WCF XX.4 and the BCP

My brother presbyter asks an interesting question:


Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 20: Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

4: And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[401] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church,[402] they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church.[403]

Did the Westminster Assembly violates it's own guidance when they tossed The Book of Common Prayer out the window (a form of thoroughly biblical form of worship established under legitimate ecclesiastical and civil authority)? Where was the "Christian liberty?" Was it done to build up the people?

Happy Birthday John Calvin!

500 years ago, God gave a great gift to the Church. While he's so well remembered as a theologian, we do him a great disservice in forgetting that he was a pastor. His most especial duty as a pastor was the preaching of the word, which he did a minimum of five days a week (often six). Calvin's sermons deserve to be read. Moreover, his dedication to the pure preaching of the word deserves to be emulated in the deadened pulpits of our day. T. H. L. Parker’s 1975 biography tells why:

And so we trace him preaching on Sundays with one hundred and eighty-nine sermons on the Acts between 1549 and 1554, a shorter series on some of the Pauline letters between 1554 and 1558, and the sixty-five on the Harmony of the Gospels between 1559 and 1564. During this time the weekdays saw series on Jeremiah and Lamentations (up to 1550), on the Minor Prophets and Daniel (1550-2), the one hundred and seventy-four on Ezekiel (1552-4), the one hundred and fifty-nine on Job (1554-5), the two hundred on Deuteronomy (1555-6), the three hundred and forty-two on Isaiah (1556-9), then one hundred twenty-three on Genesis (1559-61), a short set on Judges (1561), one hundred and seven on 1 Samuel and eighty-seven on 2 Samuel (1561-3) and a set on 1 Kings (1563-4).

Before he smiles at such unusual activity of the pulpit, the reader would do well to ask himself whether he would prefer to listen to the second-hand views on a religion of social ethics, or the ill-digested piety, delivered in slipshod English, that he will hear today in most churches of whatever denomination he may enter, or three hundred and forty-two sermons on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, sermons born of an infinite passion of faith and a burning sincerity, sermons luminous with theological sense, lively with wit and imagery, showing depths of compassion and the unquenchable joyousness of hope. Those in Geneva who listened Sunday after Sunday, day after day, and did not shut their ears, but were “instructed, admonished, exhorted, and censured,” received a training in Christianity such as had been given to few congregations in Europe since the days of the fathers. (92)

Thank you, John Calvin, for believing in the majesty of the word and for demonstrating by your life the glory of preaching the Bible.

And for making it look easy!

Do or Do Not - There is no try.

Verse 1

Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride
The question concerns those for whom Christ died
Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?
Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?
Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?
Biblically, each of these must be denied
It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride
But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied
If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide
And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides
And hell is the place you eternally reside
That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfied
But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died
But how the cross relates to those in hell?
Well, they be saying:

God knows He tried (8x)

Verse 2

Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
Working as a unit to get things done
Our salvation began in eternity past
God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
The Father foreknew first, the Son came to earth
To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth
The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides
And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides
The Father and the Spirit- completely unified
But when it comes to Christ and those in hell?
Well, they be saying:

God knows He tried (8x)

Verse 3

My third and final verse- here’s the situation
Just a couple more things for your consideration
If saving everybody was why Christ came in history
With so many in hell, we’d have to say He failed miserably
So many think He only came to make it possible
Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical
What about those who were already in the grave?
The Old Testament wicked- condemned as depraved
Did He die for them? C’mon, behave
But worst of all, you’re saying the cross by itself doesn’t save
That we must do something to give the cross its power
That means, at the end of the day, the glory’s ours
That man-centered thinking is not recommended
The cross will save all for whom it was intended
Because for the elect, God’s wrath was satisfied
But still, when it comes to those in hell
Well, they be saying:

God knows He tried (8x)

May Flowers

English-speaking Calvinists are generally familiar with TULIP:

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

However, given that some might see TULIP as old hat, today's challenge is to come up with another floral acronym that expresses the truths of Reformed Christianity. For example:

Perseverance of the saints
Authority of scripture
Noetic effects of the fall
Salvation in Jesus Christ
Yes to God’s grace

Shamelessly ganked from Byzantine Calvinist.

Presbypiscopal or Episcopresbyter?

I'm catching some flack from a numpty (not this numpty, but one of his devotees) about my having switched teams (left the PCUSA and joined the Anglican Communion). He's very upset that I "have decided to renounce not only the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, but the presbyterian form of government itself in favor of the papacy" and "ditching Westminster and the presbyterian form of church government."

