The 'Emmanuel' Prophecy in Historical Context - Isaiah 7

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."  Isaiah 7:14

This is probably one of the most quoted and least understood OT passages in the entire Bible.  It is one of the most quoted passages because Matthew applies it to the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:23.  It is one of the least understood passages because most of us don't take the time to understand this wonderful prophecy about the birth of our Lord in its original context.

The historical context of this prophecy is the 8th century BC during the reign of the wicked King Ahaz in Judah.  Both Kings and Chronicles give us some insight into the dispicable character of this King.  According to 2 Kings 16:3, Ahaz burned his child alive to the Canaanite deity Molech!  He also corrupted temple worship in Jerusalem by replacing the broze altar with a Syrian model he saw while delivering tribute to the king of Assyria in Damascus.  Ahaz reigned during a period of rising Assyrian power.  The Assyrians were a brutal and powerful empire that terrorized the Ancient Near East until they were defeated by the Neo-Babylonian empire during the late 7th century BC.  So cruel were the Assyrians in their military tactics that people would often commit suicide in advance rather than to face torture. In response to the Assyrian threat, king Pekah of Israel (Ephraim) and king Rezin of Syria, two bitter enemies, made an unlikely military alliance against king Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria around 735 BC.  These two kings marched against king Ahaz of Judah in an attempt to intimidate him into joining their alliance or to replace him with a puppet king who would support their military ambitions.  With Jerusalem under siege and having suffered severe losses in the conflict (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:6), Isaiah tells us that "the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind" (Is 7:2).  The name given to this significant military event by modern day historians is the 'Syro-Ephraimite war'.

It was into this desperate situation in Judah that God sent His servant Isaiah to deliver the Emmanuel prophecy.  'Emmanuel' literally means "God is with us" and it refers to a prophetic sign given by the Lord to Ahaz and the people of Judah through the prophet Isaiah.  The Emmanuel prophecy in its original context was not messianic, but referred to a sign given to Ahaz and Judah in the face of certain military defeat, reassuring them of YHWH's presence in spite of their wickedness and rebellion.  The Emmanuel prophecy therefore speaks of God's patience and grace!  Before bringing terrible judgment on the people of Judah for their rebellion and disobedience to the covenant, God is giving them an opportunity to repent!  So who exactly was Emmanuel in historical context?  The answer is found in Isaiah 8:3:

"And I (Isaiah) went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.  Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

Emmanuel is none other than Isaiah's own son!  This interpretation is confirmed by Isaiah's commentary in 8:18:  "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from teh LORD of hosts."  In its original context the "virgin" or "young woman" is Isaiah's wife who gave birth to Maher-shalal-hash-baz during the siege of Jerusalem.  The birth of this child was a sign to Ahaz that God was still willing to deliver the people of Judah.  This newborn child was a token of His ongoing presence with a rebellious and disobedient people, although the name of the child (literally - "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens") was intended to remind the people that divine judgment was indeed coming and did in fact come in 586 BC when Jerusalem fell to Babylon.

So how did Ahaz respond to this sign??  The sad truth is that he rejected it.  Instead of trusting in God for protection, Ahaz ignored Isaiah and sent envoys to Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria asking for his help.   Assyria did intervene on behalf of Judah, destroying the Syro-Ephraimite alliance and sending the northern kingdom into captivity, but at an incredibly high price.  Within a generation, the Assyrians had overrun Palestine and were beseiging Jerusalem once again and brutally destroying other cities in Judah.  The people rejected God's sign and God's judgment fell - although God once again demonstrated his mercy and grace to King Hezekiah by miraculously delaying the destruction of Jerusalem.

Fast forward to the manger in Bethlehem 700 years later and we find a new token of God's grace in the midst of despair.  The baby Jesus, Matthew tells us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is Emmanuel - God with us!  What wonderful news this must have been to the Jewish people who were familiar with their own history.  The God of infinite grace and patience was once again reassuring His people of his ongoing presence and covenant fidelity - this time by sending his own Son to be born of a virgin.  The fact that Jesus is our "Emmanuel" brings with it a message of hope and a message of judgement.  In sending Jesus, God has chosen to delay the great day of judgement in order to give all people an opportunity to repent and believe the gospel.  Every day that passes is a day of God's grace where the gospel invitation is extended to sinners: "Come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest!" But just as terrible judgment came to Judah for their rejection of the Lord, so another terrible day of judgment is coming for all those who reject "Emmanuel".  So let us who know Emmanuel rejoice this Christmas because we will enjoy His presence forever!  But let us never forget that a day of terrible judgement is coming for all those who reject God's Messiah.  Emmanuel will very soon return as a conquering King to destroy all of his enemies and to consummate His reign and rule over all things.   The sign of Emmanuel should fill our hearts not merely with joy, but with a great sense of urgency for those who continue to reject Him.  Let us therefore make the most of every opportunity this holiday season to share the "glad tidings of good news" with friends and family who do not yet know Emmanuel.

"Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See" - Docetism??

Without question the incarnation of Jesus Christ is one of the most wonderful truths of the Christian faith which we ought to especially consider during the Christmas season.  The fact that God became a man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth is absolutely essential if He is to be the Saviour of sinful human beings, but how this could possibly be we will probably never fully understand until we meet the Lord one day. 

