Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 104

Common Fault Lines in Maintaining an Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality

Peter Wehner is the former deputy assistant to George W. Bush. He also served in the Reagan and other Bush administrations. Wehner, now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a social conservative and an evangelical Christian.

On June 11, Wehner authored a guest post at Patheos entitled, “An Evangelical Christian Looks at Homosexuality.” The context for the piece was a recent exchange Wehner had with a Christian acquaintance on the matter of homosexuality. This unnamed interlocutor was advocating that Christians “speak out more boldly and forcefully” and “vehemently oppose homosexuality and same sex marriage.” Not knowing the details of the exchange, it’s possible I would disagree with Wehner’s Christian acquaintance just as Wehner did. I certainly agreed with Wehner’s contention that applying the laws of ancient Israel to the United States is tricky business and that determining “how the Scriptural injunctions against homosexual behavior should manifest themselves in modern American law and society are not self-evident.” That is to say, our political and legislative positions cannot be determined simply by noting that the Bible calls something a sin and therefore that sin should be illegal. Further considerations about the common good, natural law, human rights, the unfolding of redemptive history, and the nature and scope of the state must come into play. I do not think the state should recognize gay marriage (so called), but my justification for this position goes deeper than merely asserting that homosexual behavior is ethically wrong.

But I digress.

My reason for noting Wehner’s article is because he is a thoughtful Christian who—despite some good points—has, in my estimation, repeated many of the worst arguments Christians often use when equivocating on homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular. Let me mention four of these arguments.

Argument #1: Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

While acknowledging that frequency isn’t everything, Wehner nevertheless drives home that “Jesus was more concerned about how a society treats the poor than how it treats homosexuality” and that Scripture mentions concern for the poor and justice for the poor far more than it mentions homosexuality. Wehner notes that Jesus never mentions homosexuality in his recorded ministry. The implication is, “Look, we are making a big deal out of something Jesus hardly cared about.”

The problem with this line of thinking is threefold.

First, an evangelical understanding of inspiration does not allow us to prize instructions in the gospel more than instructions elsewhere in Scripture. If we read about homosexuality from the pen of Paul in Romans it has no less than authority or relevance than if we read it from the lips of Jesus in Matthew. All Scripture is breathed out by God, not just the red letters. God’s gracious self-disclosure comes to us through the Word made flesh and by the inscripturated word of God. These two modes of revelation reveal to us one God, one truth, one way, and one coherent set of promises, threats, and commands to live by. We must not seek to know the Word who is divine apart from the divine words of the Bible, and we ought not read the words of the Bible without an eye to the Word incarnate. When it comes to seeing God and his truth in Christ and in Holy Scripture, one is not more reliable, more trustworthy, or more relevant than the other.

Second, it’s hopelessly anachronistic to expect Jesus to directly address all our contemporary concerns. Jesus never said anything explicitly about child abuse, domestic abuse, bestiality, abortion or dozens of other sins. He never preached a sermon on homosexuality because no one in his circles by any stretch of the imagination would have approved of homosexuality under any circumstances.

Third, the fact is Jesus spoke about sexual sin often. He warned against lust and infidelity. He confronted the woman at the well. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. Likewise, Jesus condemned the sin of porneia (Mark 7:21) which is defined by a leading New Testament lexicon as “unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication” (BDAG). James Edwards states that porneia “can be found in Greek literature with reference to a variety of illicit sexual practices, including adultery, fornication, prostitution, and homosexuality. In the OT it occurs for any sexual practice outside marriage between a man and a woman that is prohibited by the Torah” (The Gospel According to Mark, 213). It’s misleading to suggest that Jesus had no discernible opinion on homosexuality or that sexual sin was not an important concern for him.

