It is clear that Christians ought not to have any fellowship with false teachers. What is less clear is what is meant by that word, 'fellowship'. In its narrowest sense it would refer to table and pulpit fellowship - that is to say that we are not to admit to the Lord's Table or to the pulpit of the Church those who do not teach according to the truth as it is in Jesus. By the same token we are not to participate in their table, or sit under their teaching. Thus a Christian cannot, and should not, participate in the Mass. To be a member of a congregation that is committed to heresy, either in its basis of faith (for example, a Unitarian congregation) or de facto (e.g. a liberal Methodist Church) is clearly wrong.
But what after that? Is it wrong for a Christian to be a member of an evangelical congregation that is part of a mixed denomination such as the URC? If so, Spurgeon was in error when he told people who had not left the Baptist Union to remain in the Union and to go on fighting to regain it. Is it wrong for a minister to accept an invitation to speak in a liberal congregation? If so I can think of a dear brother in Christ who himself left the Baptist Union after years as a BU pastor who still preaches at BU Churches. He is as valiant for truth as a man can be, even if we disagree on certain minor points of what we should be contending over. If anything he's perhaps over-zealous. Is he wrong to accept preaching invitations from such churches? Does that constitute 'Fellowship'? These are grey areas, and we need to acknowledge that they exist.
Secondly we need to acknowledge that good, sound men differ on their way of dealing with these grey areas. That's why some of us are not members of denominations we once were members of, while other good evangelical men are members of those denominations. We disagree, but we affirm that the situation is complex and there are no easy answers. Good and godly men facing the same grey areas may come to different conclusions. The fact that I think another man's approach is wrong does not mean I should denounce him in print or on the internet as a compromiser! Instead I should seek to understand why he does what he has done. A rush to judgement helps no-one and in fact damages the body of Christ. It also opens the one rushing to serious misinterpretation. To condemn someone because they have done something that someone, somewhere might possibly interpret, if they were thick as two short planks, as an endorsement of a false teacher is going too far and begins to wear the appearance of a witch-hunt.
Thirdly, we have to credit our fellow believers with some intellect. To take the recent Michael Horton example, Michael Horton is a seminary professor. His books are not exactly light reading, and are full of warnings against false teaching (my introduction to Horton as an author was through his book The Agony of Deceit). His readers are not typically ignorant, shallow evangelicals. He is best known for his work on The White Horse Inn, a programme that aims to help Christians to understand what they believe and why they believe it. It is a rather cerebral show, and Horton's followers are typically quite cerebral. In other words they are the last people on the planet to take a photograph of Horton with Rick Warren as a sign that Warren's fine and we are all to link arms with him and sing Kumbaya. Those who are likely to take such a shallow approach to a photograph are unlikely to know who Michael Horton is in the first place. Those are the people Warren appeals to, not Horton.
Thus we come to the question of 'secondary separation', as it has been called. No, in my opinion this can only meaningfully be done where one was actually united with someone in the first place. So, I am a pastor of a rather conservative Independent Evangelical Church that is a member of the FIEC, and of a local body called NoSFEC. John Piper is not a member of either of these groups, and nor is his Church. Thus, however much I may disagree with John Piper having Rick Warren speak at Desiring God, I cannot separate from Piper in any meaningful way, because I was never in fellowship with him in any meaningful way in the first place! I may voice my disapproval, but I cannot do anything else!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
An Unbridgeable Chasm
I watch in amazement at the flurry of activity that has followed the (now vanished) blog post about Michael Horton and Rick Warren. The poster of that has now as good as said that people should be warned about Michael Horton because he has been at Saddleback and was photographed with Rick Warren. The substance of what Horton said has, to be best of my knowledge, never been addressed by this person, or any of her partisans.
Now, first of all we need to separate any response to the post made by others to the content of the post itself, and the defences that have been mounted. I have no part in actions others may have taken, this is what I have said, in public, responding to vague accusations made in public. The accusation seems to amount to this: Michael Horton spoke at an event held at Saddleback, and was photographed with Rick Warren afterwards. This means that he is acting as a 'Bridger' between the Reformed world and Rick Warren.
