory—nope, wrath & fury They point the guilty to hell, they’re swelled— Lacking humility, even though they’re filthy as well Needing more than a bath, because like a greedy man who hoards his cash— In the same way, they’re storing up wrath For the day when God’s righteous judgment is revealed And all see their sin debt’s an infinite amount When no secret word, thought or deed will remain concealed Before God, to whom we must give account That’s why

It feels so good to be justified Either trust or die, you must decide Stakes is high—make the right decision For the Lamb whose life was given—Christ is risen

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

As we continue, the apostle Paul is a man on a mission To convince you of hostile, fallen humanity’s condition Learn what God disperses—“hurt your pride” verses Romans 3:12 “All have turned aside, they’re worthless” Bound by sin, a race of hopeless slaves Verse 13: “Their throat is an open grave” It says that “they use their tongues to deceive” “The poison of vipers is under their lips” Look at Hip-hop; that’s not a hard one to believe Cats who run with their cliques with guns on their hips Doesn’t it fit? Thugs found dead in clubs Verse 15: “their feet are swift to shed blood” Police end up deceased in mad hot zones Verse 17: “The way of peace they have not known” Everybody appears hard—despite the clear odds Verse 18: bottom line—“Nobody fears God” His Holy Word declares we’re all lawbreakers, well That’s the explanation for this planet’s confusion If God didn’t intervene, the fall would take us all to hell But Praise the Lord! He granted a solution! And

It feels so good to be justified Either trust or die, you must decide Stakes is high—make the right decision For the Lamb whose life was given—Christ is risen

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

Verse 21—God’s righteousness—He manifested it But that’s nothing new—it’s in the Old Testament It belongs to those who put their faith in Christ If you believe, you’re redeemed because He paid the price We were hostages, but then He set us from the bondage of sin— So now we pay homage to Him Verse 24—Divine gift—JUSTIFICATION! The most important term in a Christian’s vocabulary And most believers can’t define it—that’s frustrating ‘Cause understanding this helps us resist the adversary Christ spilled His capillaries; that’s why our Savior can’t be Mary That’s a burden only the God-Man can carry In Justification: God declares sinners to be righteous by Grace Alone through Faith Alone In the finished work of Christ Alone—He saves His own Add anything to that, you’re in the danger zone At the cross, God treated Christ as if He lived my life (what?) I’m so perverted—that’s why He was broken and murdered Through faith, God treats me like I lived the perfect life of Christ Yo, I can’t earn it, and no I don’t deserve it but

It feels so good to be justified Either trust or die, you must decide Stakes is high—make the right decision For the Lamb whose life was given—Christ is risen

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

Justification

Faith

ALONE

(Or How I Could Never

I A l m o s t Wa s )

by JOHN D. KOCH, JR.

Be the Roman Catholic

On October 15, 1555, bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley were burned as Protestant heretics under the reign of Queen Mary. Shortly before they were murdered, Latimer said, “Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” Although this candle has burned for over 450 years, an increasing number of people—Protestants and Roman Catholics alike—are asking whether or not that flame has been burning in vain. In John 17:20–21, in the middle of what is known as Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer,” he says: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they

also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” It does not take great familiarity with Christian history or practice to know that this prayer seems to have gone unanswered. The world is awash with different churches, confessions, and denominations that disagree with one another on many and varied points of theology, most notably between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. In the Western world at least, where Christian churches continue to fracture, this division is increasingly difficult for many people to maintain in good conscience. If there is not a substantive disagreement that threatens the very nature and

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

proclamation of the gospel itself, then this division is not merely unwarranted but wrong. Historically, the point of division between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism has been placed at the different interpretations of the doctrine of justification by faith, but is this difference important enough to maintain the separation today? For centuries, the answer has been a resounding yes, but the twenty-first century has approached it differently. On October 31, 1999, representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church met in Augsburg to sign the “Official Common Statement” on the “Joint Declaration of Justification,” which under section 3 titled “The Common Understanding of Justification” states: The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.1 Despite significant objections to this statement (for example, 243 German university theology teachers and professors within various Lutheran and Protestant church bodies), many churches and theologians welcomed the developments as a step toward the visible unity that has eluded the Christian church for centuries. In 2003, Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson wrote an open letter saying that “the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation ‘consigned to oblivion’ the mutual condemnations of the Reformation era.” Despite such pronouncements, the debate remains very much unsettled. During my junior year in college, one of my professors (a winsome and pious Roman Catholic) introduced us to the Joint Declaration and asked what, if anything, stood

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

between full reunification of the churches now that the significant issue of the Reformation had been resolved. At that point I had no adequate answer. This question has preoccupied my adult life in no small way. Theologically—as well as personally, since many of my dearest friends are Roman Catholics—I count John Paul II and Benedict XVI among two of my most revered theologians. For many years, my standard response to the (oft-posed) question, “Why aren’t you a Catholic?” was always that I wasn’t comfortable with the “fact” that the pope had a solid gold bathroom. The sophistication and thoughtfulness of this response belied my genuine ignorance about Catholic doctrine and practice, because all I knew is that, really, they thought that the pope could fly. Essentially, I viewed Catholicism—not unlike my own faith at the time—more as a social phenomenon than a theological category. I basked in this ignorance until the summer of 2001 when I was given a copy of First Things, and my life was turned upside down. In April 2002, I’ll never forget reading “How I Became the Catholic I Was,” by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and being genuinely struck by the fact that many of my objections to Catholicism were at best misunderstandings and at worst completely wrong. My introduction to First Things coincided with the rise of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” movement, and slowly, my objections to Roman Catholicism began to come down. The Roman Catholics I had met all seemed more serious than many Protestants—the way they talked about the tradition and the magisterium was inspiring and beautiful. I was on my way either to swallowing the whole loaf and going Roman, or at least coming as close as possible by joining the more-socially-acceptable but

consigned-to-limbo Anglo-Catholic fold. Then one glorious and life-changing day, I heard the doctrine of justification explained in historic law and gospel form; my heart was strangely warmed, and I knew why I could never be the Catholic I almost was. With the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker (1554–1600), I will not “deny her [the Roman] the name of church.” I’m not arguing that Roman Catholics cannot be Christians, but that she has erred on a crucial point of the gospel. Nevertheless, there is one small word—alone. When attached to the Protestant understanding of justification by faith, this word erects an impassible barrier between those who may boast in Christ for their salvation and those who boast

in Christ alone. If this seems like too fine a point upon which to maintain our division with Rome, keep reading! During the theological arguments of the sixteenth century, both Rome and her critics saw their positions as incompatible with one another; they saw the other as preaching a “different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). This disagreement led to each group leveling condemnations against each other that have remained points of contention for centuries. This is why one of the Joint Declaration arguments picked up by Braaten and Jenson is that this agreement has “‘consigned to oblivion’ the mutual condemnations of the Reformation era,” specifically concerning the disagreement surrounding the doctrine of