When we talk about the incarnation, there are two opposite errors that we must avoid.  On the one hand is the heresy known as "Ebionism".  The Ebionites were an early Christian sect that denied the full divinity of Jesus.  They basically viewed Jesus as a regular human who was simply empowered by God.  This heresy is still alive and well among many Liberal Christians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ.  The second error is known as "Docetism".  Docetism was embraced by some Gnostic sects which believed that Jesus only appeared to be human.  Docetism is essentially a denial of the full humanity of Jesus.  However we speak of the incarnation or understand it, we need to avoid these two errors as orthodox believers have done down through the centuries.  St. Athanasius (4th c.) said the following about the incarnation:  "He was made man, that we might be made [like Him]".  Gregory of Nazianzus (4th c.) said: "That which was not assumed is not healed."  In other words, if Jesus did not "assume" our humanity, our sins could never have been atoned for on the cross.  A correct view of the incarnation is foundational to a correct view of the atonement - that is why this issue is so critical to get right!

Which brings me to my question:   What exactly did Charles Wesley mean when he wrote the line "veiled in flesh the godhead see" in the Christmas carol "Hark the Herald Angels Sing"?   Overall, I love the theology of this hymn as Wesley tries to capture the glory of the incarnation, but I struggle with this one line... is this not teaching a Docetic view of the incarnation?   Was Jesus' human flesh simply a "veil" for his deity?   ....Or am I simply misunderstanding Wesley on this point?? 

One of my Favorite Hymns

This has always been one of my favorite hymns...Christ-exalting and theologically rich!  Written by an incredible woman of the faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Crosby

To God Be the Glory - Fanny J. Crosby (1820-1915)

Verse 1:

To God be the glory, great things He hath done;
So loved He the world that He gave us His Son,
Who yielded His life an atonement for sin,
And opened  the life-gate that all may go in.

Chorus:

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the earth hear His voice
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the people rejoice
O come to the Father through Jesus the Son,
And give Him the glory, great things He hath done!

Verse 2:

O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood
To every believer the promise of God;
The vilest offender who truly believes,
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.

Verse  3:

Great things He hath taught us, great things He hath done,
And great our rejoicing through Jesus the Son;
But purer and higher, and greater will be
Our wonder, our vict'ry when Jesus we see!

Chorus:


Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the earth hear His voice
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
Let the people rejoice
O come to the Father through Jesus the Son,
And give Him the glory, great things He hath done!

Some Thoughts on Open and Closed Communion

Over the past month or so I've been giving some thought to the issue of open and closed communion.  When I was young I attended an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church which practiced closed communion, but since that time, I've met very few Evangelicals, aside from the Plymouth Brethren, who would subscribe to that view.  Since most of us who have grown up in baptistic denominations have probably always taken open communion for granted without thinking about it too deeply, I want to present several arguments in favour of closed communion. 

Before I present the case, let me define the terms.  Advocates of open communion believe that the Lord's Supper is open to everyone who has professed personal faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.  In a Baptist context, advocates of closed communion seek to restrict the Lord's Supper to believers who have been baptized by immersion.  Some advocates of closed communion will go even further and restrict communion to members of a particular local congregation.   Although I've never been overly dogmatic on this issue, I personally think that the Lord's Supper should be restricted to believers who have been baptized by immersion.  The arguments which support this view are as follow:

1) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the apostolic pattern

The strongest argument in favour of closed communion is found in Acts 2, although I would be quick to concede that we ought to use great caution in deriving normative patterns or doctrine from narrative portions of Scripture.  Nevertheless, the order of events in Acts 2 does seem to lend considerable support to the practice of closed communion, viz.  Repentance (v. 38) --> Water Baptism (v. 38) --> Church Membership (v. 41) -->Lord's Supper (v. 42). 

Furthermore, there is not a single example in Scripture of a believer who is admitted to the Lord's Supper before being properly baptized.  Once again, I will admit that this is an argument from silence, but it is still quite striking that nobody appears to partake of the Lord's Supper until they exercise faith and are baptized.  (ie. Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8:36-38; Saul/Paul - Acts 9:18;  Cornelius - Acts 10:44-47; Lydia - Acts 16:14-15; Philippian Jailor - 16:30-33)

2) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the order of their institution

This is far less compelling, but interesting to think about nevertheless.  Jesus instituted Water Baptism at the beginning of His earthly ministry and the Lord's Supper on the same night that He was betrayed.

3) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in their doctrinal order


Among other things, Baptists believe that Water Baptism is symbolic of a believer's death, burial and resurrection with Christ.  Baptism is the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit.  Whereas circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and sealed upon the hearts of the Jewish people the tremendous promises that God had made to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1-3), Water Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant in Christ, which seals upon the heart of the Christian the promises that God has made to us who have placed our faith in Jesus alone for salvation.  Baptism has no saving power, but it is a non-negotiable part of the process of becoming a disciple of Christ (cf. Matt 28:18-20).  The modern notion that a person can be saved and not worry about water baptism is utterly foreign to Biblical Christianity. 

The Lord's Supper, unlike Baptism is an ongoing ordinance.  Baptism is the initiatory ordinance which symbolizes new birth, whereas the Lord's Supper serves as an ongoing reminder of the broken body and shed blood of our Lord, so that our faith can be continually strengthened and nourished "as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup".

The main point is this - just as a baby must be born before she can eat and be nourished, so the ordinance symbolizing new spiritual life doctrinally precedes the ordinance symbolizing ongoing nourishment and sustainance.  To reverse this order is to confuse the doctrinal significance of these two ordinances.

4) No other orthodox Christian denomination permits non-baptized believers to partake of the Lord's Supper


Although an appeal to tradition doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything, Baptists who practice open communion ought to at least be aware of the novelty of their practice.  Every other Christian denomination that I am aware of recognizes that Baptism ought to precede the Lord's Supper.   


