The-Promise-driven-life-november-december-2005

ROMANS REVOLUTION ❘ THE UNCHURCH ❘ MY 40 DAYS OF PURPOSE JOURNALED

MODERN REFORMATION THE PROMISEDRIVEN LIFE

VOLUME

14, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005, $6.00

C N

O

V

E

M

O B

E

R

/

D

N E

C

E

M

B

T E

R

2

0

E 0

5

|

N V

O

L

U

M

T E

1

4

S N

U

M

B

E

R

6

THE PROMISE-DRIVEN LIFE

13 The Promise-Driven Life While many Christians today are pursuing the “purpose-driven life,” Scripture presents Abraham’s life as the pattern we are to follow: a promise-driven life.

The author distinguishes each type of life according to law and gospel.

by Michael Horton Plus: My 40 Days of Purpose Journal by Rick Ritchie

20 The Promise-Driven Church What is supposed to drive the church, and who gets to decide?

In answering these questions, the author exposes much of what drives the “Unchurch.”

by Todd Wilken Plus: The Promise in the Magnificat by Dennis E. Johnson

25 The Promise-Driven Family Using Ephesians 6:1-4, the author provides teaching on God’s design for families and practical ways both parents and children can experience God’s grace in the home.

by Bryan Chapell COVER PHOTO PHOTOGRAPHER’S CHOICE/DAVE SCHIEFELBEIN

In This Issue page 2 | Letters page 3 | Between the Times page 5 Preaching from the Choir page 9 | Family Matters page 11 Reviews page 33 | Always Reforming page 40 N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1

I

N

|

T

H

I

S

|

I

S

S

U

E

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Managing Editor Eric Landry

Promises, Promises

H

Assistant Editor Brenda Jung

ave you ever noticed that children live on the basis of promises? Very seldom do they make plans, to-do lists, or chart year end goals. They survive on the

Department Editors Starr Meade, Family Matters Diana Frazier, Reviews William Edgar, Preaching From the Choir

good will of their guardians and thrive on the promises given to them. From

the mundane promise of a McDonalds Happy Meal after t-ball practice to the more spectacular promise of a vacation at Disneyland, children derive their hopes and dreams from what others promise they’ll do for them. Maybe this is too self-evident to be of much consequence. After all, they’re kids! As adults we have important responsibilities—most notably to our kids—to nurture and to provide. We can’t live our everyday lives on the basis of someone else’s promises. We must be purposeful about our lives.

How much, though, does this purposeful way of living in the world affect our Christian life? How much have we allowed the self-help guides aimed at up and coming business people to dictate our relationship to God and his church? When did Jack Welch become America’s spiritual director? How we live as adults in this world is not necessarily how we should live as “children” in the kingdom of God. For too many of us, it is difficult to take seriously enough Christ’s dictum that we must humble ourselves and become like little children if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:1-4). Frankly, it scares us because it means giving up power and control over our own lives.

Each article in this issue takes this idea and plays out its implications in different spheres.

Editor in chief and Reformed theologian Michael Horton examines what it looks like for an individual to live in light of the promises of God and how it changes their relationship to God from one of striving to one of resting. Todd Wilken, Lutheran pastor and host of the syndicated radio talk show Issues, Etc. shows how a promise-driven church looks different than one driven by personalities and power. Presbyterian pastor and Covenant Seminary president Bryan Chapell takes the same approach in his article on the family life: the promises of the gospel change the family dynamics in ways unimaginable for those who

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

are locked in power struggles with their spouses or children.

Readers who have ventured into a bookstore sometime in the last five years may think that this issue is a not so subtle swipe at Rick Warren’s best-selling books The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life. While there are similarities of topic and one sidebar does use The Purpose-Driven Life as a starting point, this issue of MR is not focused on Pastor Warren or his books. Instead, we’re more concerned to state positively one of the unique perspectives emerging from the Reformation that is especially applicable to our current situation: the promise of God (the gospel) is the power that creates and sustains our Christian life. The best illustration of this point is the tall ship that sets sail on the ocean. The sails must be filled with wind in order for the ship to move and arrive at its intended destination.

The promise of God is the wind that fills our sails in the pursuit of a life lived for the glory and enjoyment of God.

Eric Landry Managing Editor

Upcoming Issues: 2006 is the year of the “Romans Revolution.”

Spend a year with MR in a detailed look at the Book of Romans and its transforming message. Also stay tuned to our radio program, the White Horse Inn, as the hosts apply Romans to contemporary issues in the American church. Every week, visit www.whitehorseinn.org to download the latest program (MP3). If you are interested in purchasing bulk subscriptions to MR for your church or Bible study group, call us at 800-890-7556.

Staff ❘ Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Staff Writer Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Ben Conarroe, Proofreader Contributing Scholars David Anderson Charles P. Arand S. M. Baugh Gerald Bray Jerry Bridges D. A. Carson R. Scott Clark Marva Dawn Mark Dever J. Ligon Duncan Richard Gaffin W. Robert Godfrey T. David Gordon Donald A. Hagner John D. Hannah Gillis Harp D. G. Hart Paul Helm C. E. Hill Hywel R. Jones Ken Jones Peter Jones Richard Lints Korey Maas Mickey L. Mattox Donald G. Matzat John Muether John Nunes John Piper J. A. O Preus Paul Raabe Kim Riddlebarger Rod Rosenbladt Philip G. Ryken R. C. Sproul Rachel Stahle A. Craig Troxel David VanDrunen Gene E. Veith William Willimon Paul F. M. Zahl Modern Reformation © 2005 All rights reserved.

For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation P.O. Box 87 Bridgeville, PA 15017 (800) 890-7556 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org ISSN-1076-7169 SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $29 1 YR $22 1 YR $35 1 YR $52 1 YR $59

2 YR $52 2 YR $63 2 YR $94 2 YR $107

L

E

T

T

I found the roundtable discussion on the Emergent Church (July/August 2005) to be of immense benefit. As a church planter, it’s helpful to hear articulated a passion for a more Word and Sacrament-based ministry over against the current “purpose driven” craze. While there’s much in the Emergent Church movement that warrants careful scrutiny, the problems that the movement seeks to address are legitimate and worth our attention. As a young boomer, I identify with the weariness of the mega-church, consumer-based model that’s offered as “successful” ministry. How freeing and encouraging to know that there’s no Gnostic secret we need to find! We need only look to the centrality of the gospel and to biblical pastoring.

Paul L. Bankson Houston Lake Presbyterian (PCA) Warner Robins, GA

A few thoughts occurred to me while reading your excellent issue on the Emergent Church movement (July/August 2005). I find it interesting to have seen during my lifetime: The Boomers create “Contemporary Worship” to relive cherished “American Bandstand” memories on Sunday morning, then, Generation X (of which, being born in

E

R

S

1966, I suppose I’m a member) reject the perceived superficiality of that experience by looking backwards, often to the Reformation (I know a number of folks just about my age who have, after coming from other backgrounds, become Reformed or Lutheran), and now, the “Napoleon Dynamite” generation bringing its particular i-podded, random-access, “retro” slant to Evangelical worship.

Because we X’ers are a smaller group, our traditionalism will probably have less impact on the American church than the preferences of the Boomers’ children, who, though their parents produced fewer offspring than previous generations, will still prevail through sheer numbers. I suppose that Emergent, in whatever forms it eventually grows into, will be with us for a long time to come.

Looking at what has “emerged” thus far, what concerns me most is the way post-modern eclecticism tends to de-contextualize everything; disconnected atoms of diverse Christian traditions are “remixed” into the form that the individual worshipper finds most subjectively “meaningful”. And as we know, Subjective Christianity often has a hard time staying focused on the Object of the Cross.

Todd Rodarmel sums up well a problem of this generation when he says, “I think it’s the attention span issue. I mean my attention span isn’t that long.

And I don’t think a lot of people’s attention spans are that long.” One hopes that as these believers mature, their attention spans will lengthen, and their surface-skimming sips from different eras of church tradition will lead to longer drinks and a deeper understanding of what it means to join a

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

band that’s been together for 2000 years (no, not the Stones, but the Disciples).

Pete Zolli Via Email

My family and I were very discouraged to read Stephen Lownes’ “The Repatriation of Father” (May/June 2005). Mr. Lownes’ writing sounds like what we’ve heard for years in “therapeutic” churches. The theory seems to be if we don’t understand what a good father does, we won’t truly understand what the Bible means when it speaks of God as our Heavenly Father. Mr. Lownes says that it is the father who gives the child meaning for who he is and a sense of belonging. If the father doesn’t provide this for the child then he says they will treat others and themselves as if they don’t belong together. There will be little capacity to empathize and bond with one another. Quoting Paul Fairweather, he says, “fatherlessness is an illness”.

This is a hopeless message to people like me who didn’t have a good father, according to Mr. Lownes’ definition. His thesis would make one think that the problems in life (whether they involve our personal feelings of inadequacy or problems in relationships) are based solely upon father issues. This seems like a lot of psychobabble nonsense to me. It leads to “navel gazing” and always thinking about your problems and why they exist. I never heard Mr. Lownes mention the universal “sin problem.” Could it be that the reason there are times I don’t feel connected or have a sense of belonging is because of my own sin?

After becoming a Christian I realized it’s not my earthly father who I depend upon to give me meaning and a sense of belonging, but my Heavenly Father who bought me through the sacrifice of his own dear Son. My identity is “in Christ.” I’m so grateful that even though my father wasn’t one of the “good dads,” it didn’t keep me from understanding the love of God for me through Christ.

Thanks to MR for years of faithfulness to your readers. This is the first time we’ve ever been disappointed.

Petie English Orange County, CA

Stephen Lownes responds: To argue that since God is my Heavenly Father and gives me belonging, I didn’t really need an

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

earthly father for belonging is like arguing that since God gives bread to eternal life (John 6:50), I never needed earthly bread to sustain me. No. Our earthly dependency needs are a foreshadowing of our heavenly dependency needs. If we have never hungered for earthly bread, we won’t understand what hunger will mean in terms of righteousness or eternal life. And if we don’t understand our need for earthly belonging, whether by having experienced the glory of it being provided, or the deprivation of it being withheld, we won’t really believe in our need for heavenly belonging. If you understood that fatherlessness leads to hopelessness, you read correctly. Just as foodlessness leads to starvation.

You would not have known you needed to belong if it had not been first a real earthly need. You’re trying to make the heavenly need the only one. It is not. As the Reverend said in A River Runs Through It, “The poor without Christ are of among all men the most miserable. But poor with Christ, they are princes and kings of the earth.” Likewise, the fatherless without Christ are the most bereft people on earth. The fatherless with Christ truly belong.

Join the Conversation!

Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1725 Bear Valley Parkway Escondido CA 92027 760.480.0252 fax Letters@modernreformation.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters. Letters may be edited for content and length.

B E T W E E N | T H E | T I M E S T H E

G O O D ,

T H E

B A D ,

A N D

T H E

U G L Y

O N

T H E

A M E R I C A N

C H U R C H

S C E N E

PCA Churches Hit Hard

by Hurricanes

I

n the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Reformation Reforming” column on page 40 highlights the work of Desire churches across the southeast are checking in with their Street Ministries in New Orleans. This piece was written well respective denominations and assessing the damage done to before Hurricane Katrina devastated the neighborhood in their buildings and members. which Mo Leverett and his With a strong Southern base, team worked. Desire Street the Presbyterian Church in Ministries has been relocated America (PCA) seems to have to the PCA denominational been hit the hardest. headquarters near Atlanta, Although dozens of churches Georgia, and is making plans were affected in some way or to return to New Orleans as another, the PCA reports that soon as possible. six churches are in need of Unfortunately, the ministry outside support to continue headquarters and the homes operating due to loss of buildand belongings of all their ings, members, and income. staff members have been In the sanctuary of one of completely lost. these, First Presbyterian Contact information for Church in Gulfport the PCA, Orthodox Mississippi, a six-foot alligaPresbyterian Church, and tor was shot by National The Lutheran Church— First Presbyterian Church: Before Guardsmen. (See “before” and Missouri Synod are listed “after” pictures of First below if you or your church Presbyterian Church’s hiswould like to help those contoric sanctuary.) Support gregations affected by the from churches and individuhurricanes. als across the country continContact Information: ues to pour into the affected areas. To date, the disaster • Lutheran Church— relief arm of the PCA has disMissouri Synod: tributed $1.7 million. www.lcms.org (“2005 Although Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Information”) which made landfall near the • Orthodox Presbyterian Texas/Louisiana border, was Church: not as destructive as Katrina, www.opc.org/katrina.pdf there are still opportunities to • Presbyterian Church serve churches in west Texas in America: and east Louisiana. www.pcarelief.org Kent Needler’s “Always First Presbyterian Church: After

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

B E T W E E N | T H E | T I M E S

The Court and the Church oicing some of the same concerns as Protestants did over the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency four decades ago, Democrats in the Senate split in their support of confirming John Roberts as the seventeenth chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Would Roberts bend his rulings to conform to his Roman Catholic commitments? Roberts becomes only the third Catholic chief justice in the Court’s history. But the Catholic party seems to be enjoying a bit of resurgence: four of the current justices are Catholic—justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.

There have been only five other Catholics in the history of the Court, far outnumbered by Episcopalians (33) and Presbyterians (13), the two largest groups. Only one Lutheran ever served on the Court: the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. ■

V Jesus Talks for $16.99 e received an email recently from Cliff Rockwood, the president of TalkingBibleDolls.com announcing that Christian Book Distributors is marketing the dolls he and his wife devel-oped. Currently, Cliff and his wife sell a talking Moses doll and a talking Jesus doll. Each doll “stands 12 inches tall” and “are dressed in robes and sandals.”

What do they say?

Well, not surprisingly, the Moses doll will recite the Ten Commandments at the push of his felt heart. The Jesus doll has seven different scriptures recorded to “warm and comfort children.” The dolls were developed, Cliff says, “to combat the messages children often hear from music, television and entertainment.” More dolls are in the development stage. No word yet on whether the Moses doll’s recitation of the second commandment might inspire Cliff to pull production of the Jesus doll. ■

W

Pastors, Start Your Engines! ou’ve never seen trash-talk until a pastor succumbs to it. On a recent summer night in Odessa, Missouri, two pastors faced off in the pit area of the I-70 Speedway moments before racing in the “Pastors Racing League.” Jason Mossier, the pastor of Glorious Praise Tabernacle was decked out in a black t-shirt emblazoned with the words, “Got Hope?”

He was stopped by a menacing David Hurtado of Buncton Baptist Church: “Friend, you’ve got no hope with me racing tonight.” Of course, the trash-talking is hardly serious and the men shake hands before climbing into their loaned cars and roaring off with a “Jesus loves you.”