“ TO GIVE BOTH SIDES A CHARITABLE READ, BOTH ENDEAVORED TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE SCRIPTURES AND THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH, AND WERE WORKING OUT OF A CONCERN FOR THE SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING OF THEIR PEOPLE.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

justification by faith. But the question of why remains. What has changed? If there has been no official change in the Roman teaching on justification, then the disagreement remains, even if the condemnations are removed. Of the different councils and decrees of the sixteenth century, none is more central to the continued division than the Council of Trent, which explained practically every doctrine the Protestants argued. In no small way, Protestant identity solidified and galvanized around the statements of Trent; through the clear articulation of Roman Catholic doctrine, the real issues emerged. With the clarifications came the requisite anathemas—or curses—from the Roman Church, chief among which are Canons 11 and 12: Canon 11. If any one shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the love which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema. Canon 12. If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified…let him be anathema. Before anyone is tempted to think that the aforementioned “anyone” referred only to more hot-headed Calvinists or Lutherans, let us compare this canon to Article 11 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which are a collection of theological statements derived from the theology of the Reformers and instituted by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and which all Anglican clergy must affirm as part of the “Declaration of Assent.” Article 11 (“Of the Justification of Man”) states: We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. What we see here is that the response of the Roman Catholic Church to Protestant teaching, and vice versa, was neither ill-informed nor misguided but both comprehensive and sophisticated. To give both sides a charitable read, both endeavored to be faithful to the Scriptures and the traditions of the church, and were working out of a concern for the spiritual well-being of their people. The difficulty was that they were (and are) working with incompatible visions of the capacities of the human person and, in particular, the nature of Christian freedom. For Protestants, if the gospel is not received solely by faith in the unmerited and unmediated favor of God to sinners, and is somehow considered to be either formed or legitimated by the existence of human love, then Christ becomes a tool, a means to the real end—love—rather than love being the fruit of having had one’s own pretentions come to an end. The Apostle Paul is instructive here. In Galatians 2:20–21, he writes: I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. In other words, it is faith alone in Christ that saves, not because it inspires, cajoles, instructs, or infuses virtue, but because it raises dead sinners to life in Christ. The fact that living people perform “works of love” is certainly the fruit of a living faith, but the root is Christ alone, and preaching salvation by faith in him alone is the only means we have for resurrecting the dead.

At this point, the objection routinely comes, “What about James?” Ah, yes, James. In 2:14–17, we read: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. In many ways, this passage serves to undermine two essential aspects of Reformation Christianity: not only does it bring into question the veracity of “faith without works,” but because

IMPUTATION

To impute is to ascribe or credit a quality or characteristic to a person or thing (Rom. 4:3; 5:12–19; 2 Cor. 5:19–21). Scripture teaches three imputations: (1) God imputes Adam’s guilt to all humanity; (2) God imputes humanity’s guilt to Christ; (3) by faith in Christ, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us. Lutheran and Reformed theologians distinguish imputation from infusion. Lutheran and Reformed theologians teach that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to sinners who trust in Christ for salvation. God considers Christians as righteous by faith in Christ because God credits Christ’s actual righteousness (perfect obedience) to their account. Infusion is different. For God to infuse a person or object with something implies that God thereby changes a quality or characteristic within that person or object. Imputation doesn’t change the quality or characteristic of the thing or person; it changes its legal status.

of its seeming contradiction to Paul, it shakes the foundation of the authority of Scripture. Perhaps we do need a pope to help arbitrate. The history of interpretations on this particular issue is complex and rich, but suffice it to say there are still many people who are unable to fully articulate how one can have confidence in justification by faith alone, because of the echo from James that “faith without works is dead.” In his book Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification (IVP, 1988), Gerhard Forde wrote on this very issue: “Faith without works is dead,” we are reminded. Quite true. But then what follows is usually some long and dreary description of works and what we should be about, as though the way to revive a dead faith were by putting up a good-works front. If the faith is dead, it is the faith that must be revived; no amount of works will do it. (78) Forde exposes the fundamental distinction between these two conceptions of justification, which explains why so many of the arguments have flown past each other for so long—we are talking about mutually exclusive views of the nature of Christian existence. One vision for the human person sees the problem thus: the human is too free, too prone to excesses of liberty; therefore, the gospel must have strings attached for fear of the liberty being abused. There is another vision (shared by Luther, Cranmer, and Calvin) that sees the problem with the human person as

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“ THIS FAITH IS NOT OPPOSED TO LOVE, BUT RATHER IS THE ROOT FROM WHICH LOVE GROWS, AND AS SUCH MUST REMAIN DISTINCT IN THE PREACHING AND TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.”

precisely the opposite: people are not too free; they are slaves. People are bound by their sin, blinded by their desires, and enslaved by the fear of death (Heb. 2:15). This was the insight for the Apostle Paul: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). This yoke of slavery, as we’ve seen, is to reintroduce a measure of insecurity into the otherwise free gift of God, because it makes the certainty of salvation dependent on something other than faith in Christ and his atoning work for sinners. This faith is not opposed to love, but rather is the root from which love grows, and as such must remain distinct in the preaching and teaching of the church. Martin Luther saw this need early and clearly, because it is at this point where he staked his position against the Roman Catholics. He saw

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

that love itself (love as the summary of the law, as shown in Matt. 22:31–40) is the law and therefore not opposed to the gospel but distinct from it. In his commentary on Galatians, he writes: The opponents cite this passage from 1 Cor. 13:1–2: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, and if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” They suppose that this passage is their wall of bronze. But they are men without understanding, and therefore they cannot grasp or see anything in Paul. With this false interpretation they have not only done injury to Paul’s words but have also denied Christ and buried all His blessings. Therefore this gloss is to be

“OUR UNITY WILL NEVER BE FOUND IN WHATEVER DEGREE THE CHURCH EXHIBITS THE ‘WORKS OF LOVE’ IN THE WORLD, BECAUSE OUR HOPE RESTS ON THE ONE ‘WORK OF LOVE’ BY WHICH A LOST AND SINFUL WORLD IS RECONCILED TO GOD.”

avoided as a hellish poison, and we must conclude with Paul: By faith alone, not by faith formed by love, are we justified. We must not attribute the power of justifying to a “form” that makes a man pleasing to God; we must attribute it to faith, which takes hold of Christ the Savior Himself and possesses Him in the heart. This faith justifies without love and before love.2 In other words, the response to the gospel (that is, works of love) can never be confused with the message of the gospel itself—the good news of God’s forgiveness of sins in Christ. When these are conflated, the clarity of the law and the gratuity of the gospel are threatened, and the power of both is diminished. The demand of the law cannot be elevated to its highest pitch, and the promise of the gospel cannot be understood without a litany of caveats. I am thankful that the violent polemics between our two churches have subsided, and I pray with Jesus that “they may all be one” to this day; but I think our unity is more likely to be found in the direction hoped for by Richard Hooker: “Let them [the Roman Catholics] strip their church till they have no polluted rag but this one about her: ‘By Christ alone, without works, we cannot be saved,’ because then we will ‘all be one.’”3 Our unity will never be found in whatever degree the church exhibits the “works of love” in the world, because our hope rests on the one “work of love” by which a lost and sinful world is reconciled to God, and by that one work the candle of the gospel once lit will never be extinguished. Thanks be to God! THE REV. JOHN D. “JADY” KOCH, JR., a doctoral candidate

in systematic theology at Humboldt University in Berlin, is the curate at Christ Church Anglican in Vienna, Austria. He is also a founding board member of Mockingbird Ministries (www.mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com). 1 Lutheran World Federation, “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” www.lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/EN/ JDDJ_99–jd97e.pdf3#14. 2 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1–4, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999). 3 Richard Hooker, “Learned Discourse on Justification.”