5) Historically, Baptists been strong advocates of Closed Communion.


The Puritan forerunners of the Baptists were strong advocates of closed communion by and large.  Before being admitted to the Lord's Table, a person was required to give an account of their conversion to the elders of the church.  This had two primary advantages:  1) It helped to protect the purity of the visible church - something which is still a great concern for Baptists;  2) It enabled the church to exercise discipline.  In the Reformed Tradition, believers under church discipline were typically barred from the Lord's Table - a practice which has almost completely disappeared today with the advent of open communion.  During the early 18th century, some Puritans such as Solomon Stoddard began to practice open communion.  This practice was strongly opposed by Stoddard's own grandson Jonathan Edwards - a doctrinal stand which ultimately cost him his pastorate!

Like Edwards and the Puritans, the earliest English Baptists practiced and defended closed communion because the majority of them believed, as I've argued above, that Baptism is a pre-requisite for the Lord's Supper.  Some editions of the First London Confession of Faith (1644) explicity endorse the practice of closed communion:  Article XXXIX - "That Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized and after to partake of the Lord's Supper."

Interestingly, the Second London Confession (1689) does not contain this stipulation and probably reflects a diversity of opinion among Baptists on the issue.  Shortly before the publication of this Second Confession, William Kiffin (the most important Baptist theologian of the 17th c.) and John Bunyan (author of the Pilgrim's Progress) had a lively debate about this subject in print with Kiffin defending closed communion, and Bunyan defending open communion.

Other notable Baptists who have defended closed communion include Benjamin Keach, John Gill,  A.H. Strong,  T.T. Shields and Mark Dever.   One of my Baptist heroes who defended open communion was Charles Haddon Spurgeon!

Re-thinking Mission - Part 4

I want to conclude this series of posts on the missional movement with what I see as one of its major theological weaknesses, namely the tendency toward Universalism or Inclusivism.  However much I appreciate Karl Barth, Lesslie Newbigin and the "Gospel and Our Culture Network" which they have influenced, I cannot follow them when it comes to their Christological re-working of election.

For Calvin, Luther and the magisterial Reformers, the decree of predestination stands separate from the decree to elect Christ for the task of redemption.  Although the second person of the Trinity was intimately involved with the Father and the Spirit in the decree of election and predestination, the revelation of this decree lies hidden and shrouded in mystery in the decretum absolutum.   This line of thinking was openly rejected by Karl Barth and many of the neo-orthodox theologians who followed in his footsteps.  Barth felt that any notion of election apart from Christ could only lead to fear, uncertainty and loss of assurance.  Both Calvin and the Puritans were well aware of this, which is why the latter group spent so much effort their sermons giving various biblical proofs by which men and women could "make their calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1).  In contrast to the earlier Reformed tradition, Barth asserted that Jesus Christ  is the electing God as well as the elect man.  Because in Jesus Christ we see the divine Son, fully God and fully human, suffering on the cross for sinful humanity, all doubts as to God's "Yes" to his human creation necessarily disappear.  In the election of Christ, and through His self-identification with His human creation, Barth concludes on the basis of Ephesians 1:4 that all of humanity is elect in Christ.   Not only is Jesus the "elect" man, He is for Barth the only "reprobate" man - (this is Barth's Christological version of "double predestination").  No longer must humanity fear Calvin's decretum horribile (the terrible decree), says Barth, for there is only one reprobate man – Jesus of Nazareth who faced the rejection on the cross and suffered vicariously for sinners.   There's only one little problem with this line of reasoning... if all of humanity is elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, it logically follows that all of humanity will ultimately be saved whether or not they trust in Christ - a view which cannot possibly be squared with the clear testimony of Scripture.

So was Karl Barth a universalist??  The answer to this question is both "yes" and "no".  If you follow Barth's doctrine of election to its logical conclusion you will end up with universalism.  But the surprising fact is that Barth himself explicitly denied that he was a universalist!  This is one of the frustrating things about Barth's theology- as a dialectical theologian he is willing to live with unresolved tensions and to affirm what certainly appear to be contradictions.  The same is true of Lesslie Newbigin.  For example, in The Open Secret Newbigin writes the following:  "The choosing is "in Christ" and not otherwise. There is no election apart from Christ, as some theologies have seemed to suggest."  In true Barthian style, Newbigin leaves his audience with unresolved tension: "The exposition given so far of the doctrine of election may seem to lead straight to universalism, that is, to the doctrine that there can be no possibility of final exclusion from God's salvation… I believe it is essential to hold firmly together both the universalist perspective of the Bible and the clear teaching about judgment and the possibility of rejection." 

 

I am personally of the opinion that Barth's doctrine of election has negative consequences for evangelism and mission.  If you accept the teaching that humanity (and therefore every human being) is elect in Christ, evangelism simply becomes the announcement of a fait accompli.  According to Emil Brunner, Barth has presented a picture of election which can be compared to a group of sailors who find themselves shipwrecked at sea.  Although they greatly fear that they will drown in the sea, they don't realize that the water is too shallow for that to ever happen!  Of course Barth wanted people to repent of sin and follow Jesus as Lord, but if you follow the logic of his theology, it doesn't really matter whether people respond or not because the grace of God has ultimately triumphed over unbelief.  