The Pastors Racing League, begun in the summer of 2004, is part community outreach and part good, clean fun. Now other tracks are taking notice and making inquiries to begin their own church leagues. Who knows, soon church softball and bowling teams might be making ways for the fastest growing and most popular sport in America: NASCAR. For more information, visit www.pastorsracingleague.com. ■

Y

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

In Memoriam: Gerhard O. Forde (1927–2005) fter the last issue of MR went to press we learned that respected Lutheran theologian Gerard Forde died on August 9, 2005. Forde served as a professor for almost forty years in a number of Lutheran institutions. From 1964 until his retirement in 1998 he worked at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Upon his retirement he said, “I have tried through the years to present the integrity and truth of the tradition, especially as found in Martin Luther, in a way that is interesting, compelling and exciting.” Forde was instrumental in Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, serving on a number of commissions and writing such papers as “Forensic Justification and Law in Lutheran Theology,” Justification by Faith, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VI (1985).

A graduate of Luther College, Luther Seminary, and Harvard Divinity School, Forde represented what was best about Lutheran scholarship and academic engagement. His publications include: The Captivation of the Will: Luther vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage (Lutheran Quarterly Books, 2004), On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (1997), Theology Is for Proclamation (1990), Justification by Faith: A Matter of Death and Life (1982), and The Law Gospel Debate (1969). A festschrift, By Faith Alone: Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde, (Eerdmans, 2004) has also been published. ■

A

Political Parties by the Numbers n the eyes of many Americans, both major political parties have a problem with their approach to religion More than four-in-ten say that liberals who are not religious have too much control over the Democratic Party, while an almost identical percentage says that religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party.

However, independents are more critical of the influence of religious conservatives on the Republican Party than they are of the influence of secular liberals on the Democratic Party. Most independents (54%) think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, while fewer (43%) think secular liberals have too much sway on the Democratic Party.

The public also has distinctly different perceptions of both parties when it comes to dealing with religion and personal freedoms. By a wide margin (51% to 28%) the Republican Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting religious values. By a nearly identical margin (52% to 30%), the Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices.

Yet the Democrats’ strength in this area is overshadowed by a sharp erosion in the number of Americans who believe the party is friendly toward religion. Only about three-in-ten (29%) see the Democrats as friendly toward religion, down from 40% last August. Meanwhile, a solid majority (55%) continues to view the Republicans as friendly toward religion.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17, 2005, among 2,000 adults, also finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. While much of this support comes from religious conservatives, these ideas, particularly the idea of teaching both perspectives, have a broader appeal. Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism. But an analysis of the poll also reveals that there are considerable inconsistencies between

I

SUM + of the = TIME

68% of “born again” or “evangelical” Christians claim that a “good person who isn’t of your religious faith” can gain salvation,

according

to

a

Newsweek/Beliefnet.com poll. Nationally, 79% of those surveyed said the same thing.

what people believe and what they want taught in the schools, suggesting some confusion about the meaning of the terms “creationism” and “evolution.”

Despite the growing national debate over the teaching of evolution, there is little evidence that school discussions of evolution are upsetting to students. Just 6% of parents with children in school say their child has mentioned feeling uncomfortable when the subject of evolution comes up at school. Comparably small numbers of parents say their children have expressed unease when the subjects of religion or homosexuality have come up at their child’s school.

The survey shows that large majorities of Americans believe that parents, scientists and school boards all should have a say in how evolution is taught in schools. But a plurality (41%) believes that parents rather than scientists (28%) or school boards (21%) should have the primary responsibility in this area.

The public remains generally comfortable with politicians mentioning their religious faith; in fact, more continue to say there is too little expression of religious faith by political leaders (39%), not too much (26%). However, a growing minority feels President Bush mentions his faith and prayer too much. The percentage expressing this view has doubled from 14% to 28% over the past two years.

(The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, August 31, 2005) ■ The Bible for a “Hurried and Harried” Generation on’t have time to read the Bible? A new version, the size of a notebook, is now available, which the editor (or would that be “redactor”?) says should take less than two hours to finish. The “100 Minute Bible” was

D

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

B E T W E E N | T H E | T I M E S

compiled over two years by Anglican clergyman, Michael Hinton. He produced it, he says, because too many people were unfamiliar with the “big plot” of Scripture and were too busy to do anything about it. To get through the Word in less than two hours Hinton had to cut out the Book of Ruth (which he felt awful about, it being one of his favorite books of the Bible), a lot of St. Paul, the Song of Songs, and all but two of the Psalms. Also gone are the long, boring genealogies and the Old Testament law books. Half of the book is given over to the Gospels, which were rewritten as one unified narrative. The release of the 100 Minute Bible for a society with “no time to read” was followed just a week later by a report stating the time the average individual spent watching television in the United States was up to over eight hours per day. ■ With God on Our Side? he Journal of Religion and Society published research in late September asserting that prosperous democracies with “higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion.” The author of the study, social scientist Gregory Paul, asserts that the United States is a classic example of the falsely held belief that religion is necessary for social morality. He compared the rates of violent crime, teen pregnancy, and other social ills in the U.S. with those of other (predominantly European) democracies and found that despite the common wisdom of the U.S. being a religiously devout society, the relatively godless European nations actually have better social indicators. His more controversial conclusion is that “the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills.” ■

T

About Between the Times his will be the last appearance of the Between the Times column in the pages of Modern Reformation. As the editors continue to assess how best to use this magazine to help answer your questions about God, this world, and your life in it, we decided that this column would fit better on our website. The Between the Times entries are too occasional at this point to post regularly on our website, but we hope to keep you up to date on the good, the bad, and the ugly in the American church through regular postings in the new year. ■

T

In case you haven’t tuned in yet…

You’ll find a special introductory CD of the White Horse Inn, Modern Reformation’s complementary radio program.

For over 15 years, the White Horse Inn has been dedicated to helping you “know what you believe and why you believe it.” We’d like to say thanks to our partners who have stood with us as we tackled topics from “How to Study the Bible” to “My Kids are Bored in Church.” The enclosed CD includes highlights from past broadcasts, a brief history of the program, and an introduction to the hosts of the White Horse Inn. We invite you to share the enclosed CD with a friend who would benefit from the White Horse Inn.

If you like Modern Reformation…

You will love the White Horse Inn! www.whitehorseinn.org

Modern Reformation gets a makeover in 2006 — Same quality content in a new design Your excellent feedback from our January survey has helped shape our decision to update the look of Modern Reformation in the New Year.

Expect to see the changes in our next issue!

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

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

O N

M U S I C

I N

T H E

C H U R C H

William Edgar

Twin Peaks: Bach and Handel at Christmas

O

ne of the dangers of artistic icons is not that we overrate them, but precisely

tion, Manfred F. Bukofzer, describes Bach as bringing the opposite, that we miss their true and deepest greatness. One of my about a “fusion of national styles,” and Handel as friends, himself a splendid painter and art historian, decided to see if the orchestrating a “coordination of national styles.” While Bach was certainly eclectic, he was able to take world’s most famous painting, the Mona Lisa, was the prevalent stylistic schools, the German, the really all that significant. So he brought a folding French, and the Italian, and bring them together chair to the Louvre Museum and sat in front of the to a higher level of unity. Handel, on the other mysterious woman by Leonardo da Vinci for an hand, was able to compose beautifully within entire day, just contemplating every aspect of the each of these national styles but without as much painting. His conclusion at the end of six hours: synthesis as Bach.

What should we make of these similarities and we have not begun to skim the surface of this magdifferences? Handel was, on the surface, more num opus!

The same holds for two great musical mas- urbane, writing for an international public. His terpieces usually heard at Christmas: The Christmas quintessential works are the monumental oratoOratorio by J. S. Bach, and Messiah by G. F. rios. Bach’s characteristic works are the cantatas Handel. So much is comparable about these two and the passions, both written in the context of extraordinary baroque composers, beginning church liturgy. His melodic style is generally intriwith their dates. Bach lived from 1685 to 1750, cate, complex, full of emotional depth. Handel is and Handel from 1685 to 1759. Both were not without these, but tends more toward drama German, from the same part of the country. Both and flare. And Bach was also a master of internawere Christians, trained in the church, writing tional baroque music. The truth is, both are uniprolifically for organ and choir. They were both versal in their appeal, and both represent the apex known as skilled improvisers. Oddly, both ended of the baroque in complementary ways.

Bach’s Christmas Oratorio is not a conventional up blind, having to dictate their final works. And they both had an amazing capacity to bring work. An oratorio was meant to be a sort of together various styles and use the result for their musical rendition of a biblical story, one which own purposes. Both were famous in their own owed much to the contemporary Italian operatic time, and yet, although they knew about each style in vogue. Though oratorios at first were for other, strangely, they never actually met, despite the Lenten season within the church, by the eighteenth century they were performed during at least one attempt to do so.

At the same time, Bach and Handel could not any season, and before paying audiences. Bach’s be more different. Handel was known interna- three great oratorios were from the earlier traditionally, whereas Bach’s circle of influence was tion, definitely conceived for the church, yet in smaller. In his respective chapters on Bach and celebration of three occasions on the church calHandel, a great musicologist of a former genera- endar. Specifically, they were written for two

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

churches in the one town of Leipzig, in one particular year, 1734–1735, at Christmas, Easter, and the Ascension.

The Christmas Oratorio is actually a series of six cantatas which are linked together by a common theme. Originally they were to be performed on each of the six special feast days between Christmas and Epiphany. They were composed with a technique called the parody, a reworking of previous works, some secular and some sacred.

This was a common practice in a day when originality was not a particular virtue. For the text, Bach likely collaborated with his favorite librettist, Picander. The music articulates the biblical accounts of Jesus from his birth to the coming of the wise men. As he does in his passions, Bach invites us to meditate on the meaning of the person and work of Jesus, whether in humiliation or in praise, or both. “Herrscher des Himmels, erhöre das Lallen … Höre der Hertzen frohlockendes Preisen … weil uns’re Wohlfahrt befestiget steht” (“Ruler of Heaven, hear our stammering tones … Hear our hearts’ triumphant praise … because our welfare is now assured”), intones the great chorus at the beginning of Part 3.

We are drawn into this humble praise because we have heard throughout the Oratorio all about the incredible dimensions of God’s love for us.

The writing and performing of Handel’s Messiah (would-be purists rule that there should be no article in front of the work, but nothing historically forbids calling it The Messiah) is in an entirely different setting: Enlightenment London.

It is surrounded by legend. The popularity of opera had waned in Great Britain, where Handel lived, and by 1741, when the work was composed, the man was virtually a pauper. Still generous even in poverty, he could not resist an invitation from Ireland to give a series of concerts, including the performance of a new work based on the life of Christ, for the benefit of three charities: the Society for Relieving Prisoners, the Charitable Infirmary, and Mercer’s Hospital, all in Dublin. The work was written in an astonishing twenty-four days. Upon the completion of the Hallelujah chorus, his housekeeper heard him exclaim, “I did think I did see all Heaven before me, and the great God himself!” (The tradition that had King George rise up for the chorus is less certain, though audiences around the world do stand up for it.) Handel’s last public appearance was April 6, 1759, at the Foundling Hospital in London, conducting Messiah. He died eight days later. Three thousand mourners came to bid him farewell at his funeral in Westminster Abbey.

Although credit for the libretto was taken by a certain Charles Jennens, there is considerable

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

doubt about that. Much of it is simply from the Bible, and probably chosen by Handel himself.

The work is in three parts. The first declaims the promise and birth of Jesus the Messiah, the second his death and triumph over all enemies, and the third the reality of the resurrection. One enduring piece follows another. Part 3 of Messiah, following the Hallelujah chorus, is the wonderful soprano aria, “I Know that My Redeemer Liveth,” from Job 19:25–26, with 1 Corinthians 25:20 appended. The final chorus, “Worthy Is the Lamb,” is a tour de force of worship and praise, based on Revelation 5:12–13.

Which of these two works, and which of these two musical giants is the greatest? Isn’t it marvelous we do not have to decide? Instead, why don’t we simply savor these two compositions over and over again, so that, like the Mona Lisa, they will continue to yield their riches?

Resources Fascinating, but true: The two best general resource books on Bach and Handel are published, respectively, by Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. J. S. Bach is arguably the best in the series Oxford Composer Companions, 1999. It is chock-full of rich and marvelous articles on every aspect of the composer’s life and works. But the equally useful encyclopedia on Handel is the Cambridge Companion to Handel, in the Cambridge Companion to Music series, published in 1997. These are both monuments of scholarship, yet with a human dimension that aptly characterizes the two giants.

The best general review of music in the British world is the BBC’s Music. The magazine publishes monthly, along with a new CD, usually from the archives of unpublished British performances.

Each issue features a cover story, something about a composer or a performer. Various articles follow, with topics ranging from music education to evaluations of orchestras, to personal testimonies.

The centerpiece is the “Composer of the Month,” a full coverage of a significant composer, his or her life story, the works, the biographies, and so forth. Extensive record reviews follow, and then comes a guide to opera, concert, and jazz performances around the world. Whether you are a professional or an amateur musician, this magazine is just about indispensable.

Seasonal Hymn Originally, the words “Break Forth, O Beauteous Heavenly Light” were from the ninth stanza of [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 2 4 ]

F A M I L Y R E S O U R C E S

F O R

M A T T E R S C O V E N A N T A L

H O M E S

Starr Meade

Keeping the Central Character Central

M

aybe I’m finally looking in the right places or maybe there’s a new wind of

sons come with simple visuals and with activity ideas that good substance blowing across children’s materials these days. Back when I are basic and uncomplicated, but would keep children directed a church’s ministry to children, I wrote everything our teachers engaged. Much of the material assumes that children are used. I wanted children to learn to see God as the able to read. No craft ideas or music are provided. main character of every Bible story. I didn’t want Desiring God Ministries offers three different sets of teachers to get to the end of the story and draw a lessons—God Always Wins, Things Hidden (kingdom moral, Aesop-style. I didn’t want teachers focusing parables), and The Call of God. on the good (or bad) example of the story’s human The curriculum I actually taught at my church character. Nor did I want children to conclude that was Upward Bound from VBS Reach Out Adventures God is an eternal blessing machine, who exists for (www.vbsreachout.com) Lessons came from the their benefit. Since most published curricula for primary memory passage, Philippians 2:3–11. children chose one of those three directions, I They gave rich doctrinal teaching about the person wrote our church’s material myself. and work of Christ and called those who belong to Now, years later, I am delighted to find other him to “have this same attitude in [them]selves, writers for children with the same concerns I had. which was also in Christ Jesus.” The material Anne McCain has written a small but excellent included excellent music, homework, and many booklet, The Supremacy of God in Children’s Ministry additional “extra credit” activities. One compo(CE&P, 2004) (www.cepbookstore.com). Ms. nent was a contest involving all the age levels.