I see. So broad swaths of the PCUSA can ditch Westminster as a whole (which it did in C-67) and let presbyterian government largely be undermined in favor of denominational lackeys (when it's not being ignored by "non-schismatic pastors" that choose to abandon constitutional restraint - acting as though their local congregations and presbyteries are able to act without waiting for GA to ratify constitutional ammendments) - but if I hold to the essence of the Reformed faith as put forward in Westminster and seek an ecclesial structure where the highest-ranking clergy seek the consent of their subordinate clergy and the laity, while acting in concert within a college of equals, then I'm apostate and abandoning biblical polity? (Excuse me...he actually lumps me with "orthodox schismatics" ilk.)

Let's set the record straight. I know that there's a lot of history between the Presbyterian Church (i.e., the Reformed Church as it developed in English-speaking countries) and the Anglican Communion (i.e., the Protestant Church that continued some form of episcopal succession). It's generated no small amount of animosity. In fact, the Reformed Episcopal Church seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church precisely because the latter - taking on Anglo-catholic leanings - began impeding the cooperation that had marked Presbyterian and Episcopalian relationships for the preceding 150 years. But we should echo the cry of the Reformers - Ad fontes! - and go back to our sources if we are to see clearly the challenges of the present.

Presbyterianism is a creature of the supreme orthodoxy shown in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the rejection of monarchical claims (whether by kings or by bishops). Its political history is checkered with moments of assent to and dissent from an episcopal polity. John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer were corresponding about the restoration of the historic episcopate to the Church of Geneva. "Power-mad" Calvin declined episcopacy for himself, and his successors and the successors to the archepiscopacy of Canterbury lost touch in the ensuing decades of turmoil. Eventually, both parties hardened into positions that their founders eschewed. Calvin's objection was to a sacerdotal system* - not to rule by bishops. We should also note that Calvin was not objecting to a sacramental system - but insisted on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (cf. B. A. Gerrish's Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin).

Father of Presbyterianism, John Knox, gave assent to bishops in the Convention of Leith in 1572 (cf. Ian Haslett's The Reformation in Britain and Ireland for brief analysis). The Reformed (Presbyterian) Church in Hungary continues to be headed by synodical bishops who have a non-pressed but very real succession from the historic episcopate. The Reformed Church in France (Calvin's homeland) also uses bishops to maintain their synodical government - though they do not claim an unbroken succession. Similarly, the Churches of Sweden and Finland (Lutherans) maintain an unbroken episcopal succession - just as the Church of England did.

An excellent study of the many issues involved in church polity - from biblical, theological, historical, and practical perspectives - is given in a book called Who Runs the Church. Therein, representatives of episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems give their side and graciously critique the positions of the others. I'll let you decide who wins....

For what it's worth, I'm an Anglican because I think that it has the greatest chance of bringing about catholic unity - not by bridging the divide between Rome and the Protestants, but by reuniting every Christian Church with the past and the present (including the Eastern churches) in practice and polity, as well as in barebones orthodoxy (via the Nicene Creed) - without the dogmatism on developments after the first ecumenical councils. And I'm proud to stand next to defenders of the faith like these guys.

* Don't let the English word priest be confused with the sacrificing priest pictured in the Roman sacerdotal system. The word priest is just the Old English pronunciation of presbytĕrātus, the Latin transliteration of the Greek presbys (πρέσβῠς ). It refers to one holding the office of the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is emphatically not a translation of the Latin sacerdos or the Greek ἱερεύς!

Milgram Study Still Shocks!

Chuck Colson reports on a recent rehash of the Milgram experiment.

The results: apparently 40 years of slamming authority structures, transcendental meditation, and not really educating our children has produced the same result as the last 5,960 years of recorded history. DEPRAVED HUMANS.

In fact, this is just one in a long line of scientific proofs for the one indisputable starting point of soteriology - Total Depravity. There is no place in our humanity (will, body, intellect, etc.) that exists as an island of righteousness or wholeness. We are corrupt in even our best intentions - and the more honest one is, the more they recognize that to be the case.

(BTW, I challenge any skeptic to sincerely examine the claims of any other religion and find one as consistent with reality - scientifically defined or otherwise - as Christianity has proven to be.)

So what do we do? If all the vast techno-prowess we have still leaves us with wicked humans with itchy fingers on bigger and badder weapons, what's to be done.

The answer is simple: Tell'em about Jesus.

Profile of a sinner

The kindly saints at Cal.vini.st have done us a great service in exploring the biblical definition of a sinner. They go through several statements from scripture, showing how every sinner:

• does not seek after God.
• is dead in their sin.
• is a child of wrath.
• is without excuse.
• suppresses the truth of God.