Argument #2: We Are Hypocrites Because We Aren’t As Passionate About Divorce. Wehner contends that we “employ something of a double standard” because we do not show the same fierce opposition to divorce, even though it has been far more devastating to society. I’ve written about this before: comparing evangelical attitudes to homosexuality with evangelical attitudes to divorce is comparing apples and oranges. Admittedly, many evangelicals are complicit in our culture’s lackadaisical attitude toward divorce. Where that’s the case, we ought to condemn the complicity outright. But the analogy with divorce is ultimately misleading. According to the traditional Protestant understanding, which is centuries old, divorce is permissible on certain biblical grounds. This alone makes divorce different from homosexuality. The latter is always wrong in the Bible; the former is sometimes acceptable.

Furthermore, many evangelical churches are just as staunch in their opposition to unbiblical divorce. I know we take it very seriously at our church. The reason we are not fired up on the blogs about it is because there are no denominational groups I’m aware of rallied around the central tenet that divorce is a blessing from God. The legality of anti-divorce legislation was not recently put before the Supreme Court. There are no Facebook campaigns in favor of unbiblical divorce. Homosexuality is the issue right now, so it’s natural that evangelicals, like everyone else, would be passionate about it.

And finally, Wehner’s quote from Malachi that the Lord “hates divorce” is better translated as “he who hates and divorces” or (as the ESV puts it) “the man who does not love his wife but divorces her” (Mal. 2:16).

Argument #3: This Is Why Evangelicals Have a Bad Reputation

Toward the end of the article, Wehner suggests that part of the problem in our churches is that we have a reputation for political agitation rather than grace. He tells of how Philip Yancey asked strangers what they thought of when they heard the words “evangelical Christian.” Yancey wrote that he mostly heard “political descriptions,” and not once did he hear a description of “redolent grace.” The implication seems to be: “Our public social conservatism is partly to blame for the negative views other have of us.”

Arguments like this readily strike a chord with evangelicals. But should they? Bradley Wright, a sociology professor, tackles this question in Christian are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…And Other Lies You’ve Been Told. He argues that (1) negative stereotypes persist for many reasons, often rooted in ignorance or the media, (2) relatively few non-Christians have negative feelings toward “Baptists” even though evangelicals are largely comprised of Baptists, indicating that labeling is the chief culprit, and (3) from 1990-2007 (the best study available at the time) attitudes toward Christians actually improved in the United States. Some people will like us (and most non-Christians probably get along just fine with the evangelicals they know personally). And some people won’t. The point is that we should be more concerned about our views of other than how others view us. Just think of Louie Giglio. He steadfastly avoided the culture wars and championed a socially acceptable agenda, but even a whiff of an old sermon against homosexuality was enough to do him in. Our job is to not revile in return when reviled. But Jesus never taught us, nor did he demonstrate, that something must be wrong when people revile us in the first place.

Argument #4: The Use of Imprecise Language

It’s a subtle thing, but little word choices can make a big difference. And in several places, I found Wehner’s choice of language to be just imprecise enough to be misleading. For example, Wehner contends that Jesus was very concerned about “how a society treats the poor.” This can mean “Jesus loved the poor and admonished the rich who cheated the poor,” which he certainly talked about, but the word “society” (which Jesus never uses!) starts to bring us into the realm of social justice and state-sponsored programs. It’s hard to know what Wehner means. It sounds good and true that Jesus was concerned with “how a society treats the poor” but depending on our definitions Jesus may have actually said very little about the subject.

Let me give another example. Wehner agrees that “one can make a serious case that society should privilege heterosexual marriage.” True enough I suppose, but why the word “privilege”? Evangelicals and other social conservatives argue that there is no such thing as gay marriage (it’s a contradiction in terms) and that the state has no interest sanctioning it as such. The word “privilege” suggests that there is heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage and the debate is which one we like better. But to frame the conversation in those terms is to lose the debate before it starts.