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

by IAIN DUGUID

VICTORY

Suffering I s a i a h 5 2 : 1 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;5 3 : 1 2 47

I went to a high school founded in 1600 by Archbishop of Canterbury John Whitgift, forty years after Thomas Cranmer had been executed at the stake for his Protestant beliefs by Queen Mary. It is perhaps not surprising that Whitgift chose as the motto for his new school Vincit Qui Patitur, “He Who Suffers, Conquers.” His generation knew all about the kind of victory that can be won only through suffering. This concept is very different from the models of victory we’ve become accustomed to. For us, victory generally means standing tall and strong, fighting off all comers with one hand tied behind your back. Growing up, our heroes were comic book characters like Superman and Captain America, who could hold off entire tank divisions with their steely gaze, who emerged

from every encounter with barely a scratch on their hand or mark on their pristine outfit. Or perhaps Barbie, who managed to combine working as a veterinarian and moonlighting as a model, while still having the energy at the weekends to drive her pink jeep to Malibu to go surfing with Ken. She had babies without stretch marks or gaining an ounce—and she did it all with perfect hair and in high heels. We tend to identify victory in similar terms in our own lives. We feel we are victorious if our careers are successful, our homes are large, our families are beautiful, and our children well behaved. In spiritual terms, we are victorious if our churches are growing and thriving, if we are

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

personally somewhere close to being free from all known sin, and our perfectly catechized children know the answers to every Bible trivia question. The reality we inhabit, however, is often entirely different. Perhaps your career is in a slump, your marriage is a mass of tensions waiting to explode, and the last time you left your children home alone they found a bottle of alcohol and got drunk. Perhaps you have just discovered that your wife has terminal cancer. Maybe you are in the midst of losing your home to foreclosure, bringing your dreams of a comfortable retirement to an end. Perhaps your church is a frustrating mess, rent asunder by schisms and distressed by heresies, as the old hymn-writer Samuel J. Stone so eloquently described in it “The Church’s One Foundation” (1866). Life is not like the comic books we grew up with. It is a hard grind, a wrestling match with sin and brokenness—your own and others around you—in which bruising losses accumulate and victories often seem few and far between. What does victory really look like in a fallen world like this?

“COMFORT MY PEOPLE” We are perhaps so familiar with the most quotable verses of Isaiah 53 we forget that the prophecy had a context into which it was originally spoken. God’s people were so broken by their own sin and its consequences that they found themselves in exile in Babylon. They felt cut off and abandoned by God; they were helpless and hopeless, unable to do anything to redeem the mess their lives had become. But that was not the end of the story. God sent his prophet to speak a message of good news into the pain and brokenness of their lives: “Comfort, comfort my people. Tell them that their God reigns. Tell them that I myself am coming to bring light into their darkness and hope into their despair. Tell them that their hard service is over, their iniquity is paid for and there is a new future ahead of them. Tell them about the new

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

heavens and new earth that I, the Lord, will bring into existence. Tell them that I myself will put on my armor and free them from their bondage.” (See Isa. 40:1–2; 42:16; 45:13; 52:7; 59:17; 65:17.) How could God take a weak and sinful people, who had failed over and over again, and change them into oaks of righteousness, transforming rebellious and hard-hearted Israel into the Lord’s faithful servant? These are the questions this passage addresses. It depicts a triumphant victory that comes through crushing pain and suffering, an amazing deliverance that comes through apparent defeat, a glorious hope that comes through utter helplessness. The Lord provided beautiful robes of righteousness for his defiled bride by afflicting his obedient Servant in her place. The victory that Isaiah foresaw becomes the pattern for our redemption as Christians, as well as for the shape of our renewed Christian lives. Vincit qui patitur is our motto too. Through Christ, we have the victory—but it is a victory that comes to us and lives in us through suffering.

“BEHOLD MY SERVANT” This Isaiah passage has a distinct structure that helps us grasp its message. There are five stanzas of three verses each (52:13–15; 53:1–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12), arranged in chiastic order around the center. Stanzas 1 and 5 are parallel, showing us the triumph of the Servant; stanzas 2 and 4 are also parallel, focusing on the depths of the Servant’s suffering; while the central stanza, stanza 3, shows us the reason for his suffering. The passage begins with the cry, “Behold my Servant.” This declaration connects the poem back to the first of the Servant Songs in Isaiah 42:1. The figure who appears in this description is the Lord’s chosen Servant, who faithfully does the Lord’s will and achieves his purposes. This Servant will “act wisely”—that is, in a way that will succeed or prosper. Indeed, he will be “raised and lifted up” (52:13), attributes that are elsewhere applied only to the Lord (see 6:1).

His victory is the Lord’s ultimate triumph, the great demonstration of his sovereign kingship. Notice, however, that we start with the end of the story: the triumphant outcome of the Servant’s suffering. If you don’t see the Servant’s victory at the outset, you might easily be confused by what happens next. The poem also ends on exactly the same note of victory in 53:11–12, when the Servant finally sees the results of his sufferings and is satisfied. That makes it clear to us from beginning to end that this song is not a tragic dirge over an unfortunate defeat, but rather a glorious exultation in victory. Having established that this is a triumphant victory song, we abruptly cut from the exultation of victory to the agony of apparent defeat—a defeat so awful that it astonished the people: the Servant was broken and bruised by his sufferings to the point that he barely appeared human (52:14). Yet somehow this grotesque disfigurement was the means through which he would carry out his priestly work of sprinkling the nations, purifying them through his own sufferings. The nations, who had previously neither seen nor heard the message of the prophet, would now hear and see, and as a result, they would believe and be saved (52:15).

A “ROOT OUT OF DRY GROUND” Yet would God’s own people come flocking to the Servant and believe? After all, the problem earlier in Isaiah was not the nations; it was Israel’s own hard-heartedness. Sadly, the answer still seems to be no: those who had not heard the message believe, while those who are closest to the prophet remain unbelieving. Many nations would understand and respond, but “we”—God’s own people—did not esteem him (Isa. 53:3). This was not the kind of salvation they expected: a Servant who comes not in power but in weakness, not like a green and fruitful tree of the kind depicted in Psalm 1, but rather as a gnarly, dried-up root, sprouting out of dry and cracked soil (53:2). This “root out of dry ground” is nonetheless a messianic figure. In Isaiah 11:1, the Lord

promised to bring a branch from Jesse’s root (shoresh in Hebrew). But this new root doesn’t look like any of the original sons of Jesse. He has no extraordinary beauty or attractiveness like Eliab, Jesse’s oldest son, or even David himself, who was ruddy and handsome (1 Sam. 16:12). Instead, the Servant takes into himself all of the negative aspects of life here on earth. He is despised and rejected by men, thoroughly acquainted with sorrows, someone who knows what it is to experience choli, a Hebrew word traditionally translated as “grief” but which more precisely means “sickness” (Isa. 53:3). Whereas we flee from pain and suffering because it reminds us of our own vulnerability and weakness, the Servant moves toward suffering, pain, and weakness, and embraces them as his own defining characteristic. He is a “man of sorrows”; that is, a man whose entire life experience was characterized by sorrows.

“BY HIS STRIPES” One could understand why an unfaithful servant might experience such chastisement and severe discipline from his master, even to the point that it might define his life. Sin has consequences. In Isaiah 1:5–6, rebellious Israel was described as being “struck down,” “sick,” and covered with “wounds” as a result of the Lord’s judgment, words that all recur here in Isaiah 53. But the way of the obedient Servant surely ought to be smooth and pleasant, beside still waters, in green pastures. The obedient Servant should flourish like a green tree, not struggle for his very survival like a root out of dry ground, shouldn’t he? The central section of the song unfolds the central mystery of the passage, and indeed of the whole Bible. It is our sorrows the obedient Servant was bearing; it is our sickness he was enduring; it is our suffering he took up (Isa. 53:4– 5). His life-disfiguring agony was the bitter fruit of my sin and yours, which the Servant bore in our place. We all went astray like sheep, wandering away from beside the still waters and green pastures, bringing ourselves into the valley of deep shadow, which ought to have been our tragic

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“ THE NATIONS, WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY NEITHER SEEN NOR HEARD THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHET, WOULD NOW HEAR AND SEE, AND AS A RESULT, THEY WOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.”