 

Re-thinking Mission - Part 3

Today I'm going to tackle another major (and highly controversial) idea that is very central for many missional writers - the issue of bounded set thinking vs. centred set-thinking.  This particular idea has gained quite a bit of traction within the emergent church, but it actually originated on the mission field.  The late Dr. Paul Hiebert who taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for many years was a missionary to India during the early 1960s.  As a cross-cultural missionary, Hiebert noticed that much of the missionary practice coming from the West represented what he called "bounded-set" thinking, whereas he felt that a "centred-set" approach was more biblical and culturally appropriate.

 

The traditional Western worldview which is rooted in "modernism" tends to prefer "bounded-set" thinking.  We like to be able to distinguish clearly between different groups of people based on who's in and who's out and therefore tend to make a very sharp distinction between Christians and non-Christians.  In this kind of cultural context, conversion is usually thought of as an event that we can pinpoint, often with the precision of date and time.  A lot of our evangelistic strategies in the West reflect a "bounded set" mentality - our goal is to get a person to assent to certain truths about the gospel, then pray to receive Christ.  For example, conservative Protestants believe very strongly that a person is saved by faith alone (sola fide), and would set this belief as a boundary.  A Roman Catholic who doesn't accept sola fide is generally considered to be outside of the boundary and thus is probably unsaved. Bounded-set thinking generally focuses on the question "what do you believe?"

The centred-set approach recommended by Hiebert defines a Christian as someone who has made Christ the centre of their life and is moving toward the centre.  The main question here is not "what do you believe?", but "who is your centre?"  This view requires that a person change direction by repenting of sin and turning toward Christ in faith, but does not demand that a person assent to a list of very clear doctrinal distinctives before being accepted into the Christian community.  According to this view, a conservative Protestant who believes strongly in sola fide might view a Roman Catholic as a brother or sister in Christ who simply has a significant doctrinal flaw.  The main issue would be whether they have repented and believed in Jesus, not whether they have pristine Evangelical theology.  (For that matter, I would argue that a large number of self-professing Evangelicals have a semi-Pelagian view of salvation and a modalist view of the Trinity).  This centred-set approach has obvious advantages for cross-cultural missions, where syncretism is always a huge challenge.  ('Syncretism' simply defined is the mixing of Christian beliefs with elements of pagan culture).  If cross-cultural missionaries waited for new converts to have perfect theology (at least as we define it in the West), it might take years to baptize a new convert or to entrust a person with any position of leadership within the local church.  For this reason, we've tended to hold two standards, a high standard of doctrinal purity for the average North American who converts to Christianity, and a much lower standard of doctrinal purity for everyone else in the  non-Western world.  Most missional thinkers also like to point out the fact that we've failed to recognize the extent to which Western Christianity has been affected by syncretism over the past 1600 years.  We tend to assume that the Western expression of Christianity is the standard against which we ought to measure everything else.  This was a particular problem in 19th and 20th century missions endeavours as the Western church exported certain cultural distinctives in addition to the gospel message.  Missions in many cases was an expression of Colonialism and Western superiority, even if the missionaries were well intentioned.

Missional thinkers contend that we now live in a "post-Christian" age in the West, when Christendom no longer holds a privileged position in society.  Fifty years ago, most non-believers in North America bought into the Judeo-Christian worldview, even if they rejected Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  Most North Americans believed in the God of the Bible and accepted Biblical morality as the normative pattern for society.  With the advent of "post-modernism" and relativism, all of this is changing - if you don't believe me, come to Montreal and we'll talk with some students together!!  We can no longer assume that the people around us share our basic worldview.  This means that we North American Christians are now cross-cultural missionaries in our own society, and as such, will deal increasingly with the challenge of syncretism in our ministries. Most missional thinkers believe that the centred-set approach which is now generally accepted on the mission field, ought to be used here in North America too given the dramatic cultural shifts we are currently experiencing.  In other words, the dichotomy between "evangelism" here in the so-called "Christian West" and "missions" somewhere far away among the heathen is no longer valid.  We must all begin viewing ourselves as cross-cultural missionaries.

Before you come to the conclusion that I've gone "emergent" and joined ranks with Brian McClaren and Rob Bell, I want to alleviate your concerns.  I'm simply wrestling with some of these ideas and haven't come to any definite conclusions.  I'm also not trying to say that doctrine isn't important- anyone who knows me well knows where I stand on this issue!  I believe we are living in a time where sound doctrine is more important than ever!   I'm very curious to know what other people think about some of the ideas I've raised in these blogs, so please feel free to comment, push back or add your own thoughts.

Happy Reformation Day!

The Reformation Day Polka 

(tune of Superkalifragelistikespialidocius)

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law;
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!


When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter’s profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints’ Bull’tin board:
“You cannot purchase merits, 'cause we’re justified by grace!
Here’s 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!


They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
“Are these your books? Do you recant?” King Charles did demand,
“I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation -
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!
 
Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting “George” as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin’s model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation -
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let’s raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that ‘catholic’ is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation -
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

The Responsibility of Christian Parents

Its official now.... there will soon be another little Bellingham running around our apartment - only this one has two X chromosomes :)  The ultrasound confirmed what both Les and I were both hoping for - a healthy little girl who is due to arrive sometime in March.