Now, when the term was used of Dan Kimball, I thought I understood what was meant - that Kimball had a foot in each camp, a foot in the Emerging camp, and another in the broader Evangelical camp. Fair enough, I suppose you could argue that he is a bridger in that sense. But if speaking at a conference that is part of a parachurch organisation (not, as some have said, "shared the pulpit with Warren", which implies a Saddleback service), and being photgraphed with a man makes one a 'bridger' whom the Church must be "warned about", then we are being amazingly narrow.
Others have tried to take the focus off Horton by bringing in John Piper - but Horton and Piper are not in the same circles, Horton teaches at Westminster Seminary California, and is a confessional Reformed man. Piper has said Rick Warren is basically sound, Horton has said he isn't. I understand that people are worried, disappointment with Piper led to fears about Horton. But those fears are being expressed irrationally. It seems that some of Horton's critics will not be satisfied with anything short of Horton expressing a sort of second-degree separation, and simply cannot conceive of anyone going to anything like the Lausanne conversation unless they approve of everything that goes on there. The idea of a man going to such a thing therefore alarms them.
And how is this defended? By saying "well, people will assume he approves." My friends, do we really think that Reformed Christians are that shallow and foolish? That they base their opinions on pictures and reported facts? Or are not Reformed people readers, people who listen to multiple podcasts? Are they not in fact the least likely Christians to be led astray by a picture taken out of context?
And what is the alternative? Let me tell you what it is. It's giving up talking to people outside of our own little bubble. It's making absolutely sure that our message never troubles people in the Warren camp. And the result of "warning people about" Horton will be awful. After all, What are we warning them about? What is the content of that warning? That's what I can't see. Really, I cannot see the content of the warning about Michael Horton! And that worries me.
Now, first of all we need to separate any response to the post made by others to the content of the post itself, and the defences that have been mounted. I have no part in actions others may have taken, this is what I have said, in public, responding to vague accusations made in public. The accusation seems to amount to this: Michael Horton spoke at an event held at Saddleback, and was photographed with Rick Warren afterwards. This means that he is acting as a 'Bridger' between the Reformed world and Rick Warren.
Now, when the term was used of Dan Kimball, I thought I understood what was meant - that Kimball had a foot in each camp, a foot in the Emerging camp, and another in the broader Evangelical camp. Fair enough, I suppose you could argue that he is a bridger in that sense. But if speaking at a conference that is part of a parachurch organisation (not, as some have said, "shared the pulpit with Warren", which implies a Saddleback service), and being photgraphed with a man makes one a 'bridger' whom the Church must be "warned about", then we are being amazingly narrow.
Others have tried to take the focus off Horton by bringing in John Piper - but Horton and Piper are not in the same circles, Horton teaches at Westminster Seminary California, and is a confessional Reformed man. Piper has said Rick Warren is basically sound, Horton has said he isn't. I understand that people are worried, disappointment with Piper led to fears about Horton. But those fears are being expressed irrationally. It seems that some of Horton's critics will not be satisfied with anything short of Horton expressing a sort of second-degree separation, and simply cannot conceive of anyone going to anything like the Lausanne conversation unless they approve of everything that goes on there. The idea of a man going to such a thing therefore alarms them.
And how is this defended? By saying "well, people will assume he approves." My friends, do we really think that Reformed Christians are that shallow and foolish? That they base their opinions on pictures and reported facts? Or are not Reformed people readers, people who listen to multiple podcasts? Are they not in fact the least likely Christians to be led astray by a picture taken out of context?
And what is the alternative? Let me tell you what it is. It's giving up talking to people outside of our own little bubble. It's making absolutely sure that our message never troubles people in the Warren camp. And the result of "warning people about" Horton will be awful. After all, What are we warning them about? What is the content of that warning? That's what I can't see. Really, I cannot see the content of the warning about Michael Horton! And that worries me.