final resting place. Yet the Lord laid the punishment for our iniquity on the Servant (53:6). The prophet continues to unpack that idea in the fourth stanza. We all went astray like sheep, but he was the one, with lamb-like submission, who paid the penalty: he was slaughtered like a defenseless and submissive animal, which had been chosen to become the atoning sacrifice (Isa. 53:7). The Servant was deprived of justice, deprived of descendants, and in the ultimate ignominy, buried with the rich and the wicked, sharing the fate of those who earlier in the book were comprehensively judged for their oppression of God’s people. Yet his fate was without any

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

foundation within himself: unlike those rich and wicked oppressors, the Servant didn’t open his mouth in deceit or to pursue violence, any more than he had earlier opened it in his own self-defense (53:9). What would be the outcome of this undeserved suffering? There is a play on words in verse 10. It was the Lord’s will to crush the Servant, because only by doing so could the will of the Lord prosper in his hand. Yet the will of the Lord is not some cold, abstract decree: the word used for “will,” haphets, elsewhere means “to be pleased” or “to delight.” The Lord actually delighted to crush his faithful servant because

“THE SERVANT DO SINNERS TO SAFETY O AN ANGRY GOD: ON T ACHIEVEMENT OF HAS BEEN THE FAT PURPOSE FROM

he knew the incredible outcome that would result, as his broken relationship with humanity was gloriously restored. The Servant does not wrestle sinners to safety out of the hands of an angry God: on the contrary, the achievement of their salvation has been the Father’s delight and purpose from the beginning. The Servant, too, understood the reason for all of his suffering. After his anguish, he was promised that he would see the light of God’s salvation and be satisfied (53:11). Through his knowledge—his own personal experience of sickness, suffering, and sorrow—he would make many people righteous and thereby acceptable to a holy God. Through his sufferings, the Lord gave his Servant the joyful inheritance he had earned.

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

ES NOT WRESTLE UT OF THE HANDS OF HE CONTRARY, THE THEIR SALVATION HER’S DELIGHT AND THE BEGINNING.”

OUR GOD SAVES THROUGH SUFFERING How should we respond to this picture of victory through unrelenting suffering? To begin with, it addresses us as those in need of salvation ourselves. If nothing less than God himself taking flesh and sharing so deeply in our sufferings is needed to redeem us, then our best attempts to please God cannot possibly win us salvation. Our salvation is by grace alone, not because of anything in us. If all that is needed for your salvation is for you to turn over a new leaf and try harder to be a good person, then the Servant’s suffering was a monumental waste of a life. On the contrary, this passage shows us the utter hopelessness of our case, if left to ourselves: We are all sheep that have deliberately

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

wandered off; we are all sinners who have broken God’s holy law; and we are all rebels who have transgressed against his rule in our lives. The wages for these things is death (Rom. 6:23). This reality was not news to Isaiah’s hearers, who were experiencing the “death” of exile in Babylon for their nation’s sins. But it is news to many people around you—those who think that, of course, God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives. They are aware that they may need to get their act together and work on upping their religious achievement score to win God’s favor, but how hard can that be? Impossibly hard, says God. His standard for life is perfection, and none of us could ever measure up to that standard. If giving it your best shot is all that you have, then you are completely

without hope. Nor are we instantly transformed after we are saved. We continue to wander off on our own and rebel against God’s perfect law daily. Yet God doesn’t leave us to ourselves. The Good Shepherd came looking for the lost sheep (John 10:11). The Suffering Servant entered the dark and broken reality inherited from our first parents, and he tasted all of its bitter dregs for us. He came and experienced headaches and colds, flu and diarrhea, broken relationships and mourning at the graveside of a loved one. He knows these things, not merely as abstract intellectual concepts, but through his own costly personal experience. Even more profoundly, on the cross, the Servant took into himself the full depths of our sin: he truly was pierced for our transgressions and wounded for our iniquities in ways we will never know. He became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). The agonies of hell that we deserve were embraced in their fullness by the Servant, so that we, the guilty ones, would never have to drink that cup.

THE IDENTITY OF THE SERVANT But who is this mysterious Servant? In Acts 8:34, the Ethiopian e unuch a s k s Phi lip that question: “About whom does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” And beginning with this passage, Philip tells him the good news that Jesus followed the path of suffering necessary to free us from our deserved punishment. As a result, we see the promise that the nations would be sprinkled and cleansed

through the work of the Servant being fulfilled, just as the eunuch trusted his life to Christ. Through baptism, the eunuch was added to God’s kingdom and went to his home in a faraway land rejoicing. The uniqueness of the Suffering Servant shows us the uniqueness of the Christian message. No other religion has the same gospel to declare, because no other religion proclaims that their God has suffered in our place to atone for our sins. Many religions speak words of moral reformation and trying hard to win God’s favor, but only Christianity proclaims peace with God through the death of his own Son. What is more, this same gospel of the suffering and risen Servant, Jesus Christ, is the good news we have been commissioned to bring to all nations. The one who bore our sins in his body on the tree has many other wandering sheep that have yet to

“ WE ARE ALL WEAK AND INSUFFICIENT WITNESSES, EVEN THOUGH BY GOD’S GRACE OUR WORDS CONTAIN THE POWER TO TRANSFORM HEARTS AND LIVES AS THE SPIRIT CHOOSES TO USE THEM.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

hear the message, respond in faith, and be saved by him. How will they be saved unless they hear this unique gospel, and how will they hear unless someone is sent by God to bring them this glorious good news (see Rom. 10:14–17)? What a high and beautiful calling it is to bear such incredible and joyful tidings!

THE CROSS-CONFORMED LIFE But this Isaiah passage also says something to us about the nature of the task of bringing the good news to the nations. The servants are not greater than the master. If Jesus’ pathway through this world involved embracing suffering and pain, seeking out and identifying with the lost and the broken, then so also will ours. His progress through life was not a stately glide from glory to glory, but a messy taking up of his cross and suffering in our place, so that through his death and resurrection he could enter glory with many redeemed brothers and sisters. If that is true, then our calling as those entrusted with the gospel is not to be constantly impressing people with our personal strength and glorious accomplishments. Rather, we too are called to take up our own crosses and follow after him along that same road of weakness, brokenness, and inability (Matt. 16:24), which is how God does his remarkable work. We are all chipped and cracked clay pots, even though we contain a treasure of enormous value in the gospel (2 Cor. 4:7). We are all weak and insufficient witnesses, even though by God’s grace our words contain the power to transform hearts and lives as the Spirit chooses to use them. Indeed, it is God’s plan for us that we should walk through this world in great weakness— physical and spiritual—so that we might never forget our desperate need for the one who walked this path perfectly in our place. His primary goal is not our perfect obedience and success, which might allow us to claim some of the glory for ourselves. His goal is Christ’s glory, which becomes all the more visible through our great weakness, and even through our ongoing struggles with indwelling sin.

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

MERIT

Merit is the idea that one who performs a good work is entitled to a reward. Demerit is the opposite, that one who performs an evil work deserves punishment. The medieval church distinguished between condign and congruent merit. When a person does a work that is inherently worthy of reward, medieval theologians called that condign merit. An act that God decides to reward that is not inherently worthy of reward was called congruent merit. Congruent merit allowed the church to conclude that salvation was a process of cooperation with grace. At the end of life, God would reward the Christian with eternal life (after many years of purging sin in purgatory). Lutheran and Reformed theologians often ignore the distinction between condign and congruent merit, arguing that it sidesteps the real issue. Instead, they argue that salvation is not a process of cooperation with grace; it is a free act of God’s grace from beginning to end. Christ merited salvation for all who believe. Christ obeyed the law perfectly in our place so that God could count us as righteous by faith alone.