McCain calls children’s teachers to use Bible stories Several teachers found the contest to be a distracfor the same purpose God had when he included tion to children and a headache for adults, so them in Scripture—to show who God is and what beware! VBS Reach Out Adventure rotates four he has done. I encourage churches to provide this themes. The title offered this coming summer is booklet for all children’s teachers in their congre- Genesis 1: Space Probe: An Awesome Genesis Adventure to gations. A tape called “Why a God-Centered Seek Out the Lord of the Universe.

Children’s Curriculum?” available through Desiring Great Commission Publications provides a God Ministries, addresses the same issues comprehensive curriculum— crafts, recreation (www.desiringgod.org). ideas, music, promotional materials—they offer it This past summer, I looked at three different all. The theme this past summer was “Faith Vacation Bible School curricula and found them Expedition,” and each lesson sought to show faith each to have a solid emphasis on seeing God in each as a gift God gives. Each story made biblical points story. Desiring God Ministries offers a curriculum about the nature of God. Each story also held up a designed for five-day Backyard Bible Clubs. The human character as an example to follow, but excellent lessons explain important doctrines very always pointed to God as the one who enabled simply, in a style easy for children to grasp. The les[ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 2 4 ]

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

THE PROMISE-DRIVEN LIFE

The

Promise-Driven Life W

hat are you driven by? The last time I was sick, it was a Saturday and I flipped on the TV for an extraordinary long time. The whole day was exercise equipment, how to become real-estate rich with no money down, and Suze Orman gave me her steps to financial security. As much as we all make sport of this sort of thing, it attracts us. That’s because we are “wired” for law: tell me what to do and I’ll get it done. That is not just the American spirit, but it is human nature. God’s law is inborn, in our conscience, part of our moral makeup.

The average person on the street will tell you that the role of churches and other religious institutions is to provide moral instruction—practical suggestions for successful living for the spirit, just as Suze Orman and Jake are there to help us out with our banking and bodies.

Even human imperatives can be enormously effective at laying out a course of action. If I am sufficiently motivated, a good diet-and-exercise plan can help. I’ve never even come close to being credited with any financial planning wisdom, but even I can recognize that if I follow half of what Suze says, I’ll be a much better steward. (I bought the video. Don’t ever leave your credit card within reach if you spend a Saturday watching TV. I nearly bought three separate gyms and a few things for my wife.) Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura don’t even have to be Christians to provide good, commonsense instruction in daily affairs. At least in terms of raw, general principles, non-Christians have law down. When Christians talk law (“How to … ”), nonChristians know that we’re speaking their language. I guess that is why such preaching and teaching dominates in the church today, since “law” (however watered

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

down) is perceived as relevant. However, it is only when we encounter God’s law in its full strength that we are knocked off our horse. Instead of being in charge, answering with Israel and Mount Sinai, “All this we will do!”, we find ourselves in the hot seat, the charade exposed, the spin unmasked.

Church shouldn’t be a place where the old self is revived for another week, but where it is killed and buried and the new self is created in the likeness of Christ.

Even as Christians, the law (in its third use) can direct us, but it cannot drive us, except to either despair or self-righteousness. Christians are not purpose-driven, but promise-driven. Purposes are all about law. To be sure, at least in Christian discourse, some promises may be mentioned, but they are usually dangled as the carrot for fulfilling the conditions that have been laid out. If you did that with the real Ten Commandments—something like, “Do this and you shall live” (Lev. 25:18), people would catch on: “That’s legalism!” But the therapeutic version (easy-listening law) flies under the radar: “Hey, here are a few helpful principles based on God’s instruction manual that will help you get victory in your life.” Although Rick Warren’s phenomenal best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Life, for example, differs from the usual pattern of self-help books by insisting that we were created for God

and his glory, it offers Fifteen Principles—all of which are imperatives (commands, or rather, suggestions) that promise a life of victory for those who follow them. That, I would suggest, confuses law and gospel. And that eventually leaves resentment of God, not delight, in its wake.

The fact that purposes are about law does not make them wrong. We need purposes! Nobody can live without goals. Yet purposes and goals are always something to be reached, to be achieved and be attained by us. They require tactics and strategies. All of this is fine as long as we realize that they are law, not gospel: commands and promises are both necessary, but they do different things.

Law tells us what we should do, whether we’re faced with the wrath of God (full-strength law) or by the fear of not reaching our full potential (the watered-down version). God’s promise, by contrast, creates true faith, which creates true works.

The church father Augustine defined sin as being “curved in” on ourselves. While imperatives (including purposes) tend by themselves to make us more “curved in” on ourselves (either self-confidence or self-despair), only God’s promise can drive us out of ourselves and our own programs for acceptance before ourselves, other people, and God. While the Christian life according to scrip-

My 40 Days of My life is a mess. People are talking about having purpose-driven lives. That sounds better than what I have now. So much of what I do does not seem to have a real purpose. Get in the car.

Go to work. Get frustrated in traffic. Spend too much time on the Internet when I get to work. (That started when they didn’t have enough for me to do. But now I don’t seem to be able to stop the habit.) Try to figure out whether it is a good day to talk to the boss. Shuffle paper. On a good day I get in some family time. But sometimes I think that’s coming apart. Where is it leading? I need to sit down and figure out how to get purpose in my life. People are talking about Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose-Driven Life. Maybe that’s what I need this new year.

Day 1 of Purpose I’ve got the book. And I’ve even started into it a bit. I signed the covenant and read a couple chapters. Inspiring. But how do I start? Each piece makes a certain amount of sense. It starts with

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

God. I am no accident. Even the details like my DNA were planned. So I couldn’t mess that up. Maybe it’s the same with my life as it is now. But then what kind of a fix will he offer for that?

If where I am now is no accident, then is there no fix for it?

Day 2 of Purpose I’ve read further. My life needs a driving force. Hmmm. He starts with a quote about a ship and a rudder (p. 27). That makes sense. Without a rudder, a ship is tossed everywhere. But is this the same kind of purpose he was talking about in the first two chapters? There he spoke of God’s purposes. I can’t mess those up. That was a relief. But now if I don’t have a purpose, it will mess up my life. That would explain my life pretty well.

Day 3 of Purpose I got home after a tedious day at work, and read ahead a few chapters. Okay, I found where it is leading. The purposes are

ture is purpose-directed, it is promise-driven. Both of our passages—Genesis 15 and Romans 4—bring this point home powerfully.

Wrestling with the Promise (Genesis 15) ven after his military victory and the remarkable event of being offered bread and wine with a blessing from Melchizedek, Abram’s greatest problem is that he has no heir, no one to carry on the calling that God has given him. His world, as he sees it anyway, is bleak. “After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, ‘Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great’” (Gen. 15:1).

Abram and Sarai had been called out of the barrenness of moon-worship in the city of Ur by God’s powerful Word, which created faith in the promise (12:1). There is the reward of the land of Canaan, but ultimately the whole earth (“father of many nations”), of which the land of Canaan will serve as a type. The New Testament even tells us that Abraham himself was looking through the earthly promise as a type to its heavenly reality (Heb. 11:10, 13–16).

Notice in this opening address, it is sheer promise. This covenant is not like the one that God made with Adam or with Israel, which made the promise conditional on their future obedience. It

E

was a gift to be received, not a task to be undertaken. God simply declares, “I am your shield. Your reward shall be great.” This is what ancient Near Eastern lawyers would have called a “royal grant.”

Yet Abram wonders, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezar of Damascus? … You have given me no son, and so a slave born in my house is to be my heir” (vv. 2–3). The empirical facts of the case—what Abram sees, appear to be overwhelming evidence against the testimony of the promise. Nevertheless, God counters again with the promise, offering the innumerable stars as a sign of the teeming offspring who will come from his loins. “And [Abram] believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness” (vv.

5–6). Abram’s response is not one of blind optimism or positive thinking. Abram finds himself believing.

Faith does not create; it receives. It does not make the invisible visible or the future present or hope reality. It receives that which is already given.

Grace precedes faith. It is not finally accepting the goodness of the world, or my own goodness, but receiving God’s goodness toward me in spite of the way things really are with me and with the world.

Further, there is no way around the forensic or legal character of this Hebrew verb, “declared.” It is

Purpose Journal supposed to be worshiping, loving, becoming like Christ, serving others, and evangelism (pp. 55–57). These are things I already do, to one degree or another. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But I wonder if things feel bad because all my time is not spent doing these things, or because I do them badly?

What then?

Sunday—A New Day I went back to church. I hadn’t made it much the past month or so. The holidays.

We did the corporate Confession and Absolution at the beginning of the service. We were told to reflect on our lives in light of the Ten Commandments. I thought of some stuff I’d rather not mention, stuff from the last week, or even this morning before church. This was different from the overall purposedriven thinking I had been doing when reading Warren’s book.

It was so specific. My Friday afternoon spreadsheet check mat-

tered. When I reflected on the Ten Commandments, words from the Small Catechism came to mind. The ones about how not coveting meant helping my neighbor to keep his property.

There were times my financial reports had done just that. But that seemed so insignificant on Friday, as I sat there thinking about how much nicer it would be to be at the Central Perk, “loving” as my life-purpose would have it.

Thinking of the Ten Commandments is jarring in comparison. Some of my boring “purposeless” moments were really what God wanted of me. I so easily lose track of both how I help and sin against my neighbor. Warren is right. One purpose in my life is to love. But being told that doesn’t make it happen. Or give me a good indication of how I do or do not succeed at doing so. The Ten Commandments and the words of the Catechism cut me to the quick. Instead of a vague sense that something is wrong and I don’t know how to manage changing it, I see clear[ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 1 6 ]

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

chashav, referring to a courtroom judgment, not a process. There Abram stood, wicked and helpless, and yet at the same time—by virtue solely of the promise declared to him, received by faith, was declared righteous. Commenting on this passage, Calvin reminds us, “In all ages, Satan has laboured at nothing more assiduously than to extinguish, or to smother, the gratuitous justification of faith, which is here expressly asserted.” Justification is at the core of the divine paradox: How can I have the assurance that I am accepted before God as righteous when I continue in sin? I see my life.

Nevertheless, by pronouncing Abraham just, Abram is just. The promise makes it so. If we can get this right in our understanding of justification, it will radically alter every other aspect of our relationship with God. Abram goes on to ask how he can know that God will give him the land and God responds in this vision by passing through the severed halves of animals (a treaty-making event of calling down judgment in case of violation) alone (vv. 12–21), foreshadowing the cross of Christ. As Paul would later attest in Galatians 3:19–20, specifically referring to this covenant with Abraham, no covenant could be more firmly anchored in God and his promise rather than in the faithfulness of the human partner than one that God swears by himself.

The preaching of the promise created justifying faith and this sign and seal now confirms and ratifies it. No wonder question 62 of the Heidelberg Catechism confesses, “The Holy Spirit creates it [faith] in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel and confirms it by the use of the holy sacra-

ly where I failed, and am forgiven.

Then the pastor preached from chapter eleven of the Book of Hebrews. A big weight came off my shoulders. By faith Abraham left his country. He left “not knowing where he was to go” (Heb. 11:8). In human terms, this must have looked “purposeless” at the time. The pastor pointed out how Hebrews was almost a whitewashing of the Genesis account. Abraham committed many sins during his life that Hebrews does not mention, among them lying and sleeping with Hagar to ensure he would have a son. The pastor said that when we got to heaven, our stories would get the same whitewashing job done to them.

God only has two ways of speaking, either condemnation for those who don’t believe, or commendation for his children by faith. There are no shades of gray. Either “Depart from me” or

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

ments.” Out of his confession of faith, Abram now continues his pilgrimage not on the basis of his physical vigor or Sarai’s fertility, but on the sole basis of the Word (again, in anticipation of his greater Son in his temptation). We will either rely on the visible realities we see or the invisible realities we hear preached to us, but we cannot rely on both. Unbelief is unavoidable: either we will doubt the credibility of the divine word in the face of life’s realities or we will doubt the credibility of this world’s so-called “givens” in the face of the divine promise. Faith ignores statistics. The world says we have to save ourselves (and it), offering countless strategies of striving, while the Word slays us in our self-conceit and raises us up together with Christ. God’s promise creates a new world out of darkness and void, fertile pastures of fruit-bearing trees out of the infertile soil of unbelief and ungodliness. This covenant is not a call to claim a future he can control, but to receive a future that God has spoken into being. Sarai’s infertile womb is the canvas upon which God will paint a new creation.

And they both get renamed. The promise gives them a new identity.

The Fulfillment of the Promise (Romans 4:13–25) hese passages from Genesis 15–17 form the backdrop for much of Paul’s teaching.

Israel had confused the promise-covenant made with Abraham and the law-covenant that Israel made with Yahweh at Sinai. Nobody can be justified by means of a law-covenant, Paul insists, but only on the basis of a promise-covenant. So

T

“Well done” (Matt. 25).

Hebrews also spoke of Rahab, who helped the Hebrew spies.

She was a prostitute. Her life was in no way conducted as it was supposed to be. Was her life spent in worshiping, loving, becoming like Christ, serving others, and evangelism? No. Rahab remained a prostitute even after hearing about the God’s mighty acts at the Red Sea. Yet when she met the spies, she helped them by telling a lie on their behalf. Her true faith did reveal itself in deeds when it counted, but her life was not otherwise what we would consider exemplary. In Hebrews, only her faith was remembered. Forever.

So what about my life? If Hebrews is any indication, I may not know the importance of what I am being used to do until the Last Day. I see my sin. But faith changes the picture for me. I

Paul brings Abraham to the witness stand as an example to us, not chiefly as someone whose holiness we can emulate (have you read the story?), but primarily as someone for whom the promise worked even though he didn’t. If Abraham could not be justified by his own righteousness, how can the rest of us who claim Abraham as our forefather?

Paul is contrasting law-logic with promise-logic.

The law is not the problem, but we are, and the law simply points that out. We know the law by nature; nobody has to teach at least its rudimentary principles to us (Rom. 1 and 2). When we turn to our common sense, reason, experience, or what we see in order to determine our relationship to God, it is always the law that has the last word.

Law-logic is entirely appropriate for those created in God’s image, designed and equipped to reflect God’s righteousness in every way, but it says nothing about how law-breakers can be saved from its judgment.

In Romans 3:21–26, Paul announces that lawlogic can only announce the righteousness that God is and which therefore condemns us who have failed to conform to it. Then we arrive at chapter 4. The question that throws law and promise into a sharp contrast is this: How does one obtain the inheritance of the heavenly rest? The barrier between Jew and Gentile is broken down not merely because the laws of ethnic separation are set aside but because law as a principle was never intended to be the way of inheriting the Abrahamic promise. “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessed-

ness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works” (vv. 5–6).