Exceptionally fine edification from the five-point fellas at Cal.vini.st!

Blind Man Walking

A man with brain damage that makes him clinically blind can navigate an obstacle course, seemingly by using a part of his brain other than the visual cortex to perceive the objects in his path. This remarkable ability, discovered through a chance observation, is shedding light on a curious phenomenon known as blindsight.

The man, known as patient TN, was studied by a multinational team led by Beatrice de Gelder at Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Alan Pegna of the Geneva University Hospitals in Switzerland.

The researchers tested TN extensively to confirm that he was completely blind. They used brain imaging to show that there was no activity in his visual cortex, the part of the brain that processes most of the information coming from the retina. They then persuaded TN to set his stick aside and walk down a corridor strewn with lab equipment.

"It's quite a distance to walk," says de Gelder. "He walked much faster than we had expected, without hesitation or any kind of exploration." She adds that he did it completely subconsciously, with no idea that he had been avoiding obstacles in his path.

The team think the visual signals from the retina were processed by neural pathways below the damaged cortex. "It's a major lesson that brain damage can release minor neurological pathways that had previously been suppressed, allowing them to play a more significant role," she says.

This discovery is fascinating for neurobiologists, evolutionary theorists, and medical practitioners for the ways it can advance their fields in treatment of pathology. It's fascinating to me, a practical theologian, because of the way it confirms the Scriptures and explains spiritual encounters in the world.

Humankind is blind because of the Fall. Our sin separates us from God, and that separation extends to all parts of human experience. Nowhere is it more evident than our ability to recognize God for who He is and ourselves for who we are. This affect of the mind is dubbed by theologians the noetic effects of sin. The Apostle Paul writes about it in Romans 1:18-23:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Echoing the sentiment of Job, Paul is describing the condition of non-Jewish peoples. But don't think that he excludes the Jewish people (to whom the Law was given and through whom came the promised Messiah) - just look at the next chapter (and ch. 11). For even Moses pointed out that God's redeemed people can be quite blind in their own right.

Deuteronomy 29:2 And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 3the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. 4But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. (See also Ezekiel 12:1ƒƒ and Jeremiah 5:20ƒƒ)

God's reconsitituted redeemed - the Church - can face the same problem of blindness (cf. 1 John 2:9ƒƒ). It troubled Jesus then, and it troubles his people now.

So where do we go from here? If the people on the outside of the covenant are hopelessly blind, and many within the covenant are blinded, too, what's to become of the world?

Hear what Paul said to the people of Athens when he noticed that they were groping about for a deity they intuited was out there, but didn't know.

Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

We stumble and grope. We get it partially right, but mostly wrong. And yet still, there is an abiding, deep, and stubborn perception of the divine. Even secular and atheistic antagonists recognize the persistence of religious belief.Calvin called this phenomenon the sensus divinitatis.* As Francis Bacon wrote in Novum Organum Scientiarum,

For man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocency and from his dominion over Creation. Both of these losses however can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by arts and sciences.

The search for that latter dominion goes on, and I've related a small step in that direction above. The Church is largely responsible for making this search so successful (maybe even possible) in the West. But we've failed in our first calling, which was to help people who seek after God find him in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

When we preach or explain our faith and someone rebuffs us, we get offended instead of praying for Satan to be hampered. We argue, fuss and fight. But sometimes what blind people need the most is for someone to patiently be there, walking beside them to steady them when they wobble or stumble...someone who knows the way around those obstacles.

May the King Who opens our eyes grant you grace to do just that!

* I learned about this in Paul Helm's class taught in conjunction with the release of his book John Calvin's Ideas. Read his blog and you'll quickly see why I can't read Calvin without hearing it in a British accent. You don't have to spend $60 to get at his work on reformed epistemology. The outlines of the argument are present in an earlier article. Paul Helm, "John Calvin, the Sensus Divinitatis, and the noetic effects of sin" International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Springer, ISSN 0020-7047 Volume 43, Number 2, pg 82, April 1998

I went to seminary for this?

Man, I could have gotten the same education by watching YouTube?

Happy (and HOLY) New Year!

Worship Wednesday - Psalmody

In case it isn't clear from my blog, I'm made from a blend of Christian traditions. I was baptized as a Methodist (twice!), raised (razed?) a Pentecostal, then (after a stint in neo-Paganism / Panentheism / Agnosticism) became a Presbyterian. It was in the Presbyterian / Reformed tradition that I gained a sense of who I was in Christ, so I owe a depth of gratitude that I'll never be able to pay.

