Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 196

Can We Learn Anything From the Mistakes of Westboro Baptist Church?

There's really nothing good about the news that Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket East Lansing High School on Thursday. Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is well known for protesting funerals, desecrating American flags, and promoting its signature message that "God Hates Fags." A trip to the Westboro website makes you wonder if this "church" (actually, Pastor Fred Phelps and his large family) is completely sane. What kind of group announces they're going "to picket the worthless brats who attend East Lansing High School"? And why are they coming to our fair town anyway? I don't think anyone really knows, other than that it appears they'll already be in the area.

There are many reasons to protest the sign-wavers from Kansas. WBC is rude, disrespectful, tone deaf, strident, mean-spirited, and foolish in the way they choose to communicate. And worst of all, as far as I can tell, their message has no gospel, no good news for sinners in need of a Savior. I don't want to dignify WBC by trying to reason with them. When your chief (sole?) means of communicating with the public involves picketing and press releases, I can't believe you are seriously interested in interacting with other people's ideas (and oh yeah, on their web page it says zero equals the number of "nanoseconds of sleep that WBC members lose over your opinions and feeeeellllliiiiiings.").

But might there be something conservative evangelicals can learn from Westboro? Not any positive lessons mind you, but anything we can glean from their monumentally misguided example? Let me suggest three things.

1. Any truth promoted to the exclusion of other truths can become an untruth.

WBC seems particularly anxious to celebrate the wrath of God. Their web site contains numerous references to God's judgment and his hatred for sin and for sinners. These things are true and need to be defended in our day. But when WBC gives exact figures for the number of people damned while visiting their website, it's safe to say we're visiting the lunatic fringe. God's hatred for sinners is mentioned in the Psalms and elsewhere, but it's hardly the essence of the apostolic deposit, certainly not all by itself. The biblical storyline is about how God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Yes, divine grace apart from divine wrath is meaningless. I would be the last person to deny the doctrine of hell. But the preaching of the gospel celebrates rescue not reprobation. WBC quotes a lot of Bible verses, but it is possible to quote a lot of the Bible and quote it in such a way and in such a context that you're actually conveying something quite contrary to the message of the Bible.

2. It matters how we're heard.

I don't believe WBC has any interest in persuading anyone of anything. Their goal is protest and provocation. But if we are concerned to "win some" as the Bible would have us be, then we must consider how we are heard. Of course, this does not mean we change the message for a fickle audience. But it does mean there's no reason ever to use the word "fag" to describe homosexuals. It gains nothing, wins a hearing with no one. Whatever the derivation of the word, it is now a slur. I understand that sometimes people will hate Christians no matter how mealy-mouthed they make their pronouncements. Some offendedness we can't avoid. But we can avoid needless provocation. Yes, tone