Most disconcerting is Wehner’s description of the mission of Jesus. He says people flocked to Jesus “not because he preached moral rectitude but because He was willing to love them, to listen to them, and to welcome them.” Later he says, “Jesus’ main mission was to convince them of God’s love and invitation. And then he went on to speak about those willing to stand in the middle of the tensions that necessarily attach to faithful living in a broken world.” These are the sort of sentences that sound the right evangelical notes, but I worry are playing a different tune. There’s no problem saying Jesus loved people, listened to them, and welcomed them. Yes and Amen. But to be accurate, most of the people flocked to him because of the wonders he performed. Others came because he called. Others because he came to seek and save sinners. And others because he spoke with authority. Jesus demanded much of the world, and it’s terribly wrong to pit the preaching of “moral rectitude” against love and welcome. Jesus did both unashamedly. He made it harder for people to follow him. He told people to be born again. He demanded they hate their parents, cut off their arms, tear out their eyes. It’s not faithful to the gospels to paint a picture of Jesus the good listener who eschewed edges and the preaching of moral rectitude. What is the Sermon on the Mount if not, at least in part, a lesson in moral rectitude for the people of God?

Similarly, it’s just not true that Jesus’ main mission was to convince people of God’s love. He mission was to lead people to the conclusion that he was the Son of God and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 15:39; 10:45). He came out in public ministry to preach the gospel (Mark 1:14-15, 38-39). Jesus told people of God’s mercy for repentant sinners and the new life and new community that could be found in Christ, but he did not travel through Judea and Galilee trying to persuade people that God really, really loved them.

I have no particular bone to pick with Peter Wehner. He’s a brother who has done much to bring his Christianity to bear in some of the most influential and high-pressure situations imaginable. My concern, however, is that evangelicals think through our approach to homosexuality and gay marriage with clarity, precision, care, and courage. The same arguments often crop up, arguments that lead good men and women to equivocate where they should stand strong. Where we see these arguments, it behooves us to study them, weigh them, and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Before we start repeating them ourselves.

Robert’s Rules of Order

Like it or not, pastors really need to know some about Robert’s Rules of Order, especially if you want to make a positive contribution at a national convention, synod, or assembly. I often consult the “In Brief” version of Robert’s Rules.

For online help, this is a nice introductory site with a complete text of the 1915 Order. Here are a few other survival tips. And these six pages will be more than enough for most people. Print out the tables, study them for an hour, and learn how to be much more effective in deliberations and assemblies which use parliamentary procedure.

Many denominations, institutions, and boards have veered off course simply because the good guys never bothered to figure out how things get done. We can lament that church business is so constrained by procedural questions, but the rules enable profitable discussion and equitable decision making in the bodies that understand them and apply them fairly.

Robert’s Rules is no substitute for the rule of love or the rule of Christ, but for many of us, our interest in the latter would be well served by a knowledge of the former

RCA General Synod 2013

The Reformed Church in America will have its annual meeting of the General Synod next week (June 20-25) on the campus of Central College in Pella, Iowa. If you want to know what the Synod will be hearing and deliberating, you can check go here for general information or check out the 542 page workbook.

But since very few people will look through a 500 page workbook, including the delegates themselves, I thought it would be worthwhile to highlight several of the most important items coming before the Synod next week.

Before I give an executive summary, it would be helpful to understand a few things about RCA polity and history.

Unlike the PCA or the SBC or most evangelical denominations, the RCA has a delegated assembly. Anyone can view the proceedings, but only a few pastors and elders each year (around 250) are chosen as voting delegates. For the most part, this means a pastor serves every few years or more, depending on the size of his classis. I was a delegate last year and am not this year. Our associate pastor, Ben Falconer, will be a delegate.
The RCA has 45 classes (think presbyteries) and 8 regional synods. The General Synod is made up of regular delegates from the classes (and from the General Synod Professors of Theology) as well as corresponding delegates from the various commissions and denominational institutions.
The presiding officer at Synod is the President. At the conclusion of Synod the current Vice President will be elected as president. A new Vice President will be elected from among the regular delegates. The General Secretary is a permanent staff position for the Synod. Though his role may be quiet at Synod, he has much more influence in the denomination than the President or Vice President.
The General Synod Council (GSC) is the executive committee of the General Synod.
Recommendations (given as R-1, R-2, R-3, etc.) will come before the Synod as regular motions. Overtures are official pieces of correspondence from the classes or regional synods. They go to a committee and do not automatically come before the Synod as motions. Recommendations and overtures come from several sources, so it is not unusual for some to be inconsistent with others.
Two important items were passed at last year’s Synod which will come into play again this year. 1) The consciences clauses regarding women’s ordination were struck down. Since this was a change to the Book of Church Order the classes had to vote on the proposed change. They did so this spring. 2) After a long, tortuous debate, Synod approved R56 (later called, for some confusing reason, R28). This motion voiced the Synod’s strong disapproval of homosexual behavior and any promotion or solemnization thereof. The motion also called for a “Way Forward Committee” to explore how the denomination can move ahead given our position on homosexuality and our disagreements