The joy of parenthood always brings with it the weight of responsibility since parenthood is a sacred stewardship from the Lord.  I was reminded of this truth a couple weeks ago as I re-read the preface to the Westminster Confession of Faith which was addressed to Christian parents and written by one of my favorite  Puritan pastors - Thomas Manton.   The Puritan ideal was for the family to function as a little 'church' with the father ministering as the pastor:  "Families are societies that must be sancitifed to God as well as Churches; and the governors of them have as truly a charge of the souls that are therein, as pastors have of the Churches."   In the seventeenth-century Christian families didn't have the luxury of delegating their responsibilities to the local church - there was no Sunday School, no Children's Church, no Awana and no Pioneer Clubs.  The primary responsibility for Christian nurture and Christian Education fell squarely on the shoulders of mom and dad.  On this point Manton is crystal clear: "A family is the seminary of Church and State; and if children be not well principled there, all miscarrieth:  a fault in the first concoction is not mended in the second; if youth be bred ill in the family, they prove ill in Church and Commonwealth."  Recognizing the critical importance of the family, Manton lamented the fact that many Christian parents did not take their family duties seriously: "But while negligent ministers are (deservedly) cast out of their places, the negligent masters of families take themselves to be almost blameless...This covenant-breaking with God, and betraying the souls of their children to the devil, must lie heavy on them here or hereafter.  They beget children, and keep families, merely for the world and the flesh:  but little consider what a charge is committed to them, and what it is to bring up a child for God, and govern a family as a sanctified society."  It may be surprising to us today, but Confessional Statements and Catechisms, which hardly see the light of day in most Evangelical churches, were written in large part for the benefit of parents so that they could instruct themselves in basic systematic theology and in turn instruct their children.  Manton goes on to write:  "I do therefore desire, that all masters of families would first study well [this Confession] themselves, and then teach it their children and servants, according to their several capacities.  And, if they once understand these grounds of religion, they will be able to read other books more understandingly, and hear sermons more profitably, and confer more judiciously, and hold fast the doctrine of Christ more firmly , than ever you are like to do by any other course." 

Of course the idea of teaching theology to our children didn't originate with the Puritans - it was God's command to the children of Israel before they entered the promised land:  "Hear therefore  O Israel:  The LORD our God, the LORD is one.  You shall love the LORD your God  with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.  And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  Your shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise."  Deut 6:4-7.   The Bible is full of pithy confessional statements which were memorized and passed down from generation to generation.  Perhaps the most profound theological statement on the character of God in the entire Bible was first revealed in Deut 34:6 and recurs again and again, most notably in the last chapter of Jonah:  "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness".   What a treasure God has given us to pass on to the next generation!

Although there is certainly no one right way to teach spiritual truth to children, Leslie and I have found a Catechism to be a helpful tool as we've been working with Daniel.  Reformed Baptists, like Presbyterians have a Confessional heritage that goes back to the seventeenth-century.  To be sure Catechisms and Confessions are not inspired or inerrant and should never take the place of Scripture in our homes.  If you'd like to try using a Catechism with your kids, I'd recommend the following which has been edited by Dr. Tom Nettles (currently a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and is based on Benjamin Keach's Baptist Catechism.  Click Here  

Re-thinking Mission - Part 2

In my first post on this subject I gave ashort introduction to the contemporary Missional Movement which contends that 'mission' is primarily an attribute of God rather than a task delegated to the Church.  The late South African missiologist David Bosch summarized the paradigm shift well when he wrote: "There is church because there is mission, not vis versa".  This expanded view of mission is commonly referred to as the missio Dei, which simply means the "mission of God".  The God of the Bible is a missional God who has called into existence a community composed of redeemed individuals to join Him in His mission.  The missio Dei finds its primary Scriptural basis in John 20:21 where Jesus says to His disciples: "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you".  Just as the Father sent the Son to redeem and the Father and Son sent the Spirit to indwell and empower, so the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have called out a community composed of redeemed individuals and sent them to bear witness to the Kingdom of God which has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ and is still coming in greater fullness.  If mission is an essential attribute of God and by extension, an essential attribute of the called-out community, then it cannot be a "temporary necessity" as John Piper has argued.  The Church will continue to be a missional and 'evangelizing' community in the eschaton just as God will continue to be missional indefinitely.

If you're anything like me, that last sentence will probably sound a bit confusing.  How can there possibly be mission and evangelism once the final judgment has fallen?  How can God be 'missional' once the Great Commission has been fulfilled and we are reigning with Christ in the New Jerusalem?  I've been wrestling with questions like these as I've engaged with Barth and some of the more contemporary missional literature over the past few months. According to missiologist Darrell L. Guder, the confusion arises because we Evangelicals have by and large minimized and reduced the gospel message to matters of personal salvation, felt needs, and life after death.  Most of us who have grown up in Conservative circles have been trained to think of the 'gospel' as a message that needs to be shared with non-believers.  In most Evangelical churches and para-church ministries the question "did you share the gospel?" usually means "did you make it clear for the non-believer how they could be saved and have eternal life?"  A "gospel presentation" is therefore defined very narrowly as a verbal declaration consisting of three or four truth propositions followed by an altar call or an invitation to "receive Christ".  Guder has challenged my own thinking on this particular topic in his book The Continuing Conversion of the Church:  "If the Christian community is to carry out its mission of gospel witness, then its evangelization will be directed both to itself and to the world into which it is sent.  We need to free our language and our thinking from the idea that evangelistic ministry is only directed to nonbelievers… Evangelizing churches are churches that are being evangelized." (p. 26)  If the 'gospel' is simply a matter of personal salvation and its benefits then John Piper is right on target – mission is indeed a temporary necessity that will one day pass away.  But if we define the gospel more broadly, taking into account its cosmic scope (cf. Col 1:20) and using the Kingdom terminology which permeates the New Testament  (but is conspicuously missing from nearly all of our evangelistic materials!), then perhaps we also need to broaden our concept of evangelism and mission.