Friday, March 4, 2011
On Disagreeing
I have had my attention brought to this blog post - by someone who wants me to take sides. I shall now attempt not to. On the other hand, take a look here as well as here.
Things are rarely simple. The picture is just that, a picture. It does not actually tell us what Michael Horton's attitude towards Rick Warren's theology is. I quote Horton: "Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance."
Obviously you don't go to pictures to find out what a person thinks about another as a theologian - Spurgeon was a friend of Edward White, a leading Annahilationist of the 19th century. You could have photographed the two of them together, smiling. Anyone who takes the photograph of Warren and Horton together as proving that Horton thinks Warren is fine, is being massively naive.
"What?" the reader may say, "haven't you read that blog post?" Yes, I have. I'm not saying that the poster thinks Horton is approving of Warren. Rather she's worried that Warren and his fans will use the picture to say as much. That would be an abuse.
So what about Horton's involvement in the Lausanne Movement? One commenter (and I find that the comments are where the irresponsible charges of heresy appear) cries "ecumenism!" Well, what do you mean by Ecumenism? The word is used in different ways by different people. Used positively it refers to dialogue between different Churches. It is sometimes used in the more negative sense by conservative evangelicals to describe interfaith dialogues. The term "Ecumenical Movement" is often used to refer to the World Council of Churches. It is very important to ask then what is being meant by calling the Lausanne movement ecumenical - I am assuming of course that the word is not just being used as an insult. The WCC united Protestant Churches from all traditions, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anabaptist and Disciples of Christ, Eastern Orthodox Churches and other Orthodox Churches, etc. It contains liberals, Evangelicals and Catholic and Orthodox Traditions with all their variations. There are almost 350 denominations in the WCC. Its basis is wooly, and deliberately so. The confession of Jesus as "God and Saviour" of the original basis has been removed to allow for Unitarian involvement in the movement.
So, having considered what the WCC, the flagship of Ecumenism, is, we can move on to ask what the Lausanne movement is. Its website is here. It will be seen from this brief history that Lausanne began with Billy Graham, and is fundamentally different from the WCC. It is not an inter-Church body at all, and (as one might expect from its roots) is concerned chiefly with evangelism. The statement of faith of Lausanne is first of all there - the WCC really doesn't have one - and secondly it is evangelical. Is it sufficiant? No, not really, but then this is not a Church! Am I at all involved in Lausanne? No, I'm not. But I have to say, to say of Lausanne "that's ecumenism" is in fact a meaningless statement. Yes, the general secretary of the WCC spoke at the 3rd Lausanne congress - which concerns me - but to confuse the two at this juncture is unhelpful. That Lausanne is moving in an ecumenical direction is undeniable, however. Incidentally, this blog post on the WCC website rather amused me!
Which leads to the final point - should Michael Horton be involved in it? There I cannot comment. That is up to him, not to me, to him and to the United Reformed Churches of North America, of which he is a member. Fundamentally, however, the question that faces us as regards the matter is this: is it something that sound men can be involved in? Not should, but can. There comes a time in the drift of organisations when they have to be left. But the choice to leave is up to the conscience of the individual. Of all people, Baptists should understand this. Horton has two choices, as I see see it, to take no part at all in the Lausanne "conversation" and leave it to the Rick Warrens of the world, or to engage and try to be a sane voice. I cannot tell him which he should do - that's up to him to work out in consultation with the people he works with. Just as I cannot be an Anglican, but would not dictate to those Anglicans who are in the C of E, faithfully preaching the Gospel. Or the Baptist Union evangelicals, for that matter. To stay or leave has to be a personal decision. Now, if asked for advice, I'd say get out of the C of E!
But the Church of England is a denomination. Lausanne's supposed to be a conversation. I suspect Horton will find that it is, like the Emergent "Conversation", fast becoming a monologue. Still, if he's going to be reminding them of the Gospel, that's all for the good.