If we read Romans 4 in the light of Paul’s argument in Romans 10, the contrast is even clearer: law-logic ascends to bring Christ down or up from the grave, while gospel-logic receives Christ as he descends to us in the preaching of the gospel.

Because the law is innate (in creation) and the gospel is a surprising announcement (after the fall), climbing, ascending, attaining, doing whatever “ten steps” or following whatever “fifteen principles” is natural to us. It is not natural for us, like Abraham, to simply receive a promise, the hearing of which creates faith (Rom. 10:17). But God is never closer to us, says Paul, than when Christ is being preached to us (v. 8). Law-logic strives for what it sees and can possess; promise-logic sits down and listens to the covenant attorney reading the last will and testament, legally enacting the bequest.

Back to chapter 4, then, where Paul uses the same phrase—“through the righteousness of faith” (v. 13) that he will use in chapter 10, where he contrasts the law-logic of our ascent (“go get it”) with the promise-logic of God’s descent (“God gave it to you”).

So when it comes to how we are justified—that is, set right before God and made heirs of all the gifts that he has for us, Law and Promise represent antithetical means of inheritance. We know the difference between a contract (“I’ll do this if you do that”) and a bequest (“I hereby leave my estate to … ”).

That’s the difference here between employees and heirs (v. 4). Christ’s active obedience is the basis and his death is the legal event that distributes the

trust that God is working his purposes despite my inability to pull everything together.

The Lord’s Supper was served. They serve it every week. The message from the pulpit may change from week to week, but the table has a message that does not. What God has to offer is not primarily directions on how to achieve more for him, but a place at the table.

Rick Warren’s book begins with a great overall eternal perspective, much like Hebrews. But when he paints a portrait of a normal day-to-day Christian living, it doesn’t look at all like the Genesis struggles that the Hebrews characters went through.

Thank goodness Abraham and Rahab didn’t read Warren’s book before their trials. They might have thrown in the towel thinking God couldn’t use them until they had all their pistons

firing. But their lives were lived in confidence in what was unseen.

Rick Ritchie is a graduate of Concordia University, Irvine (B.A., Religion) and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.A., Church History). He has contributed to the books Christ the Lord: The Reformation and the Lordship Controversy (Baker, 1992) and Let Christ Be Christ (Tentatio Press, 1999), a Festschrift honoring Dr. Charles Manske. He runs a website at www.oldsolar.com, blogs at Daylight (www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php) and the theologica section at WorldMag blogs (http://theologica.worldmagblog.com/theologica/).

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

royal estate to all of his beneficiaries. God doesn’t just give us more good advice and exhortation, but the most amazing news in the world: “But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness” (v. 5).

The contrast is either/or again in verse 14: “For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect.” It’s not just that faith is also necessary, but that faith and obedience are absolutely antithetical as means of attaining that which the promise promises. The last part of the sentence (v. 15) reads, “because the law brings

speaks, whether in creation, providence, or redemption. God’s speech is “active and living,” Scripture says. The law is successful in condemning, driving us to despair of ourselves, to seek salvation outside ourselves. The gospel is successful in giving us faith to receive Christ and all his benefits. The gospel doesn’t just talk about a world that might come to be if we all just got our act together; it creates a new world where no capacity existed, and that is exactly the language that Paul uses in verses 17 to 22. God creates death and life by speaking.

This is why Paul returns again to the example of Abraham and Sarah as the Christ lived the purpose-driven life so that we would inherit his righteousness construction site of a new creation, produced by the promthrough faith and be promise-driven people in a purpose-driven world. ise. Here is the logic: “For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranabout wrath; for where there is no law there is no teed to all of his descendants,” both Jew and Gentile transgression.” It is the law that exposes our sin and (v 16). He adds, “As it is written, ‘I have made you the makes it utterly sinful, counting our wrongs not as father of many nations’—in the presence of the “mistakes,” “self-expression,” “foibles,” or even “not God in whom he believed, who gives life to the being all that we could be,” but as a wicked trans- dead and calls into existence the things that do not gression of God’s explicit command. The law exist” (v. 17). Just as God spoke the world into exisspeaks and the old self dies. The law cannot create tence without any contribution from the creation faith because it tells us what is to be done. It can only itself, God speaks a new world of salvation into announce what we have not done. The promise, by being. And just as Abraham is declared righteous contrast, tells us what has been done by someone by this proclamation then and there, Paul observes, he was declared then and there “father of many else. That is why it brings life.

Then in verse 16 Paul says, “Therefore it is of nations” despite all appearances to the contrary. faith that it might be according to grace, so that the “Hoping against hope, he believed that he would promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to become ‘the father of many nations,’ according to those who are of the law, but also to those who are what was said, ‘So numerous shall your descendants of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” be’” (v. 18). God’s saying makes it so. Salvation See the logic of the promise? Paul will add one comes, then, not by doing certain things but by hearing certain things and embracing them by faith, more pearl to the string later.

It is important to recognize that God’s promises which is itself created by the Spirit through the are not simply a pledge of a future reality, but bring preaching of the promise. Not all parts of the Word about that reality in the present. We see this clear- give life, as Paul says later in chapter 7 (v. 10): “And ly in the way Paul talks about the law doing certain the commandment, which was to bring life, I found things and the promise doing certain things. In to bring death.” If Paul were not a transgressor, the verse 14 of our passage he says, “For if those who law would pronounce him just, but as it is, it can are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the only bring death. The promise, by contrast, brings promise made of no effect, because the law brings about life—out of nothing.

This is the scandal of justification: How can wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.” The promise (or gospel) preached creates God declare us righteous if we are not inherently faith, just as the law actually brought about our righteous? Isn’t this a legal fiction? Doesn’t it make condemnation. The law not only warns us of God’s God a liar? But that’s like saying God cannot say, coming wrath, it “brings about wrath,” just as the “Let there be light” unless there is a sun to give it. judge’s act of sentencing a criminal actually effects God himself creates the conditions necessary for the the criminal’s condemnation. existence of his work. When he says, “Let there be Throughout Scripture we are taught that God’s light!”, the sun exists. When he says, “Let this Word is effectual: it brings about whatever God ungodly person be righteous,” “this barren woman

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

be pregnant,” “this faithless person embrace my Word,” it is so. When we really understand justification, we really understand how God works with us in every aspect of our lives before him. Christ lived the purpose-driven life so that we would inherit his righteousness through faith and be promise-driven people in a purpose-driven world.

He did gain the everlasting inheritance by obedience to everything God commanded, driven by the purpose of fulfilling the law for us, in perfect love of God and neighbor.

Relinquishing hope in the ordinary powers of human nature, he was given genuine hope in God for the first time. The future was now God’s future, not his own. He didn’t have to work it all out, plot and plan, scheme to bring about the inheritance (as he had done before). Thus, because of the power of the promise, not his own goals or resolve, Abraham could turn his eyes away from “his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (Rom. 4:19). “He did not waver,” again, not because of any inherent virtue of his faith, but because he “was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform” (v. 21). In other words, it was because of the object of faith, not the act of faith itself that Abraham could stand firm.

As anticipated above, Paul adds here another pearl in the chain of the promise-logic: If the inheritance comes by faith in the promise and not in the works of the law, then faith gives all “glory to God” (v. 20). Faith gives no glory to self, even to our act of faith. It is directed entirely to God and his promise. Faith is strong only to the extent that the promise is strong. Abraham knew that God could perform what he had promised. “And therefore ‘it was accounted to him for righteousness’” (v. 22).

Faith is defiance. Abraham’s faith defied every possibility that he saw, in favor of the “impossible” word that he heard. This is why “faith comes by hearing … that is, the word of faith which we preach” (Rom. 10:17). To trust in God is to distrust every other promise-maker. The world makes a lot of promises: “Try this product and you’ll be ….”

Constantly buying into new fads or makeovers as so many fig leaves to hide the seriousness of our condition, we hand ourselves over to marketers who persuade us that we can attain salvation, however we define that. Even the church can become a place where people get the idea that they exist merely to usher in the kingdom by serving on committees and being involved in a thousand programs. We have a lot of purposes, a lot of goals— some of them noble. Desperate to save ourselves and our kids from everything but the wrath of God, we fail to realize that, however watered down, these are all nothing but law rather than promise.

Eventually, we will become burned out on good advice. What we need is good news. ■

Michael Horton is professor of apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California).

Conclusion: What Really Drives You? n the concluding verses of this remarkable chapter (vv. 23–25, and the first verse of chapter 5), Paul writes,

I

Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not only for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

THE PROMISE-DRIVEN LIFE

The Promise-D I

’ve always been fascinated by 7-Up. As a beverage, it’s only drinkable when mixed generously with whiskey. But as an idea, 7-UP is genius.

7-Up is the stuff of advertising legend. In 1967, the 7-Up company launched the uncola advertising campaign. True to its name, this was an effort to market 7-Up as everything the typical cola wasn’t.

The Uncola strategy took a uniquely anti-establishment view for the soft-drink industry. 7-Up understood that in the 60s, political, recreational, and social issues boiled down to Them against Us. They were old, stodgy, conservative, the people the Beatles referred to in “Nowhere Man.” We, on the other hand, were hip, adventurous, iconoclastic, and fun-loving people. With its Uncola theme, 7-Up positioned colas as Them and identified itself with Us. 7-Up’s sales took off. No wonder; theirs was a surefire approach. Reinforce the negative brand perception of your competition—old, stodgy, conservative. Present yourself as the alternative—hip, adventurous, iconoclastic, and fun-loving.

Then in January of 2003, the makers of 7-Up pulled the same marketing trick again—on themselves. The new beverage was “dnL.” According to the advertising, “dnL is from the makers of 7-Up, but it is everything 7-Up isn’t.. . . It’s 7-Up flipped.”

You guessed it, they just turned the old 7-Up can upside down and filled it with something that looks and tastes like caffeinated antifreeze. Pass the whiskey.

The Unchurch n the mid-1950s, Robert Schuller was called to start a new church in southern California. He began by conducting a house-to-house opinion

I

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

poll: “[H]he asked the people what sort of a church they would want to attend. They wanted light, beauty, tranquility, beautiful music, friendly people, programs that suited their needs, sermons that weren’t boring—better yet, sermons that weren’t even sermons! They wanted a place where they could feel comfortable.” Schuller’s approach was less like 7-Up and more like Pepsi. He simply offered something sweeter and fizzier than the traditional church had on tap. Still, by 1980, Schuller was dedicating his nearly three-thousand-seat Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove. Not bad.

Also in 1980, a young Rick Warren was taking Schuller’s approach a step further, and entering real 7-Up territory. Like Schuller, Warren showed up in southern California with nothing. Like Schuller, Warren went door to door taking an opinion poll.

But Warren’s question was different. Schuller wanted to know what people liked in a church. Warren wanted to know what people didn’t like. He asked, “Why do you think most people don’t attend church?”

I asked myself, what kind of church are we going to be? And I decided, why don’t we be a church for people who hate church? There are plenty of good churches around here. Why don’t we have church for people who hate church? And so I went out and for twelve weeks I went door to door, and I knocked on homes for about twelve weeks and just took an opinion poll.

Warren went looking for people who hated church, and he found them. He heard four common complaints: 1) church is boring; 2) church

by TODD WILKEN

Driven Church members are unfriendly; 3) the church is preoccupied with money; and, 4) the church’s child care is inadequate. Warren set out to build his new church around these four complaints. “A church for people who hate church.” A church for the unchurched. The unchurch.

Twenty-five years later, Warren’s approach is standard operating procedure in American Christianity. There are unchurches everywhere you look. But this isn’t rocket science or revival.

Whether it’s soda pop or pop Christianity, the marketing works. It’s a surefire approach. Reinforce the negative brand perception of your competition—boring, unfriendly, and greedy. Present yourself as the alternative—exciting, friendly, and caring.

Arguing with Success What’s wrong with the unchurch? A lot. But I’ll name just two things. First, the unchurch tells the unchurched, “Yes, everything you’ve suspected about the church is true. The church is backward, lifeless, boring, and self-serving.” The unchurch survives and thrives by reinforcing the popular negative stereotype of the church.

Second and more important, a church built upon the complaints of the unchurched can never be anything more than what the public demands or expects. Water cannot rise above its own level. A building is no stronger than its foundation.

There is a better way. Yes, the unchurch has the people, the influence, and the affluence.

What could be better than acres of campus, tens of thousands of members, and packed worship centers? I know it sounds insane, but there really is a better way.

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

The church is not built upon the complaints or compliments of the world. The church has something better. The church is not built upon polls, planning, or even purpose. The church is built upon the promises of God. We know what it looks like when you build a church upon the complaints of the unchurched.

There are examples all around us. But what would it look like if the church were built upon the promises of God? The Promise in Person he Apostle Paul writes, “The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy— was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us” (2 Cor. 1:19–20).

Paul is saying that every promise God ever made is fulfilled in Jesus. Old Testament, New Testament, past, present, and future—Jesus Christ is the final “Yes” to every one of God’s promises.

All of God’s promises flow out of, and lead back to, the crucified and risen Jesus.

Paul is also saying that God is all about keeping his promises, in particular the promise to save sinners. “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). Moreover, this promise to save sinners isn’t just one promise among many; it is THE promise of God. All the other promises of God, whatever they may be, are really just a part of this greater, all-encompassing promise.

In other words, saving sinners isn’t God’s hobby, it’s God’s raison d’être. If God has a “thing,” as we used to say, this is it. In Jesus, God was doing his thing. Paul writes, “It pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1:19–20; see also 2:9). Paul isn’t simply asserting Jesus’ divinity here. He is telling us that the fullness of who God is was revealed in Jesus hanging dead on the cross for sinners. The cross and the resurrection are what the Triune God is all about.

Jesus is the promise of God in person. The promise to save sinners in Jesus is the promise that binds all of God’s promises together. This promise is the foundation of the church. Paul writes, “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:10–11).

Knowing this, the apostles conducted no opinion polls. They just preached Christ crucified.

T

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

The apostles didn’t ask what people liked or hated about church. They just started announcing that the promise of God had been fulfilled in Jesus: “We declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus” (Acts 13:32–33).

No matter how big or successful it becomes, a church built upon the complaints of the unchurched can never be anything more than what the public demands. However, the church built on the promise of God in Jesus is always everything God has promised. All the unchurch can ever do is meet the felt needs of the unchurched. It is held captive to their complaints. It is limited by their expectations. If the unchurch fails to live up to the expectations of the unchurched, it has nothing more to offer them.

The church can do more. When (not if) the church falls short, even when she lives up to the world’s worst stereotype, she still has the promises of God. In fact, such failure and disappointment is anticipated and expected in the church. The church doesn’t present herself as a place where all your expectations and needs are met. No, quite the opposite. The church is never surprised when sinners think, speak, and act like sinners, especially in her own ranks. The church is a sinners-only club.