However, now - by immutable decree of Almighty God in His good providence (and, I suspect, humor) - I am an Anglican. And we pray through up to three Psalms in each of our daily offices. This has rejuvenated a portion of my Presbyterian posterior - psalmody. I'm trying to find (or arrange) our Sunday Psalm readings into singable formats. Luckily, there are some really great Psalters out there - mostly from the Scots-Presbyterian tradition. CGMusic hosts three of them online, with playable MIDI formats! It's become one of my favorite tools.

But it let me down slightly for this Sunday's BCP reading (which - while allowing the whole psalm, focuses on David's establishment of a house of worship - and the LORD's establishment of David's house). So I came up with a new one - somewhat eclecticly chosen from what was there, and some of it the work of my own fevered imagination.

8 Arise, O Lord, inhabit now
your constant place of rest.
You and the ark of your great strength,
with us your presence bless.
9 Let all your priests be cloth-èd, Lord,
with truth and righteousness.
Make all your saints with songs of praise
Shout loud for joyfulness!

10 And for your servant David’s sake,
suffer not, Lord, I pray.
The face of your Anointed one
to ever turn away.
11 The Lord to David did make oath,
sworn on His name alone:
12 “A son from your own body shall
I seat upon your throne.”

13 And if your sons my cov’nant keep,
and to my laws submit,
Their children too, forevermore
Upon your throne shall sit.”
14 The Lord himself has Zion chose,
there He desires to dwell.
15 “This is my ever-bless’d abode,
for I do love her well.”

16 “And I will bless with great increase!
Her food stores everywhere.
With living bread I'll satisfy
The poor and needy there.
17 With salvation I’ll robe her priests!
From saints, my praises flow.
18 There David’s son shall ever reign,
the Lamp ordained to glow.

I'm thinking this goes nice with Ellacome ("I Sing the Mighty Power of God!") which is very familiar. However, Forest Green would also be lovely (though less familiar).

Seeing the world as a Calvinist

Apparently, a Dutch scientist has found a difference between Calvinists and Atheists when it comes to pattern recognition.

Maybe that's why we're soooo good at seeing the speck in someone else's theology, and so unable to see the log in our own practice?

I dunno...I'm skeptical of any causal connections found or posited. But it's true that an emphasis on God's sovereignty can cause one to see the world in a different light.

You might have heard the joke about the Calvinist who fell down a flight of stairs. A friend who saw it all take place asked: "Are you alright?"

To which the Calvinist replied: "Well...I'm glad that's over."

I have a friend - really the father of a friend of mine - who helped me understand practical Calvinism. At the time, I was as Arminian as pentecostals come. I would say that in evangelism, Calvinists had to be the coldest, hardest, merciless people imaginable. He retorted that when things get tough, a good Calvinist is in a much better position to sing God's praises.

That man is going through an awful battle with cancer - one he may not pull through. Yet every picture of him has a smile, and he has a quiet confidence in God's goodness and living for God's glory. It's a beautiful thing - and it's touching the lives of people who are immune to the Arminian "decide today, or burn tomorrow" rhetoric.

Why? Because he sees a pattern to God's goodness that is beyond the limits of his own understanding. He sees a purpose to his life that is beyond his own comfort, health, or salvation. Maybe that scientist was on to something after all....

What does your theology let you see when you're in the midst of suffering?

The Gospel Recovered

Cindy Jacobs (whom I blogged about yesterday) calls her latest book Reformation Manifesto (the "new apostolic movement" often sees itself in line with a new Reformation - which is why they say the older churches oppose them).

But I'm giving a shout out to the REAL Reformation the Church continually needs.



Here's to 491 years of the Gospel recovered!

And here's "the classic"

BLESSED REFORMATION DAY!!!

On Becoming a Reformed Catholic

I'm thinking of making a weekly rule (not sure yet...bear with me) on blogging. Thursdays would be reserved for Theology. Wednesdays for Worship. Saturdays for silliness. Mondays for musings... Anyway, here's an early stab at Theology Thursday.

A major hurdle in my journey from Presbyterianism to Anglicanism was being forced to abandon the Westminster Confession of Faith as my doctrinal standard. (Yes, I had scruples but they were primarily in the area of praxis.) I'd long known that the Westminster began as an expansion of the 39 Articles of Religion which had been the basis of the Evangelical Reformation of the Catholic Church in England. But something I admired about Westminster was its comprehensiveness.