Things are rarely simple. The picture is just that, a picture. It does not actually tell us what Michael Horton's attitude towards Rick Warren's theology is. I quote Horton: "Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance."
Obviously you don't go to pictures to find out what a person thinks about another as a theologian - Spurgeon was a friend of Edward White, a leading Annahilationist of the 19th century. You could have photographed the two of them together, smiling. Anyone who takes the photograph of Warren and Horton together as proving that Horton thinks Warren is fine, is being massively naive.
"What?" the reader may say, "haven't you read that blog post?" Yes, I have. I'm not saying that the poster thinks Horton is approving of Warren. Rather she's worried that Warren and his fans will use the picture to say as much. That would be an abuse.
So what about Horton's involvement in the Lausanne Movement? One commenter (and I find that the comments are where the irresponsible charges of heresy appear) cries "ecumenism!" Well, what do you mean by Ecumenism? The word is used in different ways by different people. Used positively it refers to dialogue between different Churches. It is sometimes used in the more negative sense by conservative evangelicals to describe interfaith dialogues. The term "Ecumenical Movement" is often used to refer to the World Council of Churches. It is very important to ask then what is being meant by calling the Lausanne movement ecumenical - I am assuming of course that the word is not just being used as an insult. The WCC united Protestant Churches from all traditions, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anabaptist and Disciples of Christ, Eastern Orthodox Churches and other Orthodox Churches, etc. It contains liberals, Evangelicals and Catholic and Orthodox Traditions with all their variations. There are almost 350 denominations in the WCC. Its basis is wooly, and deliberately so. The confession of Jesus as "God and Saviour" of the original basis has been removed to allow for Unitarian involvement in the movement.
So, having considered what the WCC, the flagship of Ecumenism, is, we can move on to ask what the Lausanne movement is. Its website is here. It will be seen from this brief history that Lausanne began with Billy Graham, and is fundamentally different from the WCC. It is not an inter-Church body at all, and (as one might expect from its roots) is concerned chiefly with evangelism. The statement of faith of Lausanne is first of all there - the WCC really doesn't have one - and secondly it is evangelical. Is it sufficiant? No, not really, but then this is not a Church! Am I at all involved in Lausanne? No, I'm not. But I have to say, to say of Lausanne "that's ecumenism" is in fact a meaningless statement. Yes, the general secretary of the WCC spoke at the 3rd Lausanne congress - which concerns me - but to confuse the two at this juncture is unhelpful. That Lausanne is moving in an ecumenical direction is undeniable, however. Incidentally, this blog post on the WCC website rather amused me!
Which leads to the final point - should Michael Horton be involved in it? There I cannot comment. That is up to him, not to me, to him and to the United Reformed Churches of North America, of which he is a member. Fundamentally, however, the question that faces us as regards the matter is this: is it something that sound men can be involved in? Not should, but can. There comes a time in the drift of organisations when they have to be left. But the choice to leave is up to the conscience of the individual. Of all people, Baptists should understand this. Horton has two choices, as I see see it, to take no part at all in the Lausanne "conversation" and leave it to the Rick Warrens of the world, or to engage and try to be a sane voice. I cannot tell him which he should do - that's up to him to work out in consultation with the people he works with. Just as I cannot be an Anglican, but would not dictate to those Anglicans who are in the C of E, faithfully preaching the Gospel. Or the Baptist Union evangelicals, for that matter. To stay or leave has to be a personal decision. Now, if asked for advice, I'd say get out of the C of E!
But the Church of England is a denomination. Lausanne's supposed to be a conversation. I suspect Horton will find that it is, like the Emergent "Conversation", fast becoming a monologue. Still, if he's going to be reminding them of the Gospel, that's all for the good.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Other Jesuses
This past week I had another visit from a member of the Watchtower organisation, otherwise known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm also reasing April DeConick's book on the Gospel of Judas. So my mind is moving on things unorthodox and Christological. Then I saw a comment by a Mormon that "Mormons do not believe in another Jesus."
Another than what? I thought. The answer is, another than Christians have historically believed in, another than that taught in the Nicene Creed. Let me give an illustration from American politics. Initial source here.