The church is not here to silence the complaints of the unchurched, or to live up to their expectations, but to deliver God’s promise of forgiveness to sinners in person—the person of Jesus Christ.

Preaching and Practicing the Promise he unchurch offers the unchurched “lifeapplication” preaching. Why? This is what the unchurched expect. The unchurched always expect less than God gives.

The unchurched expect preaching that gives them practical solutions to their everyday problems.

The church has something better.

To begin with, the church doesn’t preach to the unchurched. The church doesn’t really care whether someone is churched, unchurched, underchurched, overchurched, mischurched, dischurched, prechurched, dechurched, or rechurched. The church preaches to sinners—sinners who are unchurched and sinners who aren’t; sinners who are seeking and sinners who aren’t; sinners who are unbelievers and sinners who aren’t.

We know what sinners want to hear. We want to hear about ourselves. We want to hear that God loves us just as we are. We want to hear how we can improve our lives and ourselves. We want to hear that we can do it—with a little help from Jesus. This is why the unchurch preaches so much

T

about the Christian and so little about the Christ.

But what do sinners need to hear? First, we need to hear what God’s law says about us: As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known.

There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:10–20) Then we need to hear what the gospel says about Jesus: But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an atoning sacrifice by His blood. (Rom. 3:21–25) In her preaching, the church points sinners outside themselves (their potential, their plans, and yes, even their purpose), to Jesus. The church preaches the Christ, not the Christian. The church has something better to say to sinners than what they want or expect to hear. Even at the risk of being considered irrelevant, the church tells sinners what they need to hear. Paul was well aware of this risk, even in his day: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews

request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:18, 21–24) The world will never consider Christ crucified relevant. The unchurched will never tell us that they want to hear the message of the cross. This is why the church doesn’t ask people what they want to hear.

The church preaches what people need to hear.

The unchurch offers the unchurched lots of things to do. The typical unchurch is a very busy place. Why? This is what the unchurched expect.

The unchurched always expect less than God gives. The unchurched expect the church to be like any other volunteer organization. The church has something better.

The church isn’t interested in giving sinners something to do. The church is interested in giving sinners the things God has done for them. The church isn’t interested in keeping Christians busy.

God has given us our families, neighbors, and work to do that. The church is where God does his work.

Baptism, Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper are God’s work. The church calls Baptism, Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper “the means of Grace” and she means it. They are the tangible, audible, and edible Word of God. They are the tangible, audible, and edible promises of God. Through these means God does his work for sinners. Through these means God keeps his promise to forgive sinners.

Through these means God keeps the church on her foundation, Jesus Christ. Through these means God builds the church up to her full stature in Jesus Christ.

The world will never consider Baptism, Absolution, or the Lord’s Supper important. They will always value man’s work more than God’s work. The unchurched will never tell us that they want these gifts. This is why the church doesn’t ask people what they want. The church gives people what they need. The promises of God are so much better than the complaints of the unchurched, aren’t they?

In the words of Samuel Stone, the world will always regard the church with “a scornful wonder.”

Ask the unchurched what they hate about the church and they will tell you. But don’t build the church upon what they say. Build the church upon what God says.

When the church is built on the promises of God, she will never be what the world wants or expects. But she will always be what God has

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

promised. When the church is built on the promises of God, she will never appear relevant or useful to the world. But she will always be able to give the world the one it needs: the crucified and risen Jesus. ■

Todd Wilken is host of the radio program, Issues, Etc. in St. Louis, Missouri. He is also author of the booklet, Same-Sex Marriage: Facing the Question.

In the preceding article, Mr. Wilken has taken an excerpt from Michael Gershman’s Getting It Right the Second Time, Remarketing Strategies That Have Turned Failure into Success (New Delhi, India: Roli Books, 2000), available November 12, 2002, at Business Standard, www.business-standard.com/strategist/ story.asp?Menu=14&story=3308. The information on Robert Schuller is taken from Michael and Donna Nason, Robert Schuller: The Inside Story (Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 21. The quotation from Rick Warren was taken from public remarks at the Pew Forum’s Faith Angle Conference on Religion, Politics and Public Life, “Myths of the Modern MegaChurch” at Key West, Florida, available May 23, 2005, at pewforum.org/events/index.php?

EventID=80.

Family Matters [ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 1 1 ]

that person to choose his godly response. For some of the stories, it seemed to me that the point highlighted, while a biblical and a good point, was not really the main point of the story. (For example, I’m not sure that “God gives Daniel faith to obey” would be the main point of the story of Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a statue.)

Also, I found the unifying connections between stories difficult to see sometimes. Overall, though, Great Commission offers a trustworthy curriculum available at www.gcp.org. GCP rotates three themes. The theme for this summer is The King Is Coming: One Continuous Story of God’s Covenant Love in Five Parts.

I thank God for those teachers and writers who create materials that treat the Bible with integrity and that keep God central in stories retold for children.

Preaching from the Choir [ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 1 0 ]

schwacher Geist” (“Awake, My Weak Spirit”). Based on Isaiah 9:2–7, it was first published in Rist’s Himmlische Lieder (Heavenly Songs) in 1641. The melody was by Johann Schop (d. 1665), a skilled court musician who eventually directed the municipal music in Hamburg and was organist at the St. James Church in the same town. Several of his tunes, including Ermuntre dich were represented in Rist’s volume. The best-known version is Johann Sebastian Bach’s, originally written for Part 2 of the Christmas Oratorio. It is found in all the better hymnals today. Its inner harmonies and intricate voice leading are surpassed only by the dramatic way in which the words are set.

Break forth, O beauteous heavenly light, and usher in the morning; O shepherds, greet that glorious sight, our Lord a crib adorning.

This child, this little helpless boy, shall be our confidence and joy, the power of Satan breaking, our peace eternal making.

Dr. Edgar’s quotation of Manfred F. Bukofzer is taken from chapters 8 and 9 of Music in the Baroque Era (New York: W. W. Norton, 1947).

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

THE PROMISE-DRIVEN LIFE

The

Promise-Driven Family

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”— which is the first commandment with a promise—“that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (Eph. 6:1–4)

by B RYA N C H A P E L L N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

As simple as these words appear, mothers and fathers in the decadent culture of ancient Ephesus may have been tempted to a bit of exasperation with Paul. The words of instruction are so few!

Only one sentence actually gives any direct instruction to parents. And, as a further complication, this sentence is addressed only to fathers.

Surely parents in that Roman world were not unlike us in wanting a healthy selection of childrearing manuals at their ancient equivalent of a bookstore at the mall. How could anyone in that age of rampant ungodliness raise children properly with so little guidance? Parents who have to raise children in this age will ask the same question.

With all the cultural perils facing our children, and with all the consequent questions facing us, does the Bible sufficiently equip parents? We cannot answer yes unless we consider the building blocks undergirding a child’s nurture that the apostle laid prior to framing these few words of parental instruction. The Bible’s short instruction to parents follows a host of instructions for the household of faith.

This structure should remind us that God has clear expectations for the relationships that form the context and foundation of biblical child rearing.

A Love Relationship with the Lord— The First Building Block aul’s instruction to parents grows out of a larger discussion of how the church should operate. This earlier foundation is not inconsequential. It means the Lord expects biblical parenting to occur in a church context. We can learn much about parenting from those in the church— through the preaching of the Word, the example of elders, and the advice of other Christian parents.

Beyond these practical implications, however, there is a more fundamental reason why the Bible teaches parenting in a church context. God’s true church is made up of those whose hearts are committed to Christ (Eph. 3:16–21). The formal relationship one has with a church should be indicative of one’s personal relationship with God. This means that a deep, personal relationship with the Lord is the most basic building bock of Christian parenting. A Christian parent’s first priority and most important duty is to love Jesus.

To more fully sense the importance of the tie between God’s love and good parenting, consider how Paul begins his instruction to Christian households: “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph. 5:1–2, italics added). We learn how to love others by understanding how God loves us as his children.

His love for us becomes the pattern for the way we

P

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

love. In this way our own children become the most direct beneficiaries of our deep, personal understanding of God’s parental care.

To prepare for our own parental care, Paul expresses God’s love in parental terms over and over in his letter. Even his opening greeting stresses God’s parental love: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. (Eph. 1:2–5, italics added) These loving words demonstrate Paul’s zeal to root our parental practices in a solid understanding of our relationship with our heavenly Father. There are at least two reasons that a love relationship with God is a necessary foundation stone for biblical parenting. The first relates to parents’ need for a model, and the second to our need for security.

Our Heavenly Model e tend to become our parents. For good or ill, parental models significantly shape us. Abusers raise abusers, alcoholics raise alcoholics, well-adjusted parents raise well-adjusted children. Of course there is comfort in the equation only if you are on the positive side. Fear and despair press in, however, if you recognize your own parents’ modeling was inadequate or horrid. How can we hope to raise our children well if our own models are broken? The words of the apostle rescue Christian parents raised in deprived situations from hopelessness by reminding them that they are on the positive side of the child-development equation.

The Father of all Christians is God. The passage quoted above says simply that God is “our Father.”

The obvious grace in this simple statement is more profound to some of us than others. The truth that God is our Father frees us from our past. Because we have a heavenly parent, we are not bound to the negative patterns and practices of our earthly parents.

We are not destined to repeat their errors because theirs is not the only imprint on us. God provides us with another parental model as well—himself.

The reality of the heavenly Father’s love can be more real, more powerful, more motivating than biology and learned behavior. For this reason an intimate relationship with him does more to estab-

W

lish what we will be as parents than any other single factor in our existence or background. The realization that the Father we perceive our God to be largely shapes the parent we are able to be challenges us to make sure that our understanding of, and consequent relationship with, our God is biblical.

Our Heavenly Security hen the apostle says that God has been a Father to us since before the creation of the world, Paul directly reinforces the security we must have to be effective Christian parents (Eph. 1:4–5). Our greatest failings as parents typically result from our insecurities. I recognize this in myself when I confess what usually upsets me most with my children. What makes me angriest? Too often it is what my children do that embarrasses me or makes me look bad. In such moments I find that I can easily discipline out of my concern for me rather than out of primary concern for my children’s welfare. At its root such selfish discipline is a fear of the rejection of people outside my family. Buried beneath my anger is the fear that others will not think as highly of me as I desire—that I will be relegated to the sidelines of their acceptance or respect.

Conversely, I recognize it is often difficult for my wife (and for many other women) to discipline because of the fear that a child will be upset with her or reject her. Fear of a child’s getting angry, turning a cold shoulder, or spurning a mother’s love has stifled many a mom’s discipline—and stirred many a child’s rebellion.

Of course these are not gender-specific traits.

There are plenty of fathers who will not discipline for fear of a child’s rejection and many mothers who serve their own egos through managing the performance of their children. My point is not that both mothers and fathers have flaws but that insecurity can affect the behavior of us all. If we are more concerned about how people outside the family view us, we tend to overreact in discipline. If we are more concerned about how those within the family view us, we tend to underreact in discipline.

The sum of these truths is that anxious parents do not make good parents. So the Bible deals with the source of our anxieties by assuring Christian parents that God dearly loves us and has so loved us since before the creation of the world. Once this assurance takes deep root in a mother’s or father’s heart, it helps minimize the concern for protecting self that can be the hidden but driving motive behind our parenting decisions. Our security in our relationship with God frees us to parent for our children’s good rather than for our own—giving to them our security rather than taking it from them (see Eph. 5:2).

W

A Love Relationship with a Spouse—The Second Building Block he necessity of parenting from personal security further explains why Paul talks about the relationship between spouses before discussing parenting (Eph. 5:22–33). He is concerned for more than biological order. His words establish a relational priority that grounds biblical parenting. My relationship with my wife should so confirm her personal security with the Lord that she can afford to do what is best for our children, even if that action threatens a child’s acceptance of her. My wife’s relationship with me should be such a reinforcement of my own security with the Lord that I do not need to discipline my children for my ego’s sake. A healthy relationship between husband and wife provides the spiritual support that grounds discipline in love for the child rather than concern for the parent. God pours his love for the children through parents whose priorities have developed within a context of personal confidence and security. Thus a second building block for a child’s nurture is the love the parents share for each other.

The Bible says much about how husbands and wives should love before saying a little about how they should parent (Eph. 5:22–33). The implicit message is that a healthy relationship between a husband and wife is a prerequisite for biblical parenting. This does not mean that single parents cannot do a good job of raising children, when, through the providence of God, they have sole charge, but this is not the regular pattern of Scripture. The reasons that God desires tightly bonded parents are more than the pragmatics of having a united front when it comes to discipline (though such shoulder-to-shoulder responses are an important indication to a child of parental unity). More important is what that unity itself should accomplish.

Through the completing of a man and a woman that a healthy marriage nurtures, a child learns a healthy pattern of intimacy, not just with another person but with God. What, after all, is the ultimate goal of the submission of a wife to her husband’s authority and the sacrifice of the husband’s prerogatives to the needs of his wife? The ultimate aim is to bring the reality of Christ’s love into the marriage. To the extent that parents enable each other to learn and love Christ more, they also establish the model of intimacy that ultimately teaches the child what intimacy with the Lord means.

Expressions of love for one another in the home are a direct path to understanding God’s love for each of us. As a result, it is important to resurrect the time-tested and biblically corroborated truth that

T

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

the greatest earthly gift you can give your child is a loving relationship with your spouse.

Because the relationship between parents is a primary conduit of God’s grace into a family, a parent who slights his or her spouse for career advancement, unnecessary economic advantage, or even ministry concerns ultimately hurts the child. The eternal consequences of selfish advancements bought at the expense of a healthy home cannot be underestimated. Not even the pursuit of ministry at the expense of a family will serve God’s purposes, since ministries are destroyed by broken families.

For the good of a child, the love of one’s spouse must even take precedence over the relationship of the parent with that child. A parent who pours affection and attention into children at the expense of honoring a spouse may seem to be serving the children, but such priorities actually jeopardize the ultimate welfare of children. Because God intends for the parents’ relationship to bring the reality of Christ’s love into the home, a spouse who sacrifices the marriage—even out of apparent concern for the child—jeopardizes the spiritual welfare of that child. When the parents’ love for each other takes a backseat to any earthly concern—even a child— the child’s ability to know the character of the heavenly Father is hampered.

By these standards the Bible does not encourage parents to slight their children for their own selfish pursuits and enjoyments. Parents are simply not permitted to neglect each other by directing the love that God intends for their spouse to their child.

A loving relationship with God and a loving relationship with a spouse form the foundation of biblical parenting. When we assume the responsibilities of biblical parenting, we subject ourselves to the consequences of these truths. This means we commit ourselves to honoring God and our spouse for the sake of children even when such commitments prove to be trying and difficult.