That is why Paul reminds the Ephesians not to lose heart over his sufferings and imprisonment (Eph. 3:13). Those sufferings were not a sign of Paul’s failure or God’s failure. On the contrary, his sufferings were the means by which the gospel was coming to the Gentiles, just as the Old Testament had anticipated. It is true that our sufferings are not redemptive in the way that Jesus’ were. We are not pierced for others’ transgressions, and we cannot bear their iniquities. But the task of bringing to others the good news of Jesus’ sacrificial sufferings will necessarily involve us in lives that are patterned after his. Our sufferings are redeemed by God, made into opportunities for him to show his love and his

care for us, and the sufficiency of his grace for us in our weakness. That reality challenges our thinking about missions, reminding us that we need to recover the call to sacrificial service. Today there are many voices telling us that we can serve God without cost. It is regarded as a strange suggestion that we might actually need to sacrifice something to follow the Lord, whether it is in going as a missionary or supporting others on the mission field. In contrast, the pioneer missionaries who went to West Africa in the nineteenth century packed their goods in a coffin, because their life expectancy was so short—a few months at most. They knew that they were on a one-way trip, literally giving up everything in this world to die in response to the Lord’s call.

FAITH

Depending on the context, faith can mean to believe, to know, to trust, or to accept as true. Scripture speaks often of faith in the context of salvation (see Rom. 1:17; 3:22, 25–31; 4:16, 19–20, 22; 5:1–2; 9:30). In James 2:14–26, the apostle distinguishes saving faith from a general faith. There are three aspects of saving faith: knowledge, assent, and trust. For salvation, first, one must know the facts about Jesus’ life, death, burial, and resurrection for the justification of anyone who would trust in him. Second, one must assent, accepting that the facts are true. Third, one must place trust in Christ for salvation. Saving faith necessarily results in good works. Those who trust Christ know that their sin is forgiven and that they are justified, and as a result are free to do good works as a loving response to God’s mercy. Both Lutheran and Reformed theologians teach that one is justified by faith alone in Christ alone.

The message of Christ’s victory through suffering also challenges us to rethink our definitions of success and failure in life as a whole. We tend to measure our lives in terms of our victories and accomplishments: we have succeeded if we can point to a successful career, raising a model family, getting a nice house, and everything that goes with that. But what if we are called to lives that are patterned after the Suffering Servant? In that case, maybe success will not always look like a green tree but sometimes like a root planted in dry soil—a root that glorifies God not by the size of the harvest it bears but simply by the fact that, against all odds, the gospel enables it to survive in what is otherwise utterly barren soil. Was it “success” for those pioneer missionaries to give up everything they had to go to a place where they would die of tropical fever within a few months? Was it “victory” when they buried their children and their wives, and had nothing glorious to report in their letters back home? If the goal of missions is to see the world converted and to plant the maximum number of churches, then their lives were wasted and would have been better spent elsewhere. But if the goal of missions is to bring glory to God by being conformed to the likeness of Christ, the Suffering Servant, then few people have ever lived more successfully. They laid down their very lives to the glory of God, even if no one today remembers their names. They conquered through suffering, in lives patterned after that of their Savior.

THE FRUIT OF HIS LABORS At the end of his suffering, the Servant saw the results of his labors and was satisfied. That is a remarkable statement. The Lord of Glory left the comfort and adulation of heaven and came to earth, where he experienced pain and suffering, rejection and ridicule, beating and physical abuse, before being nailed to a cross where he eked out his last breaths in intense physical and spiritual agony, the like of which the world has never seen. Yet when Jesus looks out at his redeemed people, the church, he is

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“ ON THAT DAY, ALL OUR SUFFERINGS WILL FINALLY COME TO AN END, AND WE WILL JOIN THE VICTORIOUS SERVANT IN HIS TRIUMPH.”

satisfied. Jesus does not look at the mess that is our lives or at the struggles and challenges of each local church and say, “What was I thinking?” He looks at you and me and says, “I love the outcome of my sufferings. I love these people, with all of their problems and failures, with all their sins and their weakness. They are so precious to me that every single bit of what I suffered was worthwhile.” Today, God calls you to delight in the gospel and its fruits in the same way he does. Look upon Jesus, the Servant who suffered and lost everything in your place, and who conquered through those sufferings. Behold the Lamb of God, raised up and exalted to heaven, where he has been given the name that is above every name! Let your heart thrill afresh as you ponder the cost and the reality of your salvation, which has been accomplished and finished in his death and resurrection. Respond to the Spirit’s

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

call to be a witness to that glorious good news of victory through suffering wherever he has placed you: in your home, your family, your school, your workplace, or to the ends of the earth. Pray that he will give you a heart that is willing to serve and to suffer for the sake of the greatness of Jesus. And look forward to the day when you too will behold the fullness of God’s harvest: the great multitude of people from every tribe and nation who have been saved through the suffering of Jesus. On that day, all our sufferings will finally come to an end, and we will join the victorious Servant in his triumph. And on that day, both Jesus and we will be fully satisfied by the reward he has gained through his faithful labors. IAIN DUGUID is professor of Old Testament at Westminster

Theological Seminary and pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (ARP) in Glenside, Pennsylvania.

FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, the senior staff and board of directors at White Horse Inn

have been putting a plan in place that essentially challenges “Christless Christianity” here and abroad. Across the country and around the world, many churches channel the latest marketing gimmicks promising “your best life now.” Instead of focusing on what Christ has accomplished, the preaching concentrates on what we can achieve.

THE PROBLEM THE RESULTS OF RECENT RESEARCH INTO THE STATE OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY ARE SHOCKING. THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER recently reported that atheists and agnostics, and Jews and Mormons score higher in religious knowledge, outperforming Protestants on questions about the core teachings and history of Christianity.

The survey saw those identifying themselves as “Christian” shrink from 78% to 70%. That’s a drop of eight percentage points in just seven years. Meanwhile, those calling themselves atheist, nonreligious or simply unaffiliated rose from 16% to almost 23%. ALMOST 60% OF OUR YOUTH leave their churches as young adults, with many of them joining the growing numbers of the so-called nones: those who profess no adherence to any faith whatsoever.

WHAT USED TO BE THE SUBJECT OF SILENT PRAYERS AND PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS HAS NOW BECOME HEADLINE NEWS: THE CHURCH IN AMERICA IS SHRINKING.

THE SOLUTION DESPITE THIS BAD NEWS, the core message of Christianity is still capable of renewing the church, even in our own age. That’s why we're excited to present to you The Campaign for Core Christianity. Our goal with The Campaign for Core Christianity is to see people rediscover the joy, hope, and confidence they have in Christ. The campaign is structured around three pillars that we believe will help connect sound teaching to confused Christians, leading them and their churches to see themselves in the grand story that God is telling in the world.

THE THREE PILLARS is called “Curate.” Our team is pulling together the best theological resources that we have developed over the last 25 years to stock an online portal with the ultimate repository of core Christianity. This new hub will focus on the Core Things Every Christian Needs to Know. It will be theologically balanced, easy to navigate, and packed with easy-to-access media content.

THE FIRST PILLAR

CURATE

THE SECOND PILLAR is called “Create.” We want to do more than extend and amplify repurposed content from our archives. So we’ll CREATE be developing Bible studies that connect with believers and seekers on any level, from those merely exploring the Bible to those passionately committed to in-depth study. Anyone with a smartphone or tablet anywhere in the world can access these free resources; we’ll also structure them so that church classes and neighborhood groups can learn together online and in person.

THE THIRD PILLAR is called “Communicate.” We believe that we must use all means possible to communicate the transforming message of Christ here at home and around the world. We cannot wait any longer COMMUNICATE for the world to come to us; the time has come to take the truth to the world. We’re already at work developing multimedia content, weekend conferences in partnership with churches, and targeted teaching trips called The Global Theological Initiative to help pastors, evangelical leaders, and educators overseas not just understand “The Core” themselves but also teach it to the next generation.