Ssaome conspiracy theorists say that Barack Hussein Obama, current President of the United States of America, is in fact a Kenyan-born man called Barry Soetero, who is a devout Muslim. On the other hand, his supporters say he was born in Hawaii, his name is Barak Hussein Obama, and he is a liberal Christian. Now, take a person who holds one of these views, and a person whom holds the other. Do they hold to the same Obama? No, Barry Soetero and Barack Obama are two different people, with different histories. One is eligible to be the president of the US, the other is not. It doesn't matter that both men are thinking of the same human being - they think such different things about him that they cannot both be true.
Just so with Jesus. Look at the Jesus of the Watchtower, or the Jesus of Mormonism, and compare them with the Jesus of the Nicene Churches. They are quite different. Fundamental to the Nicene faith is that Jesus is eternal, "of one substance with the Father", and that there is only one, eternal, God. The Mormon, on the other hand, believes that God became God, and was a man who lived on another planet, and that Jesus was born in the pre-existence to one of his father's spirit-wives. To the Mormon, not only was there a time when Jesus was not, but there was a time when the Father was not!
Or take the Watchtower. They say that Jesus is a created being, not co-equal with the Father, who is alone. And we could go on. The fact is that they do believe in a different Jesus. And ony one can be right!
Another than what? I thought. The answer is, another than Christians have historically believed in, another than that taught in the Nicene Creed. Let me give an illustration from American politics. Initial source here.
Ssaome conspiracy theorists say that Barack Hussein Obama, current President of the United States of America, is in fact a Kenyan-born man called Barry Soetero, who is a devout Muslim. On the other hand, his supporters say he was born in Hawaii, his name is Barak Hussein Obama, and he is a liberal Christian. Now, take a person who holds one of these views, and a person whom holds the other. Do they hold to the same Obama? No, Barry Soetero and Barack Obama are two different people, with different histories. One is eligible to be the president of the US, the other is not. It doesn't matter that both men are thinking of the same human being - they think such different things about him that they cannot both be true.
Just so with Jesus. Look at the Jesus of the Watchtower, or the Jesus of Mormonism, and compare them with the Jesus of the Nicene Churches. They are quite different. Fundamental to the Nicene faith is that Jesus is eternal, "of one substance with the Father", and that there is only one, eternal, God. The Mormon, on the other hand, believes that God became God, and was a man who lived on another planet, and that Jesus was born in the pre-existence to one of his father's spirit-wives. To the Mormon, not only was there a time when Jesus was not, but there was a time when the Father was not!
Or take the Watchtower. They say that Jesus is a created being, not co-equal with the Father, who is alone. And we could go on. The fact is that they do believe in a different Jesus. And ony one can be right!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Further Thoughts on Frank Turk's Open Letter
It has been a little while since the Frank Turk/White Horse Inn question cropped up. In my defence, my brain mulls over things slowly at times. To remind any possible readers, the letter in question is here.
Mulling it over, I realised that the major problem underlying this letter is one of communication. In fact there is a category error being committed here.
The first is this: Following John MacArthur and others in the early stages of the 'Lordship Controversy', it seems at times that Turk wishes to make necessary consequences of the Gospel into parts of the Gospel. The non-lordship teachers said that repentance and a changed life were not required of Christians. In response some of the 'lordship' teachers made these part of the Gospel. It seems to me (and I may be mistaken) that Frank Turk is tending the same way. The fact is that Horton and Co. believe that the Gospel has consequences, and these consequences are necessary, they are just concerned to distinguish the consequences from the Gospel itself. Even in the quotations that Turk gives, the White Horse Inn hosts talk about the Gospel affecting how we live. So I ask: Do we agree that the Gospel has necessary consequences for our lives? If so, are we in fact arguing over a category mistake?