With that as some background, let me list several of the major items on the agenda for next week. The page numbers with each item refer to the pages of the workbook. Unless I use quotation marks, assume I’m giving my summary of the item and not the official wording.

R-3 “To declare amendments 1 through 3 to be approved and that they be incorporated into the 2013 edition of the Book of Church Order” (50).

The important part here is amendment 3, removing the consciences clauses relative to women’s ordination. The amendment needed a two-thirds majority from the classes to pass. 31 classes voted in favor of the amendment; 14 voted against the amendment. This recommendation (R-3) is a perfunctory vote. The conscience clauses will be removed from the BCO.

R-8 To affirm the “missional partnership” between the RCA and CRC (56).

Our two denominations are doing more and more together, sharing resources, staff, and engaging in mission together.

R-9 GSC recommends that the RCA focus on three connected strategic priorities: cultivating transformation in Christ, equipping next generation leaders, engaging in mission (68-69).

R-15 To instruct the Commission on Church Order to clarify the authority and scope of Synod statements (134).

This is the first of three recommendations from the “Way Forward Committee.” In light of R28 from last year, the committee is asking for clarity on what exactly statements like this mean for the denomination.

R-16 To instruct the GSC to appoint a working group to tackled three things (134-35).

First, help classes understand that the superintendence for pastors and churches happens at the classis level, OR, explore fundamental polity changes which require pastors and classes to submit to General Synod statements. At issues here whether each classis is free to do as it pleases regarding homosexuality or whether statements from Synod have some measure of authority over churches and pastors.

Second, compile the results of his exploration, together with recommendations, and bring them before Synod no later than 2015.

Third, after Synod weighs whatever recommendations come from step two, instruct the Commission on Church Order to draw up constitutional changes that would “enable each congregation and/or minister to choose between grace-filled covenanting. . . .or grace-filled and accountable separation. . . .without recrimination such as forfeiture of property.” In other words, this last step encourages the RCA to make a way for pastors and churches to decide if they want to stay with the RCA after we sort through our polity (and by implication, homosexuality). If people and congregations want to leave, the recommendations asks that they be able to leave peaceably, with their property.

R-17 To instruct the GSC to develop resources to facilitate further conversation about sexual orientation and gender identity (135).

R-27 To add a new question to the annual Consistorial Report: “How have the Belhar Confession and its principles of unity, reconciliation, and justice shaped your congregational life and witness?” (173).

R-28 To adopt the following amendment into the BCO: “Does your congregation regularly engage the principles of the Belhar Confession and the other Standards of Unity” (173).

There is a lengthy report (177-210) with several recommendations from the “Task Force on Understanding White Privilege.”

On page 211, you’ll find updates statistics for the RCA. As of 2012, there were:

907 churches in the RCA (a decrease of 3 from 2011),
150,517 confessing member (a decrease of 1,299),
and a total membership of 238,493 (a decrease of 3,087)

Overtures 1, 2, and 3 all deal with gun control (215-217). For example, the Classis of New Brunswick overtures the General Synod to instruct the general secretary to write to President Obama, our federal and state senators and representatives, and all fifty state governors to “emphasize the need to swiftly pass and implement” gun control legislation. The overture stipulates that this legislation should eliminate public sale of high powered assault weapons, eliminate gun magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds, insist upon universal gun registration and background checks.