After a year of intense reading and soul-searching, I've come to cherish the 39 Articles. I cherish them as an irenic statement of evangelical truth, written from a pastoral perspective. The shepherding qualities of a bishop are clearly evident in them. For instance, ..

In a new journal for orthodox Anglicanism, 39 Articles, I came across an article titled "Kindred Spirits" which addresses the continuities and discontinuities between 39 Articles and WCF. It was a blessing to read. Here's an apt snippet:

While the preface to the 1549 prayer book notes that “There never was any thing by the whit of man so well devised, or so surely established, which in the contin­u­ance of time hath not been corrupted. . . .” both documents do set forth a very concise system of doctrine that is easily understood by any that care to read them. It is in the setting forth of the doctrine contained in Scripture that both documents find their wholeness, and that is what determines the degree to which they remain un­cor­rupted. The system set forth is as harmonious to the Word of God as the work of man can be. Ac­cord­ing­ly and not surprisingly, both are systems that have with­stood the test of time and temp­tation.

There is another way in which both documents, at least from a Calvinistic point of view, are com­plete. Historically, Calvinists have defined a true church by the following marks: the preaching of the gospel, the right adminis­tration of the sacraments, and church discipline. In both docu­ments, The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, we find excellent and con­cise definitions of these marks, discussions that are both in harmony with each other and with scripture. From a pastoral stand­point — and this is indeed the where the rubber meets the road — they are wonderfully complete. The documents then find their ultimate completeness in their usefulness to the church.

I encourage you to read the rest here.

Preaching Hell in a Tolerant Age

Brimstone for the broad-minded.
by Tim Keller

The young man in my office was impeccably dressed and articulate. He was an Ivy League MBA, successful in the financial world, and had lived in three countries before age 30. Raised in a family with only the loosest connections to a mainline church, he had little understanding of Christianity.

I was therefore gratified to learn of his intense spiritual interest, recently piqued as he attended our church. He said he was ready to embrace the gospel. But there was a final obstacle.

"You've said that if we do not believe in Christ," he said, "we are lost and condemned. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that. I work with some fine people who are Muslim, Jewish, or agnostic. I cannot believe they are going to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus. In fact, I cannot reconcile the very idea of hell with a loving God—even if he is holy too."

This young man expressed what may be the main objection contemporary secular people make to the Christian message. (A close second, in my experience, is the problem of suffering and evil.) Moderns reject the idea of final judgment and hell.

Thus, it's tempting to avoid such topics in our preaching. But neglecting the unpleasant doctrines of the historic faith will bring about counter-intuitive consequences. There is an ecological balance to scriptural truth that must not be disturbed.

If an area is rid of its predatory or undesirable animals, the balance of that environment may be so upset that the desirable plants and animals are lost—through overbreeding with a limited food supply. The nasty predator that was eliminated actually kept in balance the number of other animals and plants necessary to that particular ecosystem. In the same way, if we play down "bad" or harsh doctrines within the historic Christian faith, we will find, to our shock, that we have gutted all our pleasant and comfortable beliefs, too.

The loss of the doctrine of hell and judgment and the holiness of God does irreparable damage to our deepest comforts—our understanding of God's grace and love and of our human dignity and value to him. To preach the good news, we must preach the bad.

But in this age of tolerance, how?

How to preach hell to traditionalists

Before preaching on the subject of hell, I must recognize that today, a congregation is made up of two groups: traditionalists and postmoderns. The two hear the message of hell completely differently.

People from traditional cultures and mindsets tend to have (a) a belief in God, and (b) a strong sense of moral absolutes and the obligation to be good. These people tend to be older, from strong Catholic or religious Jewish backgrounds, from conservative evangelical/Pentecostal Protestant backgrounds, from the southern U.S., and first-generation immigrants from non-European countries.

The way to show traditional persons their need for the gospel is by saying, "Your sin separates you from God! You can't be righteous enough for him." Imperfection is the duty-worshiper's horror. Traditionalists are motivated toward God by the idea of punishment in hell. They sense the seriousness of sin.

But traditionalists may respond to the gospel only out of fear of hell, unless I show them Jesus experienced not only pain in general on the cross but hell in particular. This must be held up until they are attracted to Christ for the beauty of the costly love of what he did. To the traditional person, hell must be preached as the only way to know how much Christ loved you.

Here is one way I have preached this:

"Unless we come to grips with this terrible doctrine, we will never even begin to understand the depths of what Jesus did for us on the cross. His body was being destroyed in the worst possible way, but that was a flea bite compared to what was happening to his soul. When he cried out that his God had forsaken him, he was experiencing hell itself.