What the Gospel results in is not the Gospel, or part of the Gospel. Now, you may think I am straining out gnats here, but I am not. You see, if we confuse the results of the Gospel with the Gospel, we start preaching them as though they were the Gospel. In the 19th century temperance was regarded as a necessary consequence of conversion by many groups. At that point you can argue about what Temperance means, but the point is that it was regarded as a result of conversion. But then people began to preach for temperance, not conversion! The result was preached - not the Gospel that leads to the result! So it is today when you have Churches preaching life-change as the Gospel. No, the Gospel is Christ crucified for me - life-change is the result! We need to be crystal-clear on this fact.
Billy Sunday was an American evangelist, and one of Billy Graham's models. Whatever we may think of him, he makes a good case study here. When Sunday began his ministry, he called people to believe in Jesus. As time went on, however, he began to add various aspects of life-change to that call. In the opinion of Homer Rodeheaver, Sunday's music director, this led to a situation where "Very rarely does he give a definite, clear invitation for people to forsake their sins and come and publically accept Christ as their Saviour" (Quoted in Lyle Dorsett: Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America [Eerdmans, 1991] P. 135).
The two must be kept distinct. Time and again failure to understand this has led to legalism. On the other hand, failure to understand that the consequences of the Gospel are necessary has led to antinomianism.
The White Horse Inn is not a Church, and it seems to me a little odd to tell people off for, on the one hand, being treated by some people as if their radio broadcast were the Church, and then to tell them off for not acting more like the Church! But we are all inconsistent, after all!
Mulling it over, I realised that the major problem underlying this letter is one of communication. In fact there is a category error being committed here.
The first is this: Following John MacArthur and others in the early stages of the 'Lordship Controversy', it seems at times that Turk wishes to make necessary consequences of the Gospel into parts of the Gospel. The non-lordship teachers said that repentance and a changed life were not required of Christians. In response some of the 'lordship' teachers made these part of the Gospel. It seems to me (and I may be mistaken) that Frank Turk is tending the same way. The fact is that Horton and Co. believe that the Gospel has consequences, and these consequences are necessary, they are just concerned to distinguish the consequences from the Gospel itself. Even in the quotations that Turk gives, the White Horse Inn hosts talk about the Gospel affecting how we live. So I ask: Do we agree that the Gospel has necessary consequences for our lives? If so, are we in fact arguing over a category mistake?
What the Gospel results in is not the Gospel, or part of the Gospel. Now, you may think I am straining out gnats here, but I am not. You see, if we confuse the results of the Gospel with the Gospel, we start preaching them as though they were the Gospel. In the 19th century temperance was regarded as a necessary consequence of conversion by many groups. At that point you can argue about what Temperance means, but the point is that it was regarded as a result of conversion. But then people began to preach for temperance, not conversion! The result was preached - not the Gospel that leads to the result! So it is today when you have Churches preaching life-change as the Gospel. No, the Gospel is Christ crucified for me - life-change is the result! We need to be crystal-clear on this fact.
Billy Sunday was an American evangelist, and one of Billy Graham's models. Whatever we may think of him, he makes a good case study here. When Sunday began his ministry, he called people to believe in Jesus. As time went on, however, he began to add various aspects of life-change to that call. In the opinion of Homer Rodeheaver, Sunday's music director, this led to a situation where "Very rarely does he give a definite, clear invitation for people to forsake their sins and come and publically accept Christ as their Saviour" (Quoted in Lyle Dorsett: Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America [Eerdmans, 1991] P. 135).
The two must be kept distinct. Time and again failure to understand this has led to legalism. On the other hand, failure to understand that the consequences of the Gospel are necessary has led to antinomianism.
The White Horse Inn is not a Church, and it seems to me a little odd to tell people off for, on the one hand, being treated by some people as if their radio broadcast were the Church, and then to tell them off for not acting more like the Church! But we are all inconsistent, after all!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Unbalanced hangers-on
Wherever there is strife, wherever there is controversy, there are partisans. There are people basking in reflected glory. This is a bad thing. Always. Visiting New York in the 1930s, Dietrich Bonhoeffer noticed that the students at Union Seminary, though they ridiculed stupid fundamentalists, were in fact much shallower than those they ridiculed. Of course many were - it is always much easier to climb on a bandwagon. But the same is true of Fundamentalism. And where the original parties in the controversy were thinkers, there are hangers-on who are not, and who become radically unbalanced.