Overture 6 from Zeeland Classis asks for a change to the present system of calculating General Synod delegates (219-20). The current system over-represents small classes and under-represents larger classes.

Overture 7 from the Classis of Mid-Hudson asks that seminary students be able to perform the sacraments of baptism and communion.

Overtures 9-15 (from Albany, Holland, New Brunswick, and Schenectady) all ask, in one way or another, that R28 from last year be rescinded (222-28).  The overtures also ask for clarity on the binding nature of General Synod pronouncements and for the Commission on Theology to draft a new, comprehensive paper on human sexuality to be presented to the General Synod in 2015.

R-47 To encourage RCA congregations to engage in a letter writing campaign on behalf of the Dream Act legislation (365).

R-48, 49 To provide resources and guidelines for including children at the Lord’s Table (368).

R-50 To establish a joint RCA-CRC committee for the purpose of expressing our ecumenical understanding and commitments toward each other (376).

There is a paper tucked away at the back of the workbook called “A Historical Summary of the Actions of the General Synod with Regard to Homosexuality: 1974-2012″ (461-70).

R-59 “To remand the decision of the Regional Synod of the Mid-Atlantics for further hearing to resolve whether the Classis of New Brunswick properly examined and approved the installation of the Rev. Dr. Cargill, giving full recognition to the importance of Scripture as central to the faith and life of an ordained ministry of Word and sacrament” (475-479).

At issue is the ordination and installation of Ursula Cargill, a practicing homosexual, to the office of minister in New Brunswick Classis on September 28 , 2011. Five appellants challenged the action of the classis in receiving her into membership. ON May 5, 2012, the Regional Synod of the Mid-Atlantics uphold the decision of the classis. The appellants then appealed this decision. The Commission on Judicial Business (CJB) conducted a hearing in Newark, New Jersey on February 5, 2013. The CJB is recommending the case be tried again by the Regional Synod, stating that there was a “lack of any scriptural argument to rebut the position of the Appellants” and  “the commission believes that Scripture has been put aside in the Synod’s review of the New Brunswick Classis’s examination of the Rev. Dr. Cargill” (479).

R-60 To invalidate the work of the “Way Forward Committee” because there were no persons of color on the task force (482).

Of course, you can read the workbook for yourself for more details.

A Neglected Grace

I’m excited to tell you about Jason Helopoulos’ first book–A Neglected Grace: Family Worship in the Christian Home. It’s currently on sale at WTS Books for five dollars. For the cost of a Hot N’ Ready you can receive needed encouragement for a neglected grace.

Right near the top of the list of things I really want to do, but struggle to do well, would be family worship. I know it’s important, but seem to fail as much as I succeed. Family worship will burst on the scene for five days, only to disappear for four. The kids will enthusiastically participate one night and barely sit still the next. Family worship is something my wife and I have done with our kids for years and something we’ve struggled with just as long. It’s hard to be consistent, hard to be creative, hard to make the time, hard to make the kids pay attention, hard to push through seeming tedium to the point of supernatural triumph.

Which is why I love this book.

I love the title: A Neglected Grace. Instead of hammering us with the heavy hand of ought, Jason holds out family worship as an example of divine kindness. Yes, we need motivation for the discipline of family worship, but the best, longest-lasting motivation comes not by feeling terrible for what we could be doing better, but by believing what good God has in store for us. The message of the book isn’t “Pray with your family or else!” but “Think of how sweet this will be.”

I love the practicality of this book. Jason has reached back into the history of the church without sacrificing relevance for our own day. His reflections are timeless, and his counsel is timely. He doesn’t just tell us what to do. He shows us how to do it. Jason gives us questions to ask, elements to try, books to read, hymnals to consult, and real life stories from which to learn. I expect everyone who reads this book will walk away with two great conclusions: “I want to grow in family worship,” and “I have some great next steps to take in that direction.”