"If a mild acquaintance denounces you and rejects you—that hurts. If a good friend does the same—the hurt's far worse. However, if your spouse walks out on you, saying, 'I never want to see you again,' that is far more devastating still. The longer, deeper, and more intimate the relationship, the more torturous is any separation.

"But the Son's relationship with the Father was beginning-less and infinitely greater than the most intimate and passionate human relationship. When Jesus was cut off from God, he went into the deepest pit and most powerful furnace, beyond all imagining. And he did it voluntarily, for us."

How to preach hell to postmoderns

In contrast to the traditionalist, the postmodern person is hostile to the very idea of hell. People with more secular and postmodern mindsets tend to have (a) only a vague belief in the divine, if at all, and (b) little sense of moral absolutes, but rather a sense they need to be true to their dreams. They tend to be younger, from nominal Catholic or non-religious Jewish backgrounds, from liberal mainline Protestant backgrounds, from the western and northeastern U. S., and Europeans.

When preaching hell to people of this mindset, I've found I must make four arguments.

1. Sin is slavery. I do not define sin as just breaking the rules, but also as "making something besides God our ultimate value and worth." These good things, which become gods, will drive us relentlessly, enslaving us mentally and spiritually, even to hell forever if we let them.

I say, "You are actually being religious, though you don't know it—you are trying to find salvation through worshiping things that end up controlling you in a destructive way." Slavery is the choice-worshiper's horror.

C. S. Lewis's depictions of hell are important for postmodern people. In The Great Divorce, Lewis describes a busload of people from hell who come to the outskirts of heaven. There they are urged to leave behind the sins that have trapped them in hell. The descriptions Lewis makes of people in hell are so striking because we recognize the denial and self-delusion of substance addictions. When addicted to alcohol, we are miserable, but we blame others and pity ourselves; we do not take responsibility for our behavior nor see the roots of our problem.

Lewis writes, "Hell … begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps even criticizing it. … You can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine."

Modern people struggle with the idea of God thinking up punishments to inflict on disobedient people. When sin is seen as slavery, and hell as the freely chosen, eternal skid row of the universe, hell becomes much more comprehensible.

Here is an example from a recent sermon of how I try to explain this:

"First, sin separates us from the presence of God (Isa. 59:2), which is the source of all joy (Ps. 16:11), love, wisdom, or good thing of any sort (James 1:17) . …

"Second, to understand hell we must understand sin as slavery. Romans 1:21-25 tells us that we were built to live for God supremely, but instead we live for love, work, achievement, or morality to give us meaning and worth. Thus every person, religious or not, is worshiping something—idols, pseudo-saviors—to get their worth. But these things enslave us with guilt (if we fail to attain them) or anger (if someone blocks them from us) or fear (if they are threatened) or drivenness (since we must have them). Guilt, anger, and fear are like fire that destroys us. Sin is worshiping anything but Jesus—and the wages of sin is slavery."

Perhaps the greatest paradox of all is that the people on Lewis's bus from hell are enslaved because they freely choose to be. They would rather have their freedom (as they define it) than salvation. Their relentless delusion is that if they glorified God, they would lose their human greatness (Gen. 3:4-5), but their choice has really ruined their human greatness. Hell is, as Lewis says, "the greatest monument to human freedom."

2. Hell is less exclusive than so-called tolerance. Nothing is more characteristic of the modern mindset than the statement: "I think Christ is fine, but I believe a devout Muslim or Buddhist or even a good atheist will certainly find God." A slightly different version is: "I don't think God would send a person who lives a good life to hell just for holding the wrong belief." This approach is seen as more inclusive.

In preaching about hell, then, I need to counter this argument:

"The universal religion of humankind is: We develop a good record and give it to God, and then he owes us. The gospel is: God develops a good record and gives it to us, then we owe him (Rom. 1:17). In short, to say a good person, not just Christians, can find God is to say good works are enough to find God.

"You can believe that faith in Christ is not necessary or you can believe that we are saved by grace, but you cannot believe in both at once.

"So the apparently inclusive approach is really quite exclusive. It says, 'The good people can find God, and the bad people do not.'

"But what about us moral failures? We are excluded.

"The gospel says, 'The people who know they aren't good can find God, and the people who think they are good do not.'

"Then what about non-Christians, all of whom must, by definition, believe their moral efforts help them reach God? They are excluded.