Understanding that parenting grows out of more foundational relationships can give us important comfort. The Bible’s emphases show that the daily context of Christian living is the most powerful tool of child rearing, rather than a precise set of right or wrong parental behaviors. A child’s nurture is not determined by a list of rules that we mysteriously divine from Scripture’s relatively few statements on specific parenting practices. This conclusion flies in the face of some handbooks on Christian parenting that teach there is only one correct way to affirm or show affection or discipline. Some have even claimed biblical proof for the proper feeding times of infants. Such instructions defy the liberties of Scripture and deny the dignity of individual differences. This kind of

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

teaching also seems to imply that children are likely to be ruined if we make a single mistake in some particular moment or aspect of a child’s upbringing.

This is precisely what Scripture does not attest.

We will all make mistakes as parents. This does not automatically make us bad parents nor immediately threaten the ultimate welfare of our children. There are actions and practices through which I know my wife and I have made mistakes with our children. There have been times of improper discipline, impatience, and poor judgment that I hope their young minds will not recall.

Still, Scripture does not require me to believe that a momentary error will wreck my children. Were I to believe it could, then I would become paralyzed for fear of doing something that would forever ruin them; or I might refuse ever to examine my parenting patterns lest I have to confess that I had warped my children by past mistakes. Because God places the foundations for biblical child rearing in a spiritual- and marital-relationship context, no single act of well-intentioned parenting is determinative of a child’s future. The grace that a Christian heart embraces and that a Christian’s marriage should foster allows Christian parents the privilege to fail, to seek forgiveness, and to try again. The Father’s unconditional, eternal love erases the dread that a momentary lapse or a mistake in judgment will ruin our children or destroy our own relationship with him. This grace of God frees Christians to parent without second-guessing every act of discipline or feeling the need to deny past errors.

The Responsibilities of the Child—The Third Building Block he fact that we can make mistakes and still be good parents does not mean that God, therefore, releases us from the responsibility of conscientiously promoting godly character in our children. The Bible not only reveals the relationships that form the foundation of Christian parenting; God’s Word also describes the responsibilities that should direct the actions of both parents and children.

We will parent well only if we know what God wants to nurture in our children. What does God expect children to do? The simple answer is that he expects them to obey (Eph. 6:1).

Special qualifications accompany the obedience God requires of children. The Bible tells children to submit to their parents “in the Lord.” This means that a child should do whatever parents require so long as their instruction is not contrary to God’s will or Word. However, Scripture also makes it clear that this submission is to be more than just doing what a parent requires. Sullen,

T

angry, begrudging fulfillment of duty is not acceptable. An obedient child must also honor father and mother (Eph. 6:2). Children must submit in action and attitude to their parents’ instruction.

The Apostle Paul supplies two reasons for such submission. First, children are to obey “for this is right” (Eph. 6:1). What a peculiarly simple and, at first glance, unnecessary statement. Despite our temptation to retort, “Of course,” there is great wisdom in the apostle’s simple affirmation of the rightness of a child’s obedience. We sense the importance of his remark when we wonder whether to make our children obey. Because God knows that we parents are easily torn by our love for our children and our insecurities about ourselves, he graciously speaks plainly. When our hearts wrestle with the question, Should I insist my child obey?

God answers, Yes, “for this is right.” When a young mother cannot bring herself to discipline her child, when a father will not provide the time or attention to discipline, when the latest child-rearing book has made you question whether you should just ignore some improper outburst from your child—in each of these moments we need the straightforward simplicity this Scripture supplies.

The apostle explains why there is a relationship between loving our children and disciplining them when he gives the second reason for children to submit to their parents. Not only is it right for our children to obey, it is good for them (Eph. 6:2–3). God promises obedient children blessing (“that it may go well with you”) and safekeeping (“that you may enjoy long life on earth”). This last statement does not guarantee that obedience will ward off all disease and accidents. It is rather a repetition of the general promise of well-being that accompanies the fifth of the Ten Commandments, telling children to obey.

(Note, however, that the promise also has a literal fulfillment in that children who honor God with their lives will be kept safe for eternity on this earth when it is renewed by Christ’s return.) In effect, the apostle warns that a disobedient child endangers himself physically and spiritually.

The Responsibilities of the Parent—The Fourth Building Block he final building block in the foundation of child rearing is formed from the expectations God has for parental obedience.

Simply stated, parents are to raise their children.

The Bible’s words carry an implicit understanding of who is to do the raising of a child. Fathers and mothers are those given parenting instruction (Eph. 6:2–4), not grandparents, not paid babysitters or servants, not institutions outside the home.

This does not mean the Bible forbids parents ever

T

to utilize the services of others in fulfilling the biblical responsibilities of child care. Still, the words of Scripture challenge all parents to make sure they are the chief caregivers.

The fact that the parenting God requires is a spiritual discipline helps explain the wording the Apostle Paul uses to instruct parents. Paul addresses “fathers” with his only specific instruction for child rearing (Eph. 6:4). This is not because the apostle thinks mothers have no role in child rearing. He clearly identifies the mother’s importance when he instructs children to “honor your father and mother” (6:2). However, by addressing the spiritual head of the home directly, the apostle underscores the spiritual challenge and significance of biblical parenting. Because the Bible holds the spiritual head of the home accountable for the nurture of children, the task has obvious spiritual priority. While a man may need to delegate childrearing responsibilities, he cannot turn over all child-rearing decisions and activities to another. A father remains biblically responsible for the nurture of his children.

Having laid the foundation of relationships and responsibilities on which God expects us to build our parenting, the apostle next issues his instructions for Christian parents through the comments he directs to fathers (Eph. 6:4). Through these imperatives God tells us how his expectations for our children should translate into parental action. These divine commands to which Christian parents must submit themselves come in both negative and positive form—we are told what not to do, and then what to do.

What Parents Should Not Do—The Fifth Building Block ubmitting ourselves to our children’s welfare means first that Christians must not parent with unbiblical patterns or priorities. The Bible says, “Do not exasperate your children” (Eph. 6:4). Understanding the special term Scripture uses for this negative instruction unfolds its broad implications for parenting. The Old Testament usage of exasperate (in the Greek translation with which Paul would have been familiar) does not simply refer to frustration, anger, or anxiety. The term describes God’s own just anger over Israel’s idolatry. The exasperation described here refers to a righteous resentment of actions or attitudes inconsistent with one’s faith commitments. Thus an exasperated child is one who has a right to be provoked because of the inconsistencies between a parent’s stated beliefs and that parent’s actual behaviors.

Our children have a right to be upset with us when our parental actions conflict with our spiritual values. We do not have to guess what values the

S

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

apostle has in mind in this passage of the Bible.

Preceding verses stress the importance of using authority based on the example of Christ, expressing love patterned after the sacrifice of Christ, and showing respect out of reverence for Christ. What would be inconsistent with these values that would cause exasperation in children?

• Authority that requires submission but submits to none, as when a mother tells a child to quit whining by whining at him, or when a father compels self-control by throwing a temper tantrum.

• Love that requires sacrifice but seeks self, as when a mother pushes for a child’s success to affirm her own worth, or when a father punishes to enforce behavior that secures reputation, adulation, or service for himself.

• Respect demanded at the expense of individual dignity, as when a mother shames a child into obedience, or when a father exerts control by comparing the

child with others inside or outside the family.

Whether discipline takes the form of manipulative guilt trips, shaming silent treatments, or abusive denials of a child’s worth, the home that rules by condemnation undermines biblical obedience.

The essence of biblical parenting is recognizing that we are the dispensers of God’s grace into our children’s lives. Our children learn to identify and reverence God’s character through the way we treat them, both in moments of profound pride and in times of intense disappointment.

Godly parenting should reflect a deep understanding of our Lord’s grace. Out of respect for the individual gifts God has granted my children, I must submit myself to the responsibility of discovering ways to discipline them that honor the unique ways God has made them and plans to use them. Biblical parenting requires me to respect the dignity of my children’s differences, to use my

The Promise in

O

n the surface, their situations and standing in Israel could hardly have posed a sharper contrast. Zechariah was an aged man, an honored man, a privileged priest descended from Aaron, standing before the incense altar in the holy chamber of Israel’s temple in the holy city itself. Mary was a young unmarried woman in backwater Nazareth, linked to the royal line of David, to be sure, but kingdom hopes seemed dashed as God’s people languished under the heel of Herod the Idumean, puppet of pagan Rome.

Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth had waited many long, sad years for a child, but were barren. Mary looked forward to her marriage to Joseph and, if God so pleased, motherhood.

Yet God sent his own intimate attendant, the majestic Gabriel, from his heavenly court to bring to each, to Zechariah and to Mary, good news of a son soon to be born. Zechariah’s son would be the forerunner, preparing the Lord’s people for the arrival of their God. Mary’s son would be the Son of the Most High, the promised descendant of David, whose kingdom would never end.

On the surface their questions in response to this astonishing news sound similar. Zechariah, trained in caution from decades of disappointment, sought confirming evidence: “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years” (Luke 1:18). Mary, mystified at the promise of conception without marital consummation, verbalized her confusion: “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:35).

Yet the hearts behind those questions were, in fact, galaxies

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

apart. Despite Zechariah’s piety (Luke 1:6), at the crucial moment the old priest’s question sprang from a heart that refused to rest in God-sent news that seemed too good to be true. He deserved the heavenly messenger’s rebuke: “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God … sent to bring you this good news…. You will be silent until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time” (Luke 1:19–20). Mary, on the other hand, despite her bewilderment received a Spirit-inspired prophetic blessing as “she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord” (Luke 1:45). Ironically, Zechariah’s question received an answer: nine months of muteness. Mary’s question did not, other than in cryptic creation and tabernacle metaphors, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35; cf. Gen. 1:2; Exod. 40:35). Yet, with or without explanation, Mary believed (as ancient Abraham and Sarah had not, at first) that “nothing will be impossible with God,” and therefore she acquiesced to the Lord’s will for his little servant (Luke 1:37–38; cf. Gen. 18:14).

God promised the impossible. Mary believed. Zechariah did not. So Mary sang while Zechariah stayed mum (until God’s word came true, when he too joined to praise the promise-keeping God, Luke 1:64–79).

Mary’s Magnificat (named from the first word in Jerome’s Latin version, “magnifies”) is a confession of faith offered from a heart not so much “driven” as drawn forward by promises, into a future in which the mighty and merciful God sets right what is now

authority selflessly, and to affirm their worth without seeking to inflate mine. As my children have grown older and as their maturing involves issues more complex and prolonged than in earlier years, I have discovered how important it is simply to resolve to love them—and to express my resolve even when we differ. In short, more and more I realize that my parenting must remain consistent with my understanding of the grace God extends to me. I must not exasperate my children by disciplining for my sake (rather than theirs) and without regard for the unique ways God has made and is maturing each of them.

What Parents Should Do—The Sixth Building Block od does not tell us merely what not to do for our children’s welfare. Thankfully he tells us what to do as well. Scripture instructs

G

Christian parents to “bring them [children] up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

The great theologian John Calvin communicated the import of this “bring them up” phrase by translating the words as “let them [children] be fondly cherished.” This interpretation reflects how the Bible uses these nurturing terms elsewhere. The Apostle Paul uses a similar kind of wording earlier in this passage when saying a husband should cherish his wife as much as he “cares” for his own body and just as Christ does the church (5:29). Paul now intensifies these concepts in his instruction to fathers regarding the care of their children. The effect of this wording is that the apostle tells each father to care for his child as deeply and intensely as possible—as much as he “cares” for his own flesh.

The biblical use of these terms has deep theological significance for parenting. As the first husband, Adam, “cared” for his wife as flesh of his flesh

the Magnificat wrong. With Elizabeth’s greeting (“the mother of my Lord,” Luke 1:43) still ringing in her ears, Mary’s meditation moves from marvel over the honor that God her Savior lavished on her personally (Luke 1:46–49) into celebration of his mighty intervention on behalf of all “those who fear him,” keeping faithful mercy to Abraham and sons, as promised to the fathers (Luke 1:50–55).

Mary’s song displays her promise-drawn trust in two ways.

First, it is saturated with ancient Scripture, so that by the time she mentions in the finale God’s remembering the faithful mercy he promised the fathers, we have been immersed in echoes of those very promises: “my spirit rejoices” (Ps. 35:9; Isa. 61:10), “in God my Savior” (Hab. 3:18; Ps. 25:5), “looked on the humble estate of his servant” (1 Sam. 1:11; cf. 9:16; Gen. 29:32), “will call me blessed” (Gen. 30:13), “has done great things” (Deut. 10:21), “holy is his name” (Ps. 111:9), “shown strength with his arm” (Ps. 118:15–16), “his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation” (Ps. 103:17), “scattered the proud” (Ps. 89:11), “filled the hungry with good things” (Ps. 107:9), “helped his servant Israel” (Isa. 41:8–9), “in remembrance of his mercy” (Ps. 98:3), “mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham” (Mic. 7:20). Throughout the song we hear the motifs of Hannah’s thanksgiving to the God who removed the shame of her own barrenness and, more importantly, who would abase the proud and enthrone the downtrodden through the king whom her son Samuel would eventually anoint (1 Sam. 2:1–10). The fragmentary rescues and temporary respites granted to Israel in the past were preliminary sketches, tracing the outline of the real Promise

who, in Mary’s womb, had arrived at long last.

Second, although the infants (John the precursor, Jesus the Divine Warrior), through whom God would effect the rescue and reversal that Mary celebrated, were yet unborn, after its first line her song shifts from present tense (“my soul magnifies”) to past (Greek aorist indicative), as though looking back on victory already achieved and deliverance already experienced. Rome and Herod still ruled God’s land and a corrupt hierarchy (not godly priests like Zechariah) controlled Israel’s sanctuary. How, then, could Mary declare that her God had already “scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts” and “brought down the mighty from their thrones”? The pious poor still struggled under tyranny and taxation. How could she believe that God had already “exalted those of humble estate” and “filled the hungry with good things”?

She knew that Israel’s Helper, who had suddenly set redemption in motion through the tiny embryo miraculously, mysteriously developing in her womb, would not fail to carry his plan through to completion, whatever the cost to Mary … or to God himself.

Armed with such humble trust in a God who is true to his word, Mary could not help but submit to his life-changing purpose for her, both to its privilege and to its pain. So can we, and so must we.

Dennis E. Johnson is academic dean and professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California) and also serves as associate pastor at New Life Presbyterian Church (PCA), Escondido, California.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

(i.e., the product of his own body); and as Christ “cares” for his bride, the church (which is the product of his sacrificed flesh), so we as parents are to “care” intensely for our children. They are the product of our flesh. Since our life is in them, we are to bring up our children with the care we give to our own bodies. We should nurture our children as the essence of our lives. This means the physical and spiritual vitality God grants Christians should also thrive in their children as the product of sacrificial care. Parents are to be givers, pouring themselves into the nurture of those God commits to their keeping.