Finally, and on a subject like this, maybe most importantly: I love the good friend of mine who wrote this book. In a day where we have hundreds of “friends” on Facebook and introduce every acquaintance as “My good friend so and so,” I count it a privilege to have Jason as a real, flesh and blood, stick by you no matter what, friend. He’s a good pastor, a good husband, and a good father. He’d be the first to tell you he’s not perfect—not with family worship or anything else. But that doesn’t mean he’s not a example to follow. This is one pastor who practices what he preaches. I know firsthand that he writes as one who takes seriously all the challenges and all the opportunities fleshed out in this excellent book. The “neglected grace” of family worship is not neglected in his home.

And that’s a man I can respect, with a book I need.

Monday Morning Memories

I wasn’t alive when it happened, but every year I go to YouTube and watch it again: Secretariat’s run at the Belmont Stakes.

I’m the most casual of horse racing fans. I try to watch about ten minutes every year–the three races in the Triple Crown. My wife and kids now actually enjoy watching the three races too. (For the record, I had Oxbow, my son had Orb, and my other son at Revolutionary in all three races; we don’t pick longshots.) And now that they are a tad bit interested, I will make them watch the 1973 Belmont Stakes.

I’ve seen it dozens of times, but I’m still mesmerized by Secretariat’s amazing feat. The large chestnut colt they called “Big Red” didn’t just destroy the field by 31 lengths (1/16th of a mile), he so completely demolished the track record–a record that still stands–that he would have beaten the previous record holder Gallant Man by 13 lengths. Chic Anderson got it right in his famous call: Secretariat was moving like a tremendous machine.

Lost in the unsurpassed greatness of Secretariat is how good his competitor Sham was forty years ago. As Joe Posnanski pointed out in an excellent article over the weekend, Sham’s run at the Kentucky Derby should have been one for the ages. He finished 8 lengths in front of the rest of the field, with a blistering time of 1:59.8, still the second fastest time in history. Sham was the best horse that day and the best horse to ever run the Derby–except, of course, for Secretariat who beat him by two and a half lengths. And then there’s Secretariat’s move at the Preakness, going from last to first in a matter of seconds. It’s almost as famous as his Belmont run. Just like Clyde Drexler and Patrick Ewing might have been great champions had they not played in the age of MJ, Sham might be remembered as one of the greatest horses of all time, if he hadn’t been born in the wrong year.

Without getting too spiritual about a horse, I think we can find echoes of the divine in our fascination with Secretariat. We love to watch greatness. We love to re-live and re-watch the impossible made possible. We love to see the greatest there ever was. And I think we love Secretariat all the more because he was just a horse. He never said the wrong thing, never was caught at the wrong party, never disgraced his fans or family. Forty years later he is still that singular victor, without blemish or spot, frozen in history with nothing but power, greatness, and grace. Yes, even a horse reminds us we were made for something more.

No Whiners

I don’t fancy myself any sort of great leader, but there are two things I have learned about leadership over the years, and they are intimately related.

Just about the worst thing a leader can nurture in his heart is self-pity. And just about the worst thing a leader can do in front of his people is murmur and complain.

I understand there is an appropriate place for lament. I know it is not always wise for leaders to quietly endure injustice. I’m not encouraging leaders to be stoic and indifferent to pain. What I am saying—and rather forcefully I hope—is that leaders must not be whiners.

If you are a leader, by definition you have followers. And if you have followers, then you often make decisions that impact other people. You sometimes get the last word. Your voice speaks louder and carries further than others. Yes, you have great responsibility, but you have unique opportunities too. That’s what it means to be a leader.