Proponents of the Missional Movement are not suggesting that we stop proclaiming the message of salvation to non-believers. On the contrary, Barth is very strong on this point!  What they are suggesting, however, is that there is a need for us to expand (and possibly to correct) our definition of the gospel and our conception of mission and evangelism.

C.H. Spurgeon and Isaac Watts on 2 Tim 2:3

 "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him"  2 Tim 2:3

 "Paul does not appear to have pictured true believers as sluggards sound asleep upon the downiest beds; his description of a Christian in the text is that of a soldier, and that means something very far different either from a religious fop, whose best delight is music and millinery, or a theological critic who makes a man an offender for a word, or a spiritual glutton who cares for nothing but a lifelong enjoyment of the fat things full of marrow, or an ecclesiastical slumberer who longs only for peace for himself. He represents him as a soldier and that, I say, is quite another thing. For what is a soldier? A soldier is a practical man, a man who has work to do, and hard, stern work. He may sometimes when he is at his ease wear the fineries of war, but when he comes to real warfare he cares little enough for them; the dust and the smoke, and the garments rolled in blood, these are for those who go a soldiering; and swords all hacked, and dented armor, and bruised shields, these are the things that mark the good, the practical soldier. Truly to serve God, really to exhibit Christian graces, fully to achieve a life-work for Christ, actually to win souls, this is to bear fruit worthy of a Christian. A soldier is a man of deeds, and not of words. He has to contend and fight. In war times his life knows little of luxurious ease. In the dead of night perhaps the trumpet sounds to boot and saddle, just at the time when he is most weary, and he must away to the attack just when he would best prefer to take his rest in sleep. The Christian is a soldier in an enemy’s country always needing to stand on his watchtower, constantly to be contending, though not with flesh and blood, with far worse foes, namely, with spiritual wickedness in high places."

C.H. Spurgeon (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 16, 1870)
 

Am I a Soldier of the Cross?  - Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

1. Am I a soldier of the cross,
 a follower of the Lamb,
 and shall I fear to own his cause,
 or blush to speak his name?

2. Must I be carried to the skies
 on flowery beds of ease,
 while others fought to win the prize,
 and sailed through bloody seas?

3. Are there no foes for me to face?
 Must I not stem the flood?
 Is this vile world a friend to grace,
 to help me on to God?

4. Sure I must fight, if I would reign;
 increase my courage, Lord.
 I'll bear the toil, endure the pain,
 supported by thy word.

5. Thy saints in all this glorious war
 shall conquer though they die;
 they see the triumph from afar,
 by faith they bring it nigh.

6. When that illustrious day shall rise,
 and all thy armies shine
 in robes of victory through the skies,
 the glory shall be thine.

Re-thinking Mission - Part 1

Back in May, one of my profs suggested that I read a few books on the more recent trends in missiology before resuming campus ministry in Montreal.  I took him up on the challenge and have been working my way through a number of books written from scholars and ministry practitioners from within the contemporary "missional movement". Although I would never have chosen to read these books on my own, they have really challenged and stimulated my thinking about missions and evangelism. I was also fascinated to discover that these contemporary discussions about mission have been fueled by the 20th century Swiss theologian Karl Barth.  Barth has been a personal interest of mine for the past couple years even though I strongly disagree with him on a number of points (ie. his doctrine of Scripture and his Christological reworking of the doctrine of election).  In my own opinion, its unfortunate that so many North American Evangelicals have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by either ignoring Barth altogether or by writing him off as a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.  In spite of Barth's cool reception in America, he has been enormously influential among the Evangelical community worldwide.

Barth, who was trained in the classical Liberal tradition, turned the theological world upside down with the publication of his commentary on Romans just after WWI.  Fed up with the anthropomorphic theology coming from Schleiermacher and 19th century higher critics, he reasserted in no uncertain terms the transcendence of God - ie. the fact that God is "wholly other".  Barth agreed with the conclusions of the German anthropologist (and atheist) Ludwig Feuerbach who saw the God of the Liberals as nothing more than the outward projection of man's inward nature.  For Feuerbach, the God of the Liberals was man and man was God. Barth was determined to distance himself from the humanistic theology described by Feuerbach and to chart a new course in a conservative direction.  This theological movement has come to be labeled as "Neo-Orthodoxy" although the mature Barth openly described his theology as 'Evangelical'.  As his career progressed and his theology matured, Barth vigourously opposed all forms of natural or general revelation and insisted above all that we cannot know God apart from His Word - the second person of the Trinity.  This is the central theme of all of Barth's writing and the key to understanding him- "Who and what God is in truth, and who and what humanity, we have not to explore and construct by roving freely far and near, but to read it where the truth about both dwells, in the fullness of their union, their covenant, that  fullness which manifests itself in Jesus Christ." ('The Humanity of God')  To boil down the essence of Barth's theology in a single sentence:  If you want to know who God is and what He is like, look no further than Jesus Christ, the living Word of God.

So what in the world does this have to do with mission??  Well, the mission of Jesus during His earthly ministry gives us insight into the nature of the Triune God ad intra (from within Himself).  To state the matter more formally, we need to begin with the 'economic Trinity' as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ and  work backward to the 'ontological Trinity'. Mission, in this paradigm, is not simply an activity God wants the Church to do, but it is more fundamentally a description of who He is in His very nature or essence. The God of the Bible was, is and always will be a 'missionary God'.  For most of Church history "missions" has been thought of as a subset of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church).  Most of us in the Evangelical community still think of mission this way, viz. as a task to be completed by the Church rather than as an attribute of God Himself.  Contemporary Evangelical missiologists following in the footsteps of Barth are challenging this paradigm by placing "missions" within a distinctly Trinitarian framework.  This is a radical shift in the way that we conceive of mission:  the Church exists because of mission and not the other way around.