Some of the imbalnce is due to youth, either in years or in experience. The young Calvinist goes through a 'cage stage', where he needs to be locked up as a danger to himself and others, and is in danger of becoming hyper! He becomes proud of the fact that he did nothing to save himself! Why? Because he hasn't thought through all the implications of what he believes! That, I think is the problem, people are attracted to Calvinism, to the Reformed Churches or even to Confessional Lutheranism, and as soon as they are in the door, everything else is wrong. So there is an imbalance. C.F.W. Walther had to deal with people who talked of "The only saving Lutheran Church", and said that outside the Lutheran Church there was no salvation - is it any wonder we have similar folk today?
Hangers-on, when they are unbalanced, go beyond those they hang on. For example, in a recent theological controversy on the internet, concerns were expressed over the fact that a certain apologist was associating with certain Emergent types. Along comes a hanger-on and says, "He's a full-blown emergent", or words to that effect. But that statement bore no relation at all to reality! We can't blame those who are hung on for the hangers-on. We can only say this: if all your reading is from one small publisher, from one perspective, from one man or circle of men - you really need to get out more. You really do need to know what you believe and why you believe it - not just listen to s show that talks about teaching you to know that!
Some of the imbalnce is due to youth, either in years or in experience. The young Calvinist goes through a 'cage stage', where he needs to be locked up as a danger to himself and others, and is in danger of becoming hyper! He becomes proud of the fact that he did nothing to save himself! Why? Because he hasn't thought through all the implications of what he believes! That, I think is the problem, people are attracted to Calvinism, to the Reformed Churches or even to Confessional Lutheranism, and as soon as they are in the door, everything else is wrong. So there is an imbalance. C.F.W. Walther had to deal with people who talked of "The only saving Lutheran Church", and said that outside the Lutheran Church there was no salvation - is it any wonder we have similar folk today?
Hangers-on, when they are unbalanced, go beyond those they hang on. For example, in a recent theological controversy on the internet, concerns were expressed over the fact that a certain apologist was associating with certain Emergent types. Along comes a hanger-on and says, "He's a full-blown emergent", or words to that effect. But that statement bore no relation at all to reality! We can't blame those who are hung on for the hangers-on. We can only say this: if all your reading is from one small publisher, from one perspective, from one man or circle of men - you really need to get out more. You really do need to know what you believe and why you believe it - not just listen to s show that talks about teaching you to know that!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sanctified by Faith: A Few Thoughts
A controversy has blown up over the question of the relationship of law and gospel in the Christian life. One of the contributions may be found here.
Put simply, the concern of Frank Turk and others is this: If we emphasise the distinction between the law and the gospel, are we in danger of Antinomianism? Are we denying that the Gospel has consequences?
The answer of course is no. I am not denying that the Gospel has consequences. It happens that on Saturday night, blissfully unaware of any of this, I was teaching a group of young people from Philippians 3. One of the major themes in Philippians is that the Gospel has an effect on our life, "Only let your conduct be worthy of the Gospel of Christ," Paul says in Philippians 1.27. So the Gospel has consequences, it is possible to live in a way that is worthy of the Gospel, and therefore to live in a way that is unworthy. In other words, the motive to holy life is the Gospel, not the law. The law shows us what a holy life looks like, but gives us no power to actually live that holy life.
The law governs by force, it is the paedagogos (a word that one of the members at Bethel now knows off by heart!), the harsh overseer who made sure the child went to school, did his homework and behaved himself! It is the message of what God demands.