WE BELIEVE THAT GOD IS STILL AT WORK TELLING HIS GRAND STORY. WHERE IS YOUR PLACE IN GOD’S STORY? FINDING YOURSELF IN GOD’S STORY IS THE HEART OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR CORE CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE THERE JUST ISN’T A BETTER PLACE TO BE.

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

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT As a small, independent, nonprofit publisher, Modern Reformation depends

on each and every subscription we receive to continue our mission of engaging the big questions about God, this world, and your life in it.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

Book Reviews 62

How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor

Life Under Compulsion: Ten Ways to Destroy the Humanity of Your Child

When Lightning Struck: The Story of Martin Luther

by James K. A. Smith

by Danika Cooley

by Anthony Esolen

REVIEWED BY

Jeremy Larson

Micah Everett

William Boekestein

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

BOOK REVIEWS

The Siren Song of the Secular How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor by James K. A. Smith Eerdmans, 2014; 160 pages (paperback), $16.00 n graduate school, one of my profe ss o r s m a de a co n n e c t io n between two mythological figures who encounter the sirens on separate occasions. When passing the sirens on his voyage home, Odysseus has his crew plug their ears and tie him to the mast, thereby avoiding the enchanting song. Orpheus, however, is a musician, and instead of struggling against the sirens’ music, he simply sings a better song, thereby enchanting them. Songs are stories put to music, and James Smith’s How (Not) to Be Secular, a 2014 guidebook to Charles Taylor’s 2007 A Secular Age, highlights the importance that Taylor places on stor ytelling. Smith notes that even nonChristians have observed that Christianity’s influence has lasted so long because of its narrative quality (9). What has happened, according to Taylor, is that certain movements over the past five hundred years have set the stage for other narratives to emerge, weakening the plausibility structures surrounding not only the Christian story but also theism itself. Taylor’s project tells this story of the shift in “conditions of belief,” and Smith’s project prepares us not only to read this story of secularism, but also to develop ways to tell our culture a better story. Smith’s book, the result of reading A Secular Age with hearty philosophy majors at Calvin

College in 2011, won Christianity Today’s 2015 Book Award for Christianity and Culture. One reason why this book deserves the award is that now many can benefit from Taylor’s ideas without having to read the nine-hundred-page beast. Having read every word, endnotes included, of both A Secular Age and How (Not) to Be Secular, I suggest reading Smith first and reading Taylor only if one has a scholarly interest in secularization theory. Smith says that his book is for a wide audience of “practitioners” who feel the cross-pressures of this age (x), but he also calls his book “a doctor of ministry program between two covers” (viii) and repeatedly mentions pastors and church planters. My guess is that more Christians will read it than non-Christians. I say “Christians” instead of “believers” because Taylor argues that even in our secular age, belief is still widespread. One belief of contemporary folks is that meaning and significance (not to mention objective ethics) are still possible without a transcendent God. This is one of Taylor’s most important points: modern “e x c l u s i v e h u m a n i s m” is not the result of growing up and shedding our de p e n de n ce o n G o d ( a “subtraction story”), but it is rather an addition story in that traditional beliefs are still strong, although Christianity is not the only plausible story available. Somehow we have gained seemingly legitimate worldviews that purport to provide significance to living in this world. We have options now, and this is what Taylor usually means by secular (“secular3”). (“Secular1” refers to the medieval distinction between “secular” and “sacred,” and “secular2” refers to a-religiosity.)

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

“Many people feel the ‘malaise of modernity,’ partly in their awareness that the transcendence they long for is not as readily available in a rationalistic world.” Smith clarifies Taylor’s claim that everyone is secular3, by which Taylor means that we are all caught in the cross-pressures of our longings for transcendence on the one hand, and the secular2 drive for immanentization on the other. Despite the addition of belief options, we moderns are still haunted with what we have left behind. Many people feel the “malaise of modernity,” partly in their awareness that the transcendence they long for is not as readily available in a rationalistic world. And so postmodernity rejects the triumphal answers of modernism, privileging many narratives over one metanarrative. Ironically, this is where postmodernity may be less of an enemy to Christianity than modernity (98), because postmodernity must allow a place for the Christian narrative. On what basis could postmodernity exclude it? Certainly not on the basis of absolute truth. Christianity has not disappeared in our postmodern world, to the chagrin of the thoroughly modern New Atheists. Smith insists that Christians should not match modernist atheism with modernist apologetics by trying to explain everything rationally (that is, the problem of evil, God’s existence, and so on). Sometimes Smith’s affirmation of the imagination seems to diminish the importance of the intellect, for he appears to despise classical apologetics (51–53, 98–99). Nevertheless, Smith is right to stress the tremendous role of the imagination in persuading people to consider Christianity.

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

By far, my favorite part of Smith’s book is that he purposefully tries to avoid objections to Taylor’s loose Roman Catholicism. Smith is clear that his “primary purpose is to lay out Taylor’s argument” (106, 19n), but at times Smith cannot help himself, and it is valuable to see him question Taylor on important issues (although Smith does not go as far as I wish he would). A Secular Age often sounds like Brad Gregory’s The Unintended Reformation in its narrative of “blame the Reformation” (for the contemporary rejection of mystery). But Zwingli’s alleged disenchantment regarding the Lord’s Supper does not represent all Reformed theology, and Smith argues that many of Taylor’s concerns are actually answered in traditional readings of Augustine and Calvin. Smith’s glossary is immensely useful in deciphering Taylorisms, and intermittent callout boxes include challenging questions such as, “Might nonfoundationalism in epistemology already testify to an ‘opening’ in the immanent frame?” (98). Despite its deficiencies, Taylor’s story of the West’s movement toward exclusive humanism is extremely insightful, and Smith’s field guide provides access to Taylor’s sprawling work. Christians need such a guide to navigate our secular age—and as helpful a guide as Taylor is, Smith is much better. JEREMY LARSON is a PhD student in English at Baylor Uni-

versity in Waco, Texas.

BOOK REVIEWS

“Beside Still Water” Life under Compulsion: Ten Ways to Destroy the Humanity of Your Child by Anthony Esolen Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2015 224 pages (hardcover), $27.95 mericans living at the beginning of the twenty-first century enjoy unprecedented human freedom, or so we are told. We have myriad sources of entertainment and information available to us at the touch of a button, along with the means to pay for and the leisure time to pursue them. Our children can be educated in state-of-the-art facilities by teachers trained in the latest knowledge and pedagogical techniques, all without families paying a dime in tuition costs (at least not directly). And increasingly, education, news media, and the entertainment industry join forces to promote various forms of social justice, environmental stewardship, or some other more or less worthy cause, leaving no soundbite wasted in admonishing their audiences to join the crusade du jour, which will be replaced with another equally vital quest in very short order.

The previous cause is forgotten as quickly as it appeared, with movie stars and pundits alike speaking as if there had never been any other crisis like the one presently being discussed. While present-day Americans are thankfully not directly under such a totalitarian thumb, Anthony Esolen contends that we are nevertheless not as free as we believe ourselves to be. Following in the same vein as his 2010 volume Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, in his new book Life under Compulsion: Ten Ways to Destroy the Humanity of Your Child, Esolen traces long-term trends in education, media, and society that have crippled our capacities for quiet reflection, critical thought, the right enjoyment of goodness, beauty, and truth, and the service of God and man that should be the delight of every thinking Christian. Having been robbed of these things, we are easily manipulated by one soundbite crusade after another, often acting upon unconscious compulsions of which we are barely aware, while believing ourselves to be thoughtful for doing so. While the title suggests an aim of protecting children from such a sad condition, Esolen at least implies a broader call for selfexamination on the part of his presumably adult readers. Reminding us that “we are all infected”

“Esolen traces long-term trends in education, media, and society that have crippled our capacities for quiet reflection, critical thought, the right enjoyment of goodness, beauty, and truth.”