How do we nurture with such care? The Apostle Paul gives two words to guide: “training” and “instruction.” Both of these terms refer to the discipline of children but with slightly different shades of meaning. Training carries the more positive connotation—parents are to model, teach, and encourage godly patterns of life. Instruction contains a slightly negative nuance—parents are to warn, correct, and discipline when actions or attitudes are inconsistent with godliness. The shades of meaning may be a bit more clear in older translations that encourage parents to raise children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” The biblical writers most typically use these words when describing the ways Scripture itself instructs believers through caring guidance and loving reproof.

Paul’s use of the same terms should remind us that godly parenting requires a balance of affirmation and correction.

How do we achieve this balance of training and instruction, of affirmation and correction, of firm but kindly parenting? The answer lies in the final words of the Apostle Paul’s instruction. We are to raise our children in the training and instruction “of the Lord.” The chief goal of parenting is to enable children to know and honor God. This means we parents should constantly examine whether our words, our manner, our correction, and our home environment nurture an understanding of the Lord. This requires more than the application of a specific technique of discipline or setting a curfew in accord with the standards of the latest parenting seminar.

No single set of techniques or rules will make us good parents. Our sins and our children are far more perplexing than any book, seminar, or sermon can comprehensively cover. I am not devaluating the many helpful things that we can learn from Christian authors and other experienced parents. We simply must remember that the complexities of each child’s nature and situations will not allow template responses.

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

Parenting by Grace hristian parenting compels us to reflect our God and as a consequence leads us to greater dependence on him and to a greater appreciation of him. By submitting ourselves to the good of children, we discover our own most noble purposes and are drawn most closely to the divine nature. News reports of the action of two parents aboard Amtrak’s Sunset Limited in 1993 revealed these truths with a powerful poignancy.

Gary and Mary Jane Chancey were riding on the Limited on a foggy September morning when the train plunged off a railway bridge into a bayou outside Mobile, Alabama. The Chanceys were traveling with their eleven-year-old daughter, Andrea, who has cerebral palsy and requires a wheelchair. As their train car sank into the bayou, water rushed into the Chanceys’ capsized compartment. Fighting the flow of water rushing through the window, the two parents combined their efforts to lift Andrea to a rescuer. Then the water pressure overwhelmed them, pushed them deep into the darkness of the train cabin, and they were gone.

These parents gave their lives to the purpose of lifting their child to physical safety. God calls all Christian parents to similar sacrifice, enduring what may be intense pressure and pain to lift our children to spiritual safety. We are not all called to die for our children, but we die to self each time— for our children’s sake—we hold our tongues, control our anger, endure being misunderstood, take time for a ball game, absorb an insult, ignore an embarrassment, turn down a promotion requiring more time away, love patiently, discipline consistently, and forgive always. By the ways we love God and each other, by the ways we model the Lord and mold our children’s perception of him, by the way we raise them in the patterns of his love, and by the way we constantly seek his direction— in all of these ways we give ourselves so that our children may understand their Savior’s love for them. In doing so, we discern the love we require as well as the love we must give. By lifting our children to the Savior, we become like him and thus discover in a parent’s heart another means to measure and to marvel at the love of the Savior who lifts us to heaven by his sacrifice. ■

C

Bryan Chapell is president of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. This article was adapted from his book, Each for the Other (Baker, 1998) and is reprinted here by permission of the author and publisher.

R

E

V

I

E

W

S

BOOKS | Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of

the Old Testament

Divine and Human Qualities of the Old Testament

I

n some evangelical and Reformed circles, biblical scholars and systematic theologians are

is only apparently human; liberals as if it is only human. speaking to each other, but they aren’t communicating well. Biblical scholars sometimes get The proper approach is to affirm both aspects. the feeling that theologians are telling them what the Bible can and cannot say without real- Affirming that the Bible is fully human is not to attribly ute error to Scripture any more than affirming that grappling with the thorny issues of inter- Christ is fully human attributes sin to the Son of pretation, while theologians occasionally God. Of course, precisely how this analogy works believe that their colleagues in the Bible out in practice is more difficult and open to disdepartment have “sold the ranch” in order agreement than the statement of it. To his great to buy some broader academic credit, Enns chooses three difficult topics to disrespectability. What is unfortunate is that cuss. this “dialogue” occurs between people The first has to do with the relationship who sincerely and intelligently affirm between the Old Testament and ancient Near that the Bible is God’s Word. Peter Enns’s Eastern literature. He rightly describes the extennew book struggles with both ends of this sive parallels between the Old Testament and Near impasse by providing a robust under- Eastern myths, history, legal codes, wisdom literastanding of biblical authority that ture, treaties, and more. Indeed, if he can be faultaccounts for the nature of the phenome- ed, it might be for trying to cover so much materina of Scripture as most evangelical and al rather than settling down to extensively discuss Reformed biblical scholars see it today. Thus, a couple. However, the survey approach does give Enns’s Inspiration and Incarnation is to be applauded the reader the sense of the extent of the relationfor its contribution to the formulation of a healthy ship between the two and makes his point well that Inspiration and doctrine of the Bible, even if one can’t, as this the Bible has a close relationship with the Near East raising the question of distinctiveness.

Incarnation: reviewer can’t, agree with it in every detail.

First, though, we can see how he is making the Evangelicals and I begin with a short description of the thesis of the book. The Bible is the Word of God, and that point about the humanity of the Bible. God did the Problem of should remind us, of course, of Jesus Christ, who is not give the Bible authors a new language, but the Old the Word of God. In terms of Christian orthodoxy, Hebrew that is closely related to other languages Testament Jesus is fully God and fully human. He is not (Ugaritic and Aramaic, for example). He did not

by Peter Enns apparently human, but really God. The same may create new genres, but used genres that are found Baker Book House, 2005 208 pages (paperback), $17.99 be said for the Bible. The Bible is also fully divine throughout the ancient Near East. He did not crein its origins, but it is also fully human in its origins. ate new metaphors to apply to Yahweh that were This, in a nutshell, is Enns’s “incarnational analogy” not applied to other gods (warrior, shepherd, king). of the Bible. Fundamentalists treat the Bible as if it The Bible’s authors even use similar language to

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

talk about creation, and Enns is right to raise the issue of the degree to which Genesis participates in the worldview of its ancient neighbors. This discussion is immensely interesting and important, and he is right to locate the Old Testament’s uniqueness in one place, the person of the God, Yahweh.

One insight to highlight in the section on the creation narrative is that “ancient peoples were not concerned to describe the universe in scientific terms” (40). While the Old Testament has implications for how we assess modern scientific views of creation, the interpreter needs to read these texts in the first place against the background of the Enuma Elish and the Baal Epic, not the Origin of the Species.

The second difficult topic he treats is the theological diversity of the Old Testament. Enns is totally correct to resist the tendency to homogenize the whole Old Testament. Samuel-Kings and Chronicles present two accounts of Israel’s history for a purpose. They are not identical by any stretch of the imagination (just compare the reign of Abijah in 1 Kings 15:1–8 and 2 Chronicles 13), and Enns does a masterful job at explaining these diverse voices here and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

However, here he sometimes overplays his hand by not then discussing how these diverse voices ultimately sing the same tune. He is occasionally overly concerned to correct the abuse of not hearing the different voices, so he downplays the legitimate task of canonical interpretation that harmonizes. Again, he is right to hear the diverse voices first, but it is also important to say why they “go together.” One instance of this is in his interpretation of Ecclesiastes where he criticizes those who see “Qoheleth as a fool himself, someone whose lack of faith will not allow him to see past the end of his nose. The end of the book does not cancel out the words of Qoheleth” (79). No, they don’t cancel them out, but they situate them, especially when it is realized that Qoheleth is speaking from an “under the sun” perspective and that the second wise man who is quoting him to his son (12:8–14) is trying to lift his son to an above the sun perspective.

But, again, what Enns is trying to avoid is a harmonization that in reality wipes out one pole of the diversity. Thus, for instance, I applaud him as a fellow Reformed interpreter for holding the biblical teaching that God does not change his mind, and holding the direct biblical statements that God changes his mind together without erasing one side of the pole (an error into which some Calvinists as well as those who advocate the “openness of God”

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

fall). And indeed, in the final analysis, Enns himself rightly acknowledges that Christ himself is the proper focus of Scripture’s unity.

Finally, in perhaps his best section, Enns looks at the use of the Old Testament in the New. This subject is an important one and a topic about which Enns is especially knowledgeable. If one honestly reads the New Testament use of the Old Testament, one will sometimes scratch one’s head.

For instance, in 1 Timothy 2:14 when Paul says “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived,” one wonders whether that really puts Adam in a better position since he was “with her” (Gen. 3:6) during the whole episode. Or reading the Old Testament account of Samson in Judges one wonders from where the assessment of him as an example of faith in Hebrews 11 comes.

The best part of this section, though, is in his encouragement of what he calls a Christotelic reading of the text. Though I still think “Christological” is a better term, he is right that the New Testament authors understood that the whole Old Testament pointed to Christ. And he does a magnificent job helping the reader to recognize this important fact about the Old Testament, while still maintaining a proper reading of it within its original setting. My only problem with this part of the book is that I got confused in his discussion of whether or not the church should read the Old Testament in a similar way. I am still not sure what his conclusion is, but he seems to lean at the end toward Longenecker’s view that we do not live in the Second Temple period (and I would add are not writing literature which, in his terms, is fully divine as well as fully human) so that we can make similar connections to those that the New Testament authors make. At least I hope that’s his final position, because I think that is the correct one.

In conclusion, this book is a must read for any scholar, particularly evangelical and/or Reformed, who is concerned with biblical interpretation and its relationship with theology. I suspect and hope it will generate debate and passionate discussion.

That would be helpful and constructive. On the other hand, we can safely ignore anyone who simply pronounces that Enns’s viewpoint is “outside the camp” or theologically “out of bounds,” because he is correct that “a doctrine of Scripture that does not think through this incarnational dimension is inadequate in light of the evidence we have” (67).

Tremper Longman Westmont College Santa Barbara, California

Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages

by Jaroslav Pelikan Viking, 2005 274 pages (hardback), $24.95 In a post-9/11 world where the three dominant monotheistic religions appeal to the Bible (in some form or another) for authority, to whom the Bible belongs is a legitimate question. This is the inquiry that drives Jaroslav Pelikan’s Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages. Pelikan, Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University and winner of the W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Human Sciences, has contributed numerous significant volumes to the fields of history and religion, a tradition that remains unbroken with this volume.

Whose Bible Is It? is a timely historical introduction to the development, canonization, and appropriations of Scripture, primarily in light of Jewish and Christian traditions. Beginning with the oral tradition, Pelikan explores the importance and challenges of the spoken word as the foundation for the written canon. The first third of the book discusses the Old Testament (“First Testament”) or Hebrew Tanakh. With brief, lucid explanations of key terms, Pelikan helps the reader gracefully walk (rather than stumble) through the history of the Torah (the Pentateuch), the Nevi’im (the prophets and historical books), and the Kethuvim (other writings).

From the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate to modern English translations, Pelikan provides an ample overview of the Bible’s development through the centuries. The Jewish Diaspora gave birth to a Greek translation, the form of Scripture most familiar to the writers of the New Testament (or “Second Testament”). As he does with the Old Testament, Pelikan addresses the traditional difficulties of New Testament canonicity (e.g., the authorship of Hebrews and the rejection of Revelation by the early church).

His one-chapter introduction to the New Testament, though an impressive sprint, covers too much ground. Pelikan offers helpful comparisons—“What the Torah is to the Tanakh,” he explains, “the Gospels are to the New Testament” (104)—but these comparisons tend to pass over many critical details.

More than a third of the book is spent on the development of the Bible as a completed canon, in relation to both Christian and Jewish biblical interpretation. Medieval allegorical interpretation led

to the Christianization of the Old Testament and to the rise of Kabbalah (a form of Jewish mysticism recently popularized by Madonna). Renaissance humanism called for a return to the sources, and with that came a revival of the original languages, advances in translation, and the appropriation of biblical themes in art and music. The Protestant Reformation insisted that the Bible alone is the Christian’s authority. This appeal, coupled with the invention of the moveable type printing press, took the Bible from its solitary stand in the chancel and put it in the hands of any common laborer who could read, a development that spawned new sects, political tension, and wars. Pelikan does not leave the reader wondering, given the instability this movement induced, why Enlightenment thinkers rejected authority, why Thomas Jefferson deleted sections of the Bible, how methods of higher criticism became popular, and why fundamentalism lurched so boldly into the early twentieth-century American scene.

Because Pelikan weaves such a broad tapestry, it is easy to uncover loose threads. A Lutheran scholar turned Orthodox, and a regular contributor to ecumenical discussions between Jews and Christians, Pelikan proves himself sensitive to all theological concerns. He raises just enough doubt about Jewish and Christian interpretations to encourage both to work together “studiously” toward a fuller-orbed view of Scripture (251).

For example, his discussion of Hebrew vowel points offers a valuable example of the serious effect they can have on biblical interpretation and theological dogmatism. Psalm 22, he points out, reads “like lions [they maul] my hands and feet” with the Massoretic vowel points (75). But a retroverted version of the Septuagint (from Greek back to Hebrew) reads “they have pierced my hands and feet” (76). The former translation calls into question this passage as a messianic prophecy, while the latter translation provides Christian interpreters with prophetical fodder for proving Christ’s divinity. Pelikan’s critical assessment therefore serves as a tool to aid the reader in understanding why there are legitimate arguments about Jesus as messiah between “Jews and Christians, during the Middle Ages and well beyond” (76). His purpose is to promote humble and civil discussion.

While both Jewish and Christian traditions are “distinct,” he argues, they are “not necessarily contradictory and sometimes even complementary,” in their interpretations (250). As long as one understands that Scripture has multiple senses (as the Medievals approached it), there is no reason, argues Pelikan, that Jews and Christians cannot

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

find common ground. “To put it directly,” he continues, “a passage of the Bible does not mean only one thing, and the vain dispute over whether these are ‘your Scriptures’ or ‘our Scriptures’ is often an argument between two (or more) of these multiple senses” (250). This and other similar statements indicate his determination to please the pluralist.

Whose Bible Is It? supplies a valuable panoramic view of the history of the Bible. The reader leaves Pelikan’s volume with an interesting introduction not only to its several thousand years of history, but also the challenging task faced by interpreters.

However, like any book that aggressively tackles a broad subject in a few pages, it suffers from oversimplification. It is possible to confuse the writer’s theological opinion with historical fact, and perhaps even conclude that Protestant Evangelicals are simply splitting interpretive hairs.

Pelikan’s ecumenism eventually lands him in a postmodern quagmire. Why choose Christianity over Judaism, or vice versa? Since both are equally valid, there are no benefits to accepting one over the other; therefore, why accept either? Which

begs the question, what difference does it make whose Bible it is?