"So both approaches are exclusive, but the gospel's is the more inclusive exclusivity. It says joyfully, 'It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. It doesn't matter if you've been at the gates of hell. You can be welcomed and embraced fully and instantly through Christ.' "

3. Christianity's view of hell is more personal than the alternative view. Fairly often, I meet people who say, "I have a personal relationship with a loving God, and yet I don't believe in Jesus Christ at all."

"Why?" I ask.

They reply, "My God is too loving to pour out infinite suffering on anyone for sin."

But then a question remains: "What did it cost this kind of God to love us and embrace us? What did he endure in order to receive us? Where did this God agonize, cry out? Where were his nails and thorns?"

The only answer is: "I don't think that was necessary."

How ironic. In our effort to make God more loving, we have made God less loving. His love, in the end, needed to take no action. It was sentimentality, not love at all. The worship of a God like this will be impersonal, cognitive, ethical. There will be no joyful self-abandonment, no humble boldness, no constant sense of wonder. We would not sing to such a being, "Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all."

The postmodern "sensitive" approach to the subject of hell is actually quite impersonal. It says, "It doesn't matter if you believe in the person of Christ, as long as you follow his example."

But to say that is to say the essence of religion is intellectual and ethical, not personal. If any good person can find God, then the essential core of religion is understanding and following the rules.

When preaching about hell, I try to show how impersonal this view is:

"To say that any good person can find God is to create a religion without tears, without experience, without contact.

"The gospel certainly is not less than the understanding of truths and principles, but it is infinitely more. The essence of salvation is knowing a Person (John 17:3). As with knowing any person, there is repenting and weeping and rejoicing and encountering. The gospel calls us to a wildly passionate, intimate love relationship with Jesus Christ, and calls that 'the core of true salvation.' "

4. There is no love without wrath. What rankles people is the idea of judgment and the wrath of God: "I can't believe in a God who sends people to suffer eternally. What kind of loving God is filled with wrath?"

So in preaching about hell, we must explain that a wrathless God cannot be a loving God. Here's how I tried to do that in one sermon:

"People ask, 'What kind of loving God is filled with wrath?' But any loving person is often filled with wrath. In Hope Has Its Reasons, Becky Pippert writes, 'Think how we feel when we see someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it. … Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference.'

"Pippert then quotes E. H. Gifford, 'Human love here offers a true analogy: the more a father loves his son, the more he hates in him the drunkard, the liar, the traitor.'

"She concludes: 'If I, a flawed narcissistic sinful woman, can feel this much pain and anger over someone's condition, how much more a morally perfect God who made them? God's wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer of sin which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being.' "

A God like this

Following a recent sermon on the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the post-service question-and-answer session was packed with more than the usual number of attenders. The questions and comments focused on the subject of eternal judgment.

My heart sank when a young college student said, "I've gone to church all my life, but I don't think I can believe in a God like this." Her tone was more sad than defiant, but her willingness to stay and talk showed that her mind was open.

Usually all the questions are pitched to me, and I respond as best I can. But on this occasion people began answering one another.

An older businesswoman said, "Well, I'm not much of a churchgoer, and I'm in some shock now. I always disliked the very idea of hell, but I never thought about it as a measure of what God was willing to endure in order to love me."

Then a mature Christian made a connection with a sermon a month ago on Jesus at Lazarus' tomb in John 11. "The text tells us that Jesus wept," he said, "yet he was also extremely angry at evil. That's helped me. He is not just an angry God or a weeping, loving God—he's both. He doesn't only judge evil, but he also takes the hell and judgment himself for us on the cross."

The second woman nodded, "Yes. I always thought hell told me about how angry God was with us, but I didn't know it also told me about how much he was willing to suffer and weep for us. I never knew how much hell told me about Jesus' love. It's very moving."

It is only because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamation of grace and love are so brilliant and astounding.

Tim Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.

Originally published in Leadership journal, October 1, 1997.

Copyright © 1997 by the author or Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal.

For more on Hell from Tim Keller, go here.

When Believers Don't Believe

I'm increasingly troubled by the unbelief encountered every day in the church.

Yeah... there's the lib'rals that don't believe the stuff that the Church has always believed (on the authority of the Scriptures). That's dangerous.

But equally dangerous are those who do believe all those things, and for whom it does not make a difference. I-Monk's recent jab gets at the heart of this problem.

One of the good things about having a systematic exposition of the Scriptures (at least a lectionary) is that you are held accountable for public reading and preaching on the breadth of biblical teaching. That's also what I love about systematic theology.

Each of us - right, left, up, down, and centrist-as-all-get-out have a tendency to narrow our field of vision. We need the latitude of our normative patterns (Scripture and Sacred Science) to even out our peculiarities.