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

(19) with the disease that has us answering every buzz of the smartphone, wishing for the latest new device, and so on, the author sets out to remind us of what a thoughtful life free of modern compulsions looks like, why it is important, and how to teach both ourselves and our children to enjoy such a life. In its early chapters, this book feels most like a continuation of the author’s earlier work, and the education system remains in his crosshairs. Esolen criticizes modern schools for prizing socialization over instruction and critical theory over honest dealing with texts. Such an impoverished education leads to an impoverished work environment for adults and the constant need for “stimulating” leisure during the off-hours for those who seem to have lost the capacity for quiet reflection. Esolen next moves into politics, demonstrating how this lost capacity for reflection leads to trading soundbites rather than reasoned debate, and how the lost regard for truth has led to a situation where even freedom of the press does not protect the populace from false reporting intended to manipulate readers toward a particular end. Without the ability to hear, analyze, and respond to the ideas of political opponents, political candidates and officeholders and their supporters are reduced to dismissing those with other viewpoints as unintelligent, bigoted, or otherwise not worth hearing. This tendency reappears later in the book as the author discusses the strange pharisaism of modern society, ultimately summarizing it in a series of faux commandments such as, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any culture, with the following

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

exceptions: American, British, medieval, Christian, and Catholic. Thou shalt not speak well of those” (139). At this point, the reader might be forgiven for thinking that Esolen is long on describing problems and short on prescribing solutions. The sardonic tone of the book’s title might suggest that this is the case, though the solution is really there under the surface all along, and as the book progresses it moves closer to the top. To put it simply, Esolen invites a return to former ways of doing things, from a time when Western societies were informed by a broadly Christian worldview. He truly excels in the chapter in which he discusses sexuality, deftly contrasting chastity with abstinence, and noting that past generations’ rules regarding chastity were not only good for present and future marriage relationships, but also established parameters for all sorts of social relationships in an interconnected society. Having shrugged off these restrictions, modern people are supposedly freer sexually and otherwise, yet we have never been so alone. The freedom—or, rather, license—that modern humanity claims ironically leaves us isolated and subject to all manner of manipulation as we seek to relieve our loneliness. The ordered, reflective life enables us to enjoy interconnected relationships of love and service to God and others—in other words, to fulfill the two greatest commandments. Licentiousness is not freedom; ultimately, it forges only a chain. In contrast, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” Both this book and the author’s 2010 volume share similar minor faults, which should not at all discourage readers from discovering what

BOOK REVIEWS

Esolen has to say. The author is not above the use of sarcasm or irony in order to make his point (indeed, the titles of both books indicate this intention), and occasionally his frustration over an issue being addressed almost takes on the character of a rant. Some might find the comparison of the intellectual attainments of the current president of the United States with those of his predecessors to be in bad taste. A professor of English at Providence College, Esolen shares that institution’s Roman Catholicism, and readers with even a vague familiarity with Catholic thought on these issues will recognize how the author is grounded in that tradition. Esolen rarely wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, though, generally preferring to convey a more generically Christian ethos. Happily, there is much agreement between Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant thought regarding the issues discussed, so Protestant readers will find little if any material here that is objectionable on those grounds. This book is a powerful call for parents to guide their children (and themselves) into a thoughtful, reflective life that is not bound to the vicissitudes of pop culture and the twenty-four-hour news cycle, but rather to the word of God and the service of both God and humanity. MICAH EVERETT is assistant professor of music at the Uni-

versity of Mississippi. He and his family are members of Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Oxford, Mississippi.

Beyond the Highlights: The Real Luther When Lightning Struck: The Story of Martin Luther by Danika Cooley Fortress Press, 2015 264 pages (hardcover), $16.99

P 66

rotestant non-Lutherans tend to know Martin Luther the way they know their own great-grandfather: they can give the highlights

“In the gospel, God gives the very righteousness that he requires. For Luther— as for all believers—the gospel changed everything. Luther began a quest to unearth this good news.”

about him, but that’s about it. But when it comes to knowing the most important Christian Reformer of the past five hundred years, for lots of reasons, highlight knowledge is not good enough. To give just one reason, history is meant to inspire. Bare-bones facts about a person’s life do not give new energy to flagging hope and zeal. Well-written biographies, however, do inspire, and Danika Cooley’s When Lightning Struck: The Story of Martin Luther is a wellresearched, well-narrated biography that will grip young adult readers in a generation starved for worthy heroes. Here are the highlights most Protestants tend to know. Martin Luther was born in 1483, just a decade before Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas. Despite his family’s humble circumstances, Luther received a good education and prepared for a law career. On one of his trips home during his school years, Luther panicked during a thunderstorm and promised St. Anna that he would become a monk in return for deliverance. (As she does so often, Cooley excels in narrating this scene with which she opens the book. Readers can feel the “fat raindrops [that]

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

fell to the hot dirt road…sending up little puffs of dry dust” as the angry storm gathered. They too can “feel the wrathful hiss of the sky as the earth shook with the force of each clap of thunder.”) Life as a monk only intensified Luther’s dread of an angry God, until he found in Scripture the good news that had become buried under mountains of ecclesiastical law and tradition: In the gospel, God gives the very righteousness that he requires. For Luther—as for all believers—the gospel changed everything. Luther began a quest to unearth this good news. In his fifth year as a theology professor, on October 31, 1517, Luther posted on the castle church door in Wittenberg ninety-five theses, or propositions, regarding indulgences. According to the Catholic Church, an indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment for sin granted by the church. Initially, Luther was simply calling for a debate regarding the abuse of indulgences, not the practice itself. His request was denied. Instead, Rome deployed its theologians to reinforce its position and attack Luther for his “heretical” views. He was excommunicated and hunted as a heretic. Luther did not back down. He continued writing against abuses, still with the intention of reforming the Roman Catholic Church. However, after much opposition, Luther published the Babylonian Captivity of the Church in which Rome was identified as Babylon. After reading this treatise, the Dutch scholar Erasmus (against whom Luther would later write The Bondage of the Will) predicted that the breach between the reforming church and the Roman Church had become irreparable. His prediction proved true. The Reformation would continue

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

to spread, although not from within the established church but from without. Luther spent the rest of his life as a scholar and pastor defending the purity of the gospel. In his sixty-two years, God used him to change the church and the world. Sadly, five hundred years later, J. I. Packer observed that “much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers.” We need Luther again. Not Luther exactly, but Luther-like Christians, even Christians who are deeply flawed. (Cooley makes her readers wince at Luther’s struggles with pride, chauvinism, anger, and fear; he is persistently haunted by the “drumbeat of [the] distant wings [of a dragon] whirring toward him.”) But much-needed Lutherlike Christians will also be passionate, loving, truthinvigorated young men and women thoroughly captivated by the pure gospel of Christ, emboldened to live for him in every arena of life. A Roman Catholic scholar said a hundred years ago that “the religious problem today is still the Luther problem.” Insofar as Luther’s ministry was rooted in the gospel, our own religious problems call for a “Luther solution.” Danika Cooley’s When Lightning Struck is just what the church needs to inspire a new generation of believers who can help recover the evangelical church’s birthright. WILLIAM BOEKESTEIN is pastor of Covenant Reformed

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

GEEK SQUAD

There Is Only One Stage of Justification by R. Scott Clark

or a series of philosophical, theological, and practical reasons, the medieval church came gradually to think that our justification (that is, our acceptance by a righteous God) is progressive. What the confessional Reformed and Lutheran churches call sanctification (that is, our gradual conformity to Christ), the medieval church came to think of as justification. This doctrine of progressive justification became the dogma of the Roman communion at the Council of Trent (Session 6, 1547). The confessional Protestants, however, rejected both the

medieval consensus and Roman dogma on the authority of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s word (sola scriptura). The Protestants, as distinct from both the Anabaptists and Rome, confessed that justification is definitive and sanctification is progressive, that they are distinct (but related) benefits of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unconditional favor (sola gratia) received through faith alone (sola fide). The Protestant churches confessed that the moment one believes one is declared righteous on the basis of the imputation (crediting, reckoning) of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perfect righteousness (meritum condignum) to the believer, received through faith alone.