So is mission simply a means to an end and a 'temporary necessity' as John Piper has argued in his book Let the Nations be Glad??   In a very popular quotation on missions Piper writes: "Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church.  Worship is.  Missions exists because worship doesn't.  Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man.  When this age is over and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more.  It is a temporary necessity.  But worship abides forever."   The problem with this quotation according to one Evangelical missiologist I spoke with last week, is that Piper (and Evangelicals like me who like to quote him on this topic) are still treating missions as a "task" to be completed by the Church rather than as part of the essential nature of God.  

I'll continue this discussion in my next few posts.

International Church of Christ

When I was an undergrad student in Southern Ontario there was a lot of talk about a campus movement called the International Church of Christ (ICOC), which had some idiosyncratic doctrine and cult-like tendencies.  My wife Leslie encountered this group first hand at the University of Waterloo where she was invited to a Bible study on campus.  This 'Bible study' turned out to be a bit unusual - she wasn't allowed to take her own notes, and she wasn't allowed to invite any friends.  Other friends have had similar experiences with the ICOC.  Fortunately, Les didn't stick around this group for long and looked for fellowship elsewhere.

I almost forgot about the ICOC until yesterday when we discovered that they are now active at Concordia University where I am currently serving.  I did a little reading up on the movement tonight and was encouraged to hear that they have made some significant changes during the past 10 years.  Apparently the ICOC is an offshoot of the 19th century Restorationist Movement led by Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone during the Second Great Awakening.  They are essentially a Fundamentalist faction of the mainline "Churches of Christ" (in the same family as the "Christian Church" or "Disciples of Christ").  One of the distinctives of this family of Restorationist denominations is their unique combination of believer's baptism and baptismal regenration.  The ICOC seems to have had a more exclusive view of baptism than their mainline brethren , viz. no true baptism and therefore no salvation outside of their particular churches.  Since the resignation of their autocratic leader in 2002, the movement appears to be dealing with its more significant theological issues and abuse of power.   I'm not sure what to expect from the ICOC this year at Concordia, but I was very encouraged that they at least seem to be moving in the right direction.  For a more detailed article from the Christian Research Institute (Hanegraaff) see the following link: http://www.equip.org/articles/icoc-international-churches-of-christ-in-upheaval .  I'd be curious to hear if anyone has had an experience with the ICOC since 2003.

Pseudonymity in the New Testament?

As I'm working my way through the Pastoral Epistles, the question of Pauline authorship naturally comes up.  The general consensus among modern day New Testament scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul, or possibly that some genuine Pauline fragments were later expanded and used in order to combat heresy in the Ephesian church.  Advocates of this view give the following reasons:

1. The cities and events recorded in the Pastoral Epistles do not fit into Paul's three missionary journeys as recorded in Acts
2. The vocabulary and grammatical structure of the Greek (ie. omission of article) are so different from Paul's other "genuine" epistles that they could not possibly have been written by the same person
3. The ecclesiastical situation described in the Pastorals reflects a second century setting
4. The heresy Paul is combatting in these letters is Gnosticism (which didn't emerge until the 2nd century)

 Furthermore, high profile and moderately conservative New Testament scholars such as Bruce Metzger claim that Pseudonymous writings were a legitimate genre during the first century that would have been accepted without question.  Since the original readers didn't share our modern standards of plagiarism, it is anachronistic, they say, for us to view these books as forgeries.  Instead of getting too worked up about the importance of apostolic authorship we should listen, rather, for the authentic apostolic "voice" regardless of who wrote them.

This sounds well and good, but what is really at stake here??  In my own view, quite a lot!  For starters the primary teaching regarding the inspiration of Scripture is found in 2 Peter and 1 Timothy.  If we reject apostolic authorship of these books, we bring into serious question the authority of Scripture and the Evangelical doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture.  Secondly, these books claim apostolic authority and contain statements of eyewitness testimony.  The author of 2 Peter states, for example: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty....we ourselves heard this very voice from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain."  It stretches the limits of credulity to think that first century readers could have accepted a statement like this as authoritative  if it was not written by Peter himself who was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration.  Secondly, most of the New Testament instruction regarding church order and structure are contained in these books (ie. qualifications for elders and deacons).  If these are not genuine apostolic instructions, then it seems that we Protestants are more dependent on the traditions of the early church than we'd like to admit.  Thirdly, this theory brings into question the legitimacy of the canon of Scripture, since apostolic origin was one of the primary criteria taken into consideration when the canon was being formed.  If 2 Peter was initially accepted into the canon because of its Petrine authorship, it raises the question whether it should still be considered part of the canon now that we 'know better'.  It also raises the question of whether the church should reconsider other pseudonymous writings that were rejected as spurious.