The Gospel on the other hand is a message of what God has done for us in Christ to save us from our sins. But you see, it is a message of a great deliverance. That message changes everything. For we are delivered from the guilt of sin, and from its tyranny. We are born again, and led by the Holy Spirit. Gratitude, not obligation, drives us. Let me quote Thomas Chalmers on Romans 6:
"There is a sure transition from our being justified by faith to our being sanctified by faith. There is a provision made for this in the mechanism of the moral nature of man below; and there is a provision made for it in that celestial mechanism which has been set up in heaven... Faith makes known to us the love of God, and upon this gratitude calls forth the love of the heart to Him in return."
To return to Philippians 3, in the chapter Paul begins with legalism, with the Judaizers, and discards legal righteousness as rubbish. The only righteousness that matters, he says, is the imputed righteousness of Christ. But what does this lead to? It leads to a "pressing towards the mark", to holy living. Yes, there are the belly-worshippers (I'm sure there's a German compound word for that) who claim to be Christians, but the very fact that they are belly-worshippers proves that they are enemies of the cross. Jesus died to free us from our sins, not so that we could live in them.
You see, Jesus is the reward. If we really believe that, if we really are looking forward to living in the new heavens and the new earth in which righteouness dwells, then that will have consequences. But those consequences are just that. What I and the White Horse Inn folk are pleading for is that the distinction between the Gospel and its consequences not be erased - because the result of that is ultimately that the Gospel becomes something I do, my being changed, not that which changes me.
The law and the Gospel are always distinct. But they are never to be separated.
I would add that if you get all your teaching from a radio discussion show, you're radically unbalanced anyhow!
Put simply, the concern of Frank Turk and others is this: If we emphasise the distinction between the law and the gospel, are we in danger of Antinomianism? Are we denying that the Gospel has consequences?
The answer of course is no. I am not denying that the Gospel has consequences. It happens that on Saturday night, blissfully unaware of any of this, I was teaching a group of young people from Philippians 3. One of the major themes in Philippians is that the Gospel has an effect on our life, "Only let your conduct be worthy of the Gospel of Christ," Paul says in Philippians 1.27. So the Gospel has consequences, it is possible to live in a way that is worthy of the Gospel, and therefore to live in a way that is unworthy. In other words, the motive to holy life is the Gospel, not the law. The law shows us what a holy life looks like, but gives us no power to actually live that holy life.
The law governs by force, it is the paedagogos (a word that one of the members at Bethel now knows off by heart!), the harsh overseer who made sure the child went to school, did his homework and behaved himself! It is the message of what God demands.
The Gospel on the other hand is a message of what God has done for us in Christ to save us from our sins. But you see, it is a message of a great deliverance. That message changes everything. For we are delivered from the guilt of sin, and from its tyranny. We are born again, and led by the Holy Spirit. Gratitude, not obligation, drives us. Let me quote Thomas Chalmers on Romans 6:
"There is a sure transition from our being justified by faith to our being sanctified by faith. There is a provision made for this in the mechanism of the moral nature of man below; and there is a provision made for it in that celestial mechanism which has been set up in heaven... Faith makes known to us the love of God, and upon this gratitude calls forth the love of the heart to Him in return."
To return to Philippians 3, in the chapter Paul begins with legalism, with the Judaizers, and discards legal righteousness as rubbish. The only righteousness that matters, he says, is the imputed righteousness of Christ. But what does this lead to? It leads to a "pressing towards the mark", to holy living. Yes, there are the belly-worshippers (I'm sure there's a German compound word for that) who claim to be Christians, but the very fact that they are belly-worshippers proves that they are enemies of the cross. Jesus died to free us from our sins, not so that we could live in them.
You see, Jesus is the reward. If we really believe that, if we really are looking forward to living in the new heavens and the new earth in which righteouness dwells, then that will have consequences. But those consequences are just that. What I and the White Horse Inn folk are pleading for is that the distinction between the Gospel and its consequences not be erased - because the result of that is ultimately that the Gospel becomes something I do, my being changed, not that which changes me.
The law and the Gospel are always distinct. But they are never to be separated.
I would add that if you get all your teaching from a radio discussion show, you're radically unbalanced anyhow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