Sometimes I meet leaders who want all of the influence without any of the hassle. But that’s not how it works. The more people who report to you, the more people who can be upset with you. The more people who listen to your message, follow your tweets, and read your stuff, the more people who can fire shots at you. This is one of the irrefutable laws of leadership: the broader your influence flowing down, the more frequent the complaints can flow back up. Don’t be surprised by the fiery trials. Don’t be startled by opposition. Don’t let the ugliness of manipulation, the weakness of passive-aggressive behavior, and the cowardliness of retaliation took root in your soul.

Be vigilant against self-pity when it spots like gangrene in your heart. Do leaders deserve all the flack they get at times? Probably not. Do they deserve all the influence, opportunities, and privileges they’ve been given? Certainly not. Nothing good comes from feeling sorry for myself when people don’t like my ideas, or misjudge my motives, or forget all the good I’ve done in the past. Crying out to God is one thing. A very good thing too. But self-pity is not that. Self-pity is crying out in the echo chamber of my own little world. It’s issuing a lament just to take pleasure in hearing the lament over and over.

Leaders have feelings. Leaders get hurt. Leaders get discouraged. Sometimes leaders have to push back. But leaders should never whine and never feel sorry for themselves.

The Church of Earnest Prayer

About that time Herod the kind laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Acts 12:1-5

Our prayer is often dull because there is so little earnestness in it. We pray as if no one is listening. We pray as if nothing will happen. We pray as if nothing were at stake. We pray without vim or vigor, without passion, without purpose. We pray to pass the time not to pull down blessings from heaven.

How often do we gather together with God’s people for the purpose of prayer?

If we are not often gathered for earnest prayer, we must consider why not. Is it because we do not have great needs in this body? Is it because we do not have fears and sins that beset us? Is it because there is no opposition in the world which threatens to snare us or no devil on the prowl who seeks to destroy? Is it because we are sure of ourselves and so self-reliant that we need no divine assistance? Or is it because we consider help from God to be so negligible that it is not worth our time to ask for it? Do we not think God listens when we pray? Do we not think he cares? Do we not think he is more than able to give us grace to help in our time of need?

What is the reason we have this apathy for prayer? Do we not see the critical importance of prayer? Have we forgotten what a privilege we have in prayer? Have we no confidence in the power of prayer? Do we take the example of the early church to be unreachable and impractical? Have we no sense for the blessings that await us in prayer and through prayer? Have we lost sight of the great glory God receives when his people pray? Who knows what new victories we would experience, what divine favor would be ours, what surprising providences we would enjoy if earnest prayer were made to God by the church?

God stands ready to hear us. He is eager to help us. His ways are not always our ways, but his love never fails and his mercies are new every morning. He who is omniscient delights to know our requests. He who is omnipotent acts when we call upon him. He who is omnipresent will never be nearer to us than when we pray.

We must pray, but more than that: we can pray. And God will listen. Why would we not gather often with the body of Christ for earnest prayer?

What a Friend we have in Jesus, all our sins and griefs to bear! What a privilege to carry everything to God in prayer! O what peace we often forfeit, O what needless pain we bear, all because we do not carry everything to God in prayer.

RCA Integrity Leadership Conference

There is still time to sign up!

The annual RCA Integrity Leadership Conference this year is fast approaching. This year, we will be meeting June 17-18 at Peace Church, just south of Grand Rapids, MI. Visit our website to learn more and register.

The conference is small and geared for RCA pastors, leaders, and members, but like minded friends from other denominations are also welcome.

Theme: The Bible and Pastoral Ministry
Location: Peace Reformed Church, Middleville, MI
Dates: June 17-18, 2013
Price: $50 individual

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Derek Thomas

Dr. Thomas joined the staff of First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC, in 2011, coming from Jackson, MS, where he was Chairman of the Theology Department at Reformed Theological Seminary and Minister of Teaching at First Presbyterian Church. A Welshman, he is a graduate of the University of Wales (Bc.S), Reformed Theological Seminary (M.Div), and University of Wales/Lampeter (Ph.D.) and was ordained in the Evangelical Church of Ireland, where he served Stranmillis Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Belfast for 17 years before moving to Mississippi. He remains the Distinguished Visiting Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at RTS and is a well published author.