In response to the objections listed above, I offer the following responses:

1. The Pastoral Epistles don't fit into the chronology of Acts because Paul was eventually released from prison in Rome and went on a fourth missionary journey to the Western extreme of the Empire (probably Spain).  He was later arrested and condemned to death under Nero. Clement's own writings seem to confirm this hypothesis since he speaks of Paul taking the gospel to the Western extremities of the Roman Empire.
2. The objection based on vocabulary and grammar is a classic example of begging the question, where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise.  Liberal minded scholars exclude the Pastorals a priori then proceed to argue that these  epistles don't contain "Pauline" language.  Its much more likely that Paul, an well educated man, had a much wider vocabulary than we give him credit for.  Also, the pastorals deal with different subject matter than the earlier epistles and so we would naturally expect him to use different vocabulary.
3. If we accept the hypothesis that the Pastoral Epistles were written at the end of Paul's ministry (based on external testimony from the early church), there is little reason to conclude that ecclesiastical structure couldn't have progressed to reflect the situation described in Timothy and Titus.
4. It is impossible to say for sure that the heresy Paul was combating was full blown Gnosticism.  There were certainly first century precursors to gnosticism.  New Testament scholars still have not reached a consensus as to the nature of the Colossian heresy so perhaps we should reserve our judgment here in the Pastorals too!
5. The internal evidence of the New Testament call into question the common theory regarding the acceptability of pseudonymous writings for Christians in the first two centuries (cf. 1 Thes 2:2).  Paul sometimes signs his letters with a special mark to ensure their authenticity and to defend against forgery.  I personally have a hard time believing that he would have approved of a well meaning disciple putting words in his mouth long after his death.
6. It seems a bit presumptuous to claim that we know more in the 21st century about what is and is not Pauline than the early Church Fathers who accepted the Pastorals as authentic.  The only person that I know of who rejected  their authority was the notorious heretic Marcion, who also rejected the Gospels and the Old Testament.

Ashamed of the Gospel?

"Nevertheless, I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed" - 2 Tim 1:12

I wonder how many of us who profess faith in Jesus Christ are in actual fact ashamed of the gospel?  If I'm honest with myself, I will need to confess that I am a lot more like Timothy than Paul - I struggle every day with timidity and shame in spite of my calling to do the work of an evangelist. This is partially related to my personality (I'm a recovering ISTJ), but it goes even deeper than that.  Although I share the gospel with university students on a regular basis, I still struggle with fear and self doubt almost every time I step on campus.  In our 'enlightened' society which has relegated the story of Jesus to the realm of myth and fairytale, confidence in the gospel can dissipate all to quickly once we step outside of our private refuge, and as a result, our witness for Christ is neutralized.  If you really think about it, why would Satan need to resort to more drastic forms of persecution to silence and marginalize the North American Church when our own self doubt and shame does the job more effectively?  Imagine how different Canada would be if we Evangelical Christians (still a significant although declining demographic) could openly and honestly proclaim with the apostle Paul "I am not ashamed of the gospel" (2 Tim 1:12).  Instead we openly worship God on Sunday morning and cower in fear and shame for the rest of the week.  Should it surprise us that non-believers have a hard time believing the gospel when we're harbouring internal doubts about it ourselves?   The Muslims I encounter every day in Montreal are not ashamed of their beliefs!  The Mormons I see every week on the Montreal subway are not ashamed to proclaim historically indefensible myths!  Most people in our society no longer feel shame to promote what was once considered in Western culture to be unspeakable immorality!  Why is it that we Christians cower in fear and make up excuses when it comes to sharing the gospel of our Lord and Saviour?  Are we really so concerned about using methodology that has the potential to offend, or is this merely a handy excuse to justify a deep seated sense of shame?

 Perhaps the root cause of our collective and individual shame is revealed in the second half of this verse. We "believe" the gospel (ie. in the sense that we assent to a series of truth propositions about Christ), but we do not truly know the One on whom we have believed.  Notice that the apostle doesn't say "I know what I have believed", but rather "I know whom I have believed". For many Christians living on this side of the Enlightenment, faith has more to do with intellectual assent to certain truths about Jesus than it does with a dynamic relationship with the living and active Word of God (Jesus Christ).  To borrow a concept from the late Missiologist and TEDS professor Dr. Paul Hiebert, we Western Evangelicals are more concerned with "bounded set" thinking (ie. you're defined as a Christian based on what you profess to believe) rather than "centred set" thinking (ie. you're defined as a Christian so long as you're moving toward the "center" - in this case, relationship with Christ).  The former has more to do with dogmatic precision (orthodoxy) while the latter has more to do with relationship and spiritual progress (ongoing sanctification).  I personally becoming more convinced that we need to place a greater emphasis on the latter while keeping orthodoxy front and center.   My working thesis as I'm thinking through this issue is that shame in the gospel will disappear (or at least diminish) as we translate our knowlege about the salvific activity of God in history into experiential knowledge of the living and active Jesus, through whose Spirit "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts" (Rom 5:5). If we come to the conclusion that we are ashamed of the gospel, we need to ask ourselves very seriously whether we truly know the One on whom we have believed or only know about Him.   Christianity is more than signing a statement of faith - it is experiential knowlege of the living and active Word of God who initiates and pursues relationship with us.

In a pluralistic and secular society which has turned moral truth on its head and treats the truths of God's Word as though it were one opinion among many (and a foolish opinion at that!), it will take more than intellectual assent to protect us against the sins of shame and unbelief - it will require nothing less than intimate, experiential knowlege of Christ.  I for one am determined by God's grace to grow in this area over the next year.  Perhaps it is time for us Sunday morning Christians to 'fess up to our cowardice, come out of the closet, and profess publically what we believe privately without reservation, without apology and without shame (and of course in a spirit of wisdom, love and humilty).  If Jesus wasn't ashamed to hang on a cross and die and to become a curse for sinners like us, then what right to we have to be ashamed of Him and His gospel?