Lord, I believe. Help Thou my unbelief.

See you in St. Louis

Today, I head for my first denominational meeting since aligning with the Anglicans. I'm looking forward to the contrast. Having been to two General Assemblies, it will be interesting to note where the conflicts arise and where people will find unity.

I'm especially looking forward to meeting some of the men from the Reformed Episcopal Church. The APA connects me to them and to the Province of Nigeria through concordats of intercommunion. REC and Nigeria have a very high regard for the reformed catholicity upheld in the 39 Articles, Lambeth Articles, and Irish Articles. These are important to me because they led directly to the development of the Westminster Confessional Standards - where I first found my own theological voice.

What I didn't learn in CPE

Sometimes, less is more...

In all seriousness, in seminary we're given a psychological model for handling all pastoral crises. It has its legitimate and godly function within our churches. I've had the benefit of some training in these resources and have used them in counseling (formal and informal). I've also been shown that there are limits to my abilities and have made successful referrals to those more competent in therapy than myself.

However, I have been surprised at the number of issues raised (normally by middle-class+ white educated people) that could be solved with a more direct, straightforward, and biblical rebuke to quit sinning!

Westminster Confession of Faith in chapter XXX "Of Church Censures " in sections 3-4 proclaimed Biblical teaching of rebuke of sins:

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. (scriptural support)

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person. (scriptural support)

Many times Bible exhorts us to judge righteous judgment (even mean old Jesus) and rebuke sins before all (classic "meanies" like Paul, who probably learned it from that nasty Old Testament... or from archmeanie Jesus). Bible says there that sin must be condemned and judged. In Lev. 19:17-18 we see that love and rebuke are together and cannot be divorced. In fact, true wisdom (listen up, those who love Sophia) declares that rebuke is a loving act!

I end with a collection of verses that have been hidden in my heart for a long time. They're in KJV because that's what I used when I came back to the faith, and it's the official translation of my new ecclesial body...so stuff it (yeah, I mean that with love).

"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20)

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." (Isaiah 58:1)

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1).

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Proverbs 9:7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Proverbs 10:17 He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.

Proverbs 12:1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Proverbs 13:1 A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

Proverbs 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.

Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Proverbs 15:12 A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise.

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Proverbs 19:20 Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.

Proverbs 19:25 Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.

Proverbs 24:25 But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Proverbs 25:12 As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.

Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

Proverbs 28:23 He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.

Proverbs 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Amos 5:10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.

That last one I can attest to in my dealings with adultery and apostasy and financial chicanery in my old presbytery. When you start pointing out problems, you become the problem.

If you can't beat'em, join'em

Well...it looks like it's time to join the Covenant Network. I think conservative Presbyterians should rush in droves to join the Covenant Network. Here's the link to the Covenant Network that discouraged PCUSA Presbyterians need to join.

Fun Facts on Life Insurance and the death of a church

Fun Fact:

On this date in 1761, the first American life insurance policy was issued. The policy was available to ministers for the Presbyterian Church. It was provided by the Presbyterian Synods in Philadelphia and New York who set up the Corporation for Relief of Poor and Distressed Widows and Children of Presbyterian Ministers. Nevertheless, it proved to be unpopular as many ministers considered "insurance" to be a form of gambling.

They're still at it - the Presbyterian Church continues to provide death benefits for its minister members, virtually uninterrupted for 250 years. The financial resources of previous generations lend strength to the Board of Pensions, funding its important work. Unfortunately, the denomination has rejected the theological resources of the previous generations. Jettisoning the Westminster Standards (and adopting a sloppy substitute) has resulted in precipitous declines of membership and - more important - missional thinking and acting.

To all my friends in the PCUSA, I say this: There is no death policy for a church. The only thing that can be done for a dying church is to proclaim Christ's Resurrection with unflinching courage and conviction. If you want metaphorical, narrative growth - proclaim a rhetorical resurrection. But if you want real incarnational, missional, personal growth - proclaim his resurrection and ascension in the self-same body that suffered and died for our salvation.

Looking for ways to strengthen your congregation for meeting the great ends of the Church? Become a member of the Westminster Fellowship! (They'll even let Calvinist Anglicans like myself in...hey, it was our collegiate church!)

Catch that Calvinism

I just got an Easter card from a friend. It's lovely and well rendered, graphically. Take a look at it here. Do that before you read the rest of the post.





Now....can anybody guess why I find this card disheartening? Two thumbs up to the first contestant that gets it right!