Stand Fast a Little

“If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes.” (A Man For All Seasons)

A Conversation About the Law

There are few theological issues more important and more difficult than the relationship of the Christian to the law. In recent years in particular there have been a lot of conversations and controversies about the proper use of the law in the believer’s progressive sanctification. We all know we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, but what is the place for obedience to the law after we are justified?

One explanation—and the best succinct one I know of—comes from Chapter XIX of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). For Reformed Christians in general, this ought to summarize what we believe. For Presbyterian office bearers in particular, this is what you swear to uphold. For Christians at large, there are plenty of Bible references in the WCF so you can see for yourself if these things are so.

I’ll ask the questions, and let Chapter XIX give the answers. Whenever the text is in italics that means I’m quoting directly from the Confession.

*******

Me: Hey, thanks for being willing to meet with me WCF. I know you are busy and very old, so I’ll try not to take up too much of your time. I just have a few questions about the law. For starters, where did the law come from? Was it just added after the fall?

WCF: God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it.

Me: Kind of wordy, WCF, but I think I get it. God gave Adam the law from the very beginning, even before sin entered the world.

WCF: Right.

Me: Too bad Adam had no way of keeping the law.

WCF: No, God endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Me: Okay, but after the fall, man was incapable of keeping the law.

WCF: True.

Me: So what purpose did the law serve once sin entered the world through Adam?

WCF: This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments.

Me: So does that mean we have to follow everything God told Moses to do, even all the food laws and sacrifices and stuff?

WCF: No, because beside this law summarized in the Ten Commandments—let’s call that the moral law, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws.

Me: And what were those?

WCF: They contained several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.

Me: And do we need to follow these kinds of laws?

WCF: All ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

Me: And what about all the laws for Israel as a nation. I mean, we’re not a theocracy anymore, so how are we supposed to keep those?

WCF: To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other now.

Me: Makes sense. So we can pretty much ignore all those laws for the nation of Israel.

WCF: Not exactly. We still have to be mindful what the general equity thereof may require.

Me: If I’m hearing you correctly, then, these ceremonial and judicial aspects of Mosaic law are not longer required, at least not in the same way.

WCF: That’s right.

Me: But what about the thing you mentioned first, the moral law, you know, the laws summarized in the Ten Commandments? What happened to those?

WCF: The moral law doth forever bind all.

Me: Even after we are justified?

WCF: As well justified persons as others.

Me: But if I’m gospel-centered I can’t be obliged to keep the law, can I?

WCF: Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Me: Wait a second. I thought I was set free from the law. How can I still be obliged to keep it then?

WCF: Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as others.

Me: You’re talking about how the law shows us our sin. I agree that’s important.

WCF: Yes, that’s one important way to us the law. It gives people a clearer sight of the need they have for Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.

Me: That makes sense. The law is all about revealing to us our failings so we can run to Christ.

WCF: True, but that’s not the only use of the law for Christians. It is also a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly.

Me: Okay, so the law simply tells us what is right and wrong.

WCF: I wouldn’t put it quite like that. The law is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatening of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.

Me: Wait a second. You’re saying even as believers we need to pay attention to the threats of the law and that even the regenerate may receive afflictions here and now for their disobedience? What is this, some kind of performance religion? I don’t think God wants justified believers to obey the law to try to please him.

WCF: The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.

Me: But come on, gospel Christians don’t obey because the law tells them to.

WCF: So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

Me: But if we must still listen to the warnings of the law and the promises of the law, and if we may even be blessed for obeying the law and receive afflictions for disobeying the law, and if part of our motivation for doing good is because the law encourages us to do so—how is this not all anti-gospel?

WCF: Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel do sweetly comply with it.

Me: But this is just pulling ourselves up by our moral bootstraps.

WCF: Wrong. Christians obey the law by the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

Me: So maybe there’s more of a place for the law in my life as a Christian than I thought.

WCF: That’s what Reformed Christians thought 350 years ago.