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

In recent years, however, within ostensibly confessional Protestant circles, some have been advocating versions of a two-stage doctrine of justification. One version of this proposal is that we may be said to be justified initially by grace alone, through faith alone, but only finally justified on the basis of our sanctification. Some give the whole basis of our final justification to our inherent sanctification and righteousness, and others only part of the basis. How does the Bible speak to this controversy? Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul did not write, “Since we have received the initial stage of justification…” The broader context makes such a reading untenable. Paul’s great point in Romans 4 is that Abraham was justified—that is, counted righteous not on the basis of his works (his performance) but on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to him, received through faith alone (Rom. 4:1–7, 11, 16). Indeed, the last words of the chapter say: But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:23–25 ESV) In that context, the force of Paul’s ringing declaration in 5:1 cannot be missed by any who are willing to allow the text to speak for itself: “Therefore…” Paul uses a concluding particle. He is drawing a concluding inference on the basis of what he has already argued at length. God justifies the ungodly. This does not mean, as Pelagius and later Rome concluded, that God initially justifies those who are initially unsanctified. Rather, it means that God declares those who are inherently unsanctified, ungodly, to be righteous on the basis of Christ’s alien righteousness (iustitia aliena), which is extrinsic to the one being declared righteous. That

M ODERNRE FOR M ATION .OR G

“Jesus’ righteousness for us is the proper basis for our justification because it meets the terms of righteousness.”

righteousness, which is outside the justified, is the legal basis for God’s declaration. We know that is so because of the fact of Christ’s bodily resurrection. We know that Jesus was inherently righteous and worthy, because God raised him from the dead. Were he anything but perfectly righteous, his body would still be in the tomb and we would still be dead in sins, but Christ was raised and we were raised with him (Eph. 2:5–6). As S. M. Baugh translates these verses in the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary: Ephesians (Lexham Press, 2015), we were “coraised” with him. We are “co-seated” with him in the heavenlies. Jesus’ righteousness for us is the proper basis for our justification because it meets the terms of righteousness. It is inherently worthy. That is why we call it “condign” (inherently worthy) and “merit.” God’s favor to Abraham and to us is unconditioned by anything done by us or even in us. Abraham was declared righteous while he was still a Gentile—before he was circumcised. He was justified after he was circumcised—after he became a Jew. Abraham had done nothing. The law requires perfect obedience (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10), which Abraham had not met and which he never would meet. Nevertheless, God declared him righteous. Therefore, Paul says, Abraham is the father of all believers—of Jewish and Gentile

GEEK SQUAD

“Nowhere does Paul suggest that justification is in stages. It is always presented to us as a once-for-all declaration, a benefit received through faith alone.”

believers in Jesus the Messiah. It is after he has explained the basis for this doctrine in Genesis 15 and applied it to New Testament believers that he draws the great inference in Romans 5:1. That is why he is able to say, “We have peace.” He does not say, “We shall have peace, after we have been sufficiently sanctified.” He does not say, “Peace with God has been inaugurated but shall be consummated later.” He says, “Therefore…we have peace.” We are presently in the possession of peace with God. In Romans 8:1, he defines what it means to have peace with God: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” It is believers who are “in” Christ Jesus. It is believers who are united to Christ by God’s unconditional favor (grace) to sinners. He has made them alive, given them faith, and through that faith united believers to Christ. God is no longer angry with us, because Christ has satisfied the righteous divine wrath against sin and sinners. That is why Paul says that we who believe (that is, the justified) have peace with God—he is reconciled to us “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jesus is the expiation of our sins (1 Sam. 3:14 ASV) and the propitiation (Rom. 3:25). The repeated, clear biblical teaching is that believers are now fully justified. It is a definitive

declaration by God of a present and completed reality. Paul says, “We hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). It is not that justification has been inaugurated now and is to be completed later any more than Jesus has been raised in stages. He has been raised. So, too, we are now justified. In Romans 5:9, Paul goes on to confirm, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood.” The connection of the temporal particle to the verb could hardly be clearer. It does not say “now and later” or “inaugurated now and consummated later.” What else must Paul say to make it clear? “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified” (1 Cor. 6:11). We have been “justified by his grace” (Titus 3:7). Nowhere does Paul suggest that justification is in stages. It is always presented to us as a oncefor-all declaration, a benefit received through faith alone. Sanctification is inaugurated. Sanctification is progressive. Sanctification is to be consummated, but our justification is complete. It is finished. R. SCOTT CLARK is professor of church history and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido. He is author of Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R, 2008).

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

WHAT MATTERS MOST Now available, Core Christianity unpacks what is core to the Christian faith in a way thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s easy to understand. In addition, Michael Horton shows why these beliefs matter to our lives today.

WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/CORE

B AC K PAG E

Did Luther Invent Justification? by Michael S. Horton

n recent years, some evangelical scholars have been drawn to the traditional Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox charge that the doctrine of justification taught by the Protestant Reformers is a novelty. Not quite. First, the Greek verb for “to justify” means to declare righteous, not to make righteous. It is often contrasted in its immediate context with the verb “to condemn” rather than “to make sinful.” Second, the ones being declared righteous in the verses above are described as ungodly. But sin was not imputed to David (Rom. 4:8). This gift of righteousness comes not by the law but by the gospel (vv. 13–15)—Abraham’s faith clung to the promise of what God would do. That is why it was “counted to him as righteousness” (vv. 21–22). The one who trusts in Christ—instead of his own righteous deeds—goes home justified (Luke 18:10–14). The doctrine of justification doesn’t rest simply on a verb here or there. It is the whole teaching of the Scriptures that God will provide the sacrificial skins to cover our nakedness (Gen. 3:21). The whole sacrificial system of the Old Testament pointed forward to “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). A host of other passages elucidate this great exchange—on the cross, our charges were nailed to Christ (Col. 3:13–14); we are counted as righteous in Christ so that no one can lay a charge against God’s elect (Rom. 8:33–34). The “Great Exchange”—Christ’s robe

of righteousness for our filthy rags—is the scarlet thread running from Genesis to Revelation. That’s justification in a nutshell. So it’s not surprising that we find this wonderful news across the pages of the ancient fathers. In the second-century Epistle to Diognetus (ch. 9) we read, “He himself took on him the burden of our iniquities, he gave his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible and immortal One for the corruptible and mortal.” John Chrysostom proclaimed that Christ “does also make them that are filled with putrefying sores of sin suddenly righteous. And it is to explain this, ‘That he might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus.’ Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith” (Homily 7 on Romans). Augustine’s teaching especially helped the Reformers rediscover this good news. Christ was made sin, “just as we are made righteous—our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Christ” (Handbook on Hope, Faith and Love, ch. 41). To be sure, the Reformation put the puzzle pieces in place, but the pieces were there all along. And in spite of confusion and error, the Great Exchange at the heart of justification remains what it had been for the Apostle Paul: “The power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). MICHAEL S. HORTON is editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation.

Vol. 25 No. 4 Jul/Aug 2016

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