Brandon G. Withrow Westminster Theological Seminary (Ph.D. Candidate) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Believing God

by Beth Moore Broadman & Holman, 2004 260 pages (hardback), $22.99 In Believing God, popular Bible teacher and author Beth Moore explains her personal journey toward obedience in the area of faith. Not content with the unbelief and defeatism of Christians around her, she decides to buck the trend and find a Christianity that works. Her premise in the book is that the “primary reason God left us on earth after our salvation was for our Christianity to ‘succeed’ right here on this turf.” The turf she’s referring to is an earthly Promised Land where God’s “per-

Short N A Geerhardus Vos Anthology: Biblical and Theological Insights Alphabetically Arranged

This World Is Not My Home: The Origins and Development of Dispensationalism

Danny E. Olinger, ed.

P&R Publishing Paperback, $19.99

Dispensationalism exercises such profound influence throughout American Christianity that many do not realize how much it permeates the theological air they breathe. This World Is Not My Home delves into the thought of the two most influential dispensationalist writers: C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Melding explanation and critique, Williams sympathetically demonstrates the movement’s biblically-based reaction to cultural trends as well as the deeply flawed theological excesses that resulted. Williams self-consciously limits his discussion to classical dispensationalism, while noting the movement’s increasing diversity. Nonetheless, Williams’ decision to specifically engage and critique these two figures is confirmed by the frequency that the teaching of Scofield and Chafer echoes through today’s church.

Like many creative geniuses before him, Geerhardus Vos’ unique theological contributions were under-appreciated during his lifetime. This anthology seeks to remedy that fault along two lines. First, Olinger’s compelling introduction leads readers into Vos’ profound theological insights concerning doctrine, redemptive history, and eschatology. Secondly, the anthology of quotations from Vos’ works highlights his incomparable grasp of Scripture. This anthology will send both new and seasoned readers of Vos back into the riches of his major works.

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

Michael Williams Christian Focus Publications Paperback, $17.99

sonalized promises over your life become a living reality rather than a theological theory.” The ticket to the Promised Land is pleasing God by exercising faith and having faith credited to you as righteousness. According to Moore, all Christians could experience their own Promised Land during their lifetime if only they would make faith an “action verb” and kick it up a notch. With Christianity like that, no one can say that it doesn’t work.

Moore offers her readers the ticket to the Promised Land that will turn passive faith into “action verb” faith. It is five-point pledge of faith that is memorized and spoken out loud daily: God is who he says he is; God can do what he says he can do; I am who God says I am; I can do all things through Christ; God’s Word is alive and active in me. The pledge is designed to overcome doubts about God’s power and goodness, to bolster faith in miracles, to claim one’s adoption into God’s family through Christ, and to open the Christian to receiving personalized messages from God both through the Bible and through daily interventions.

In the ensuing chapters, she discusses the five points, drawing out a few strands of theological

truth in relationship to each one. In addition, she takes on topics such as emotional wounds, satanic strongholds, psychological problems, feelings of failure, and generational sin to show how the fivepoint pledge of faith can tackle each one. Her personal stories are in every chapter, demonstrating her determination and efforts to combat the spiritual malaise that she says characterizes the church.

She energetically admonishes defeated Christians to lay claim to faith like Joshua’s and prove for themselves that God is who he says he is (and the other four points of her system). In fact, Moore’s teaching ministry is called “Living Proof Ministries.” She holds herself out as a woman who was once beset by failure and who is now living proof that “action-verb” faith brings victory and success to the Christian’s life.

Moore has written other books, including character study books on Jesus, King David, and the disciple John. Her Bible study book, Breaking Free: Making Liberty in Christ a Reality in Life, continues to be a best seller. The fill-in-the-blank format allows readers to examine the ways they are captive to sin and the enemy’s lies. Then Moore takes them

Notices Philippians 2nd edition

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church

Moisés Silva Baker Book House Hardcover $29.99

D. A. Carson Zondervan Paperback, $14.99

Eschewing the encyclopedic approach to commentary writing, Silva has produced an informed and readable work on Philippians. Avoiding unnecessary exegetical rabbit trails in favor of Paul’s main themes, Silva’s analysis is consistently level-headed. Long out of print, this second edition in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament provides a new generation of Bible students access to Silva’s previous work, combined with his assessment of the past 15 years of scholarship.

A recent flurry of books indicates that the evangelical church is now seriously grappling with the implications of post-modernism. The emerging church movement that clusters around such writers as Brian McLaren and Robert Webber represents a growing consensus about how the church should welcome the postmodern opportunity. Carson’s survey and critique introduces readers to the emerging church’s strengths and weaknesses. While applauding the movement’s effort to understand culture and to draw post-Christian generations, Carson ultimately faults the emerging church for simplistic readings of post-modernism and unsympathetic criticism of confessional Evangelicalism.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

through a study of Bible verses and passages where she explains how Christ can set them free. She teaches that Christians can be burdened again by a yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1). The way out of slavery is for Christians to grasp their God-given purpose, which is expressed in another five points: to know and believe God, to glorify him, to find satisfaction in him, to experience his peace, and to enjoy his presence.

Moore is a pragmatist. When she reads the Bible she expects it to speak to her about her life in practical ways. She uses the people and stories in the Bible as allegories of the Christian life to explain how Christians can be defeated or victorious. Their destiny depends on how they respond to God. The equation is simple, according to Moore; the more faith they exercise, the better their reward in this life. Her books, Bible studies, videos, and speaking ministry follow a similar pattern of self-disclosure, plucky faith that is determined to overcome, and confirmation from the Bible that Christians can and do experience victory over sin, deliverance from bondage, and successful Christianity.

In addition to Bible study, she encourages readers to join her in recording what she calls God’s daily interventions. In Believing God they are given a name: “Godstops,” an acronym for “Savoring the Observable Presence.” She teaches that God reveals himself and his purposes in many ways, including signs, miracles, emotions, and mystical experiences. According to Moore, Christians who aren’t attuned to this exhilarating experience of God are missing a normal and powerful way that God relates to his people and blesses them with his presence.

Although she wants to be theological and Christ-centered, too much of Moore’s material is about her take on her experience with God. Her writing tends to be undisciplined and shallow. She is far too willing to gloss over uncomfortable theological implications in favor of feel-good stories and quick explanations. Knowing God comes through experience; most sin is the result of failing to believe and be delivered; repentance is rarely mentioned. Her bent toward mysticism permits her to circumvent traditional theological interpretations and indulge in explanations of her own design that are more reasonable and satisfying to her sensibilities.

Basically she says, don’t let theology and doctrine confuse you when you can figure it out with God for yourself in a way that works for you.

Unfortunately, people who use her materials can’t help but absorb some of that reasoning. Even more troubling is that they think they’re doing Bible

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

study when they are really getting a heavy dose of mysticism, storytelling, psychology, and prosperity gospel. In the introduction to Believing God, Moore shows her true, but mistaken, agenda when she says, “I know I’m going to make it to heaven because I’ve trusted Christ as my Savior, but I want to make it to my Canaan on the way. I want to finish my race in the Promised Land, not in the wilderness. You too? Then we have to cash in our fear and complacency and spend all we have on the only ticket out: BELIEF.” There are many worthy goals of Bible study, but securing heaven on earth is not one of them, at least for Reformed Christians. And the surest way to get off track is to add human effort to what God has already done in the cross of Christ, even when it’s called believing God or faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation. Everything else is of grace in the Christian experience, too, thanks be to God. Susan Disston Christian Education Consultant, Presbyterian Church in America

Fool’s Gold: Discerning Truth in an Age of Error

by John MacArthur (General Editor) Crossway Books, 2005 224 pages (paperback), $12.99 Fool’s Gold is, for the most part, a compilation of brief articles and conference papers, largely written in a seminar format, aimed to promote biblical discernment in what it perceives to be an age of blind evangelical acceptance.

John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church and president of Master’s College and Seminary, provides an editor’s introduction, as well as four of the twelve chapters (only one of which has not appeared in print elsewhere). The remaining portions of the book are supplied by various appointees within

MacArthur’s numerous ministries.

The contributors believe that evangelical churches have been so overwhelmed by contemporary culture that the line of demarcation between sacred and secular communities has been altogether erased, thereby compromising the integrity of the gospel and Christian faith. What led evangelicals into this predicament is precisely what led liberalism into its protracted declension: lack of biblical discernment (and faithfulness). A dearth of God-granted wisdom has resulted in a modern evangelical scene in which it is being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, every gust of glitter. MacArthur and company put hand to pen to extol the place of Scripture and provide Bible-based pointers in the arbitrating processes of evangelicals, especially evangelical pastors.

Chapters 1 and 2 set forth a case for the need for biblical discernment. But then, instead of establishing the biblical modes for cultivating wisdom, it launches into an eight-chapter diatribe against (in order) Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life (3), N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said (4), John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart (5), Nelson’s The Revolve New Testament (6), contemporary worship music (7), invitations and altar calls (8), the American-Christian approach to politics (9), and Christian consumerism (10). The fifth and sixth chapters are the fullest and most profitable of this otherwise gaunt lot. Still, one grinds through ten chapters before the first applicable statements concerning the cultivation of wisdom are mentioned in chapters eleven and twelve. The logic and usefulness of the book would have been better served if the layout were reversed so that the reader may see how one pursues godly discernment in doctrine, ecclesial devotion, and daily life, rather than first having to endure the unwieldy polemical arms of MacArthur and company for over 175 pages.

Outside of this disobliging layout, the production is far from clean. There are spelling errors, grammatical infelicities, and format issues. And although Fool’s Gold aspires to be beneficial to seminarians and pastors, it is consistently elementary in terms of content and does little by way of suggesting or referencing additional bibliographical resources for the reader. What is more, the reviewer is not convinced that the piece on What Saint Paul Really Said accurately describes N. T. Wright’s version of the aberrant “New Perspective” on Paul.

Nor is Dan Dumas’s piece (“Hills to Die On: A Doctrinal Framework for Developing Discernment”) trustworthy concerning his historical appraisement of Jonathan Edwards’s dismissal.

Edwards was not removed from his Northampton charge simply because of his doctrinal disapproba-

tion with the Half-Way Covenant. He did not see it as “a hill to die on.” In reality, Edwards was long embroiled in a host of controversies with his parish (e.g., the “Bad Book” affair; salary disputes; power struggles; congregation disenfranchisement with Edwards’s discourteous pastoral skills; etc.), which, in turn, latched onto the Half-Way Covenant issue as a focal point for formal dismissal proceedings within the Hampshire Association. At least in this case, Edwards turns out to be an unaccommodating example of “Pursuing Discernment in Your Daily Life.”

Fool’s Gold does not lend itself to Episcopalian or Lutheran readership either. It is distinctly Reformed Baptist in vision and composition (perhaps even to the exclusion of confessional Presbyterians). For example, MacArthur’s chapter on righting contemporary worship has nothing to say about liturgy. Even when referring to Martin Luther, the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ and justification by faith alone are “the classic Reformed doctrines,” never Reformation doctrines. Indeed, Luther himself is absorbed into the Reformed Baptist camp on at least two occasions, causing the reader to wonder whether the contributors need to be reminded that Wittenberg and Geneva (to say nothing of Zurich) were not twin cities. (Canterbury does not so much as make it on the map.) Unless Fool’s Gold is unabashed preaching to the choir, then others will find it partisan and insensitive to fellow Reformation confessional types in its attempt to promote truly transcendent biblical principles for godly discernment.

It is likely, however, that even MacArthur enthusiasts will find this publication disappointingly contrived. Besides, for all of the aforementioned issues, better, more sustained and substantiated arguments may be found in back issues of Modern Reformation or, alternatively, on a whole host of websites.

John J. Bombaro Cambridge, England

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

A L W A Y S | R E F O R M I N G C R E A T I V E

P U R S U I T S

O F

A

M O D E R N

R E F O R M A T I O N

Kenton Needler

Reaching Out in New Orleans

W

For more information: Greg Doles (352) 375-0049 3600 Desire Parkway New Orleans, LA 70126 www.desirestreet.org

hen it comes to community outreach and displaying Christ in word and

Christ did not immediately say to the people, ‘Now get deed, we are often quick to point to a program with which our congrega- out there and bring in that harvest.’ He said, ‘Pray the tion is affiliated, some task which we can fulfill by having a few Lord will send some laborers in there.’ The suggesmembers volunteer a bit of time throughout the tion is that we should be in the crises God sees, week. Certainly these are good, and have their doing what should be done, and not thinking roots in Scripture, but does this always strike the about it as tasks that need to be accomplished, heart of outreach taught in the Scriptures? but as a part of who we are. The field is ripe for For those of us who have grown content with harvest. We need to earnestly seek to join God’s outreach that goes no further than what can be heart in that. And then God will move upon peomeasured by time schedules, Greg Doles of Desire ple who bring that kind of heart because they Street Ministries, based in New Orleans, Louisiana, have no longer insulated themselves from the says: “How do we approach the needs in our com- issue. They see it as irresistible to them; it’s a part munity? We do it like Pharisees. We create a task, of who they are called to be as believers.”

This mindset shared by Greg and others at accomplish the task, and then point at the task, instead of meeting needs because it is the fabric of Desire Street was begun through Mo Leverett and his wife, after graduating from Reformed who we are.”

“I’ve determined there are three levels of how Theological Seminary, and moving into the Desire people deal with [community outreach]. The first neighborhood of New Orleans, a neighbor of level of interest is the guy that says his church does which the government had declared as unfit for a Thanksgiving dinner for homeless people. It human habitation. Mo quickly got to know many serves the purpose by and large of staving off that of the neighborhood residents through leading guilty feeling of not doing something. They’re not home Bible studies and becoming a volunteer footinterested in any real relationship with the home- ball coach. A number of programs followed, such less. They’re just going to give them a meal so that as tutoring, housing development, summer prothey can perform a task they’ve created and then grams, reading groups, etc., all of which have point at the task to say they’re ‘doing something.’” flowed from Desire Street’s mission statement that “The second level is the church that realizes that Jesus “became one of us and lived and taught among something still isn’t happening, so they create some us.” Desire Street seeks to raise up its own local sort of program or initiative. They have some vol- leaders, so that those in their neighborhood may unteers from the church and they put the program see that it is from within them that the Lord seeks in the church budget. Usually these efforts, I’d say to work.

80% of them, eventually flounder because there’s “Pray the Lord will send workers into the harstill a bit of insulation between the body of believ- vest. I say remain in that crisis until it boils up in ers and the community.” you a longing. And then God is going to show up.

“The ones that really get it understand the He’s going to show up in a way that is going to be crucible of what Christ was saying when he said, powerful.”

‘The field is ripe for the harvest,’ (Lk 10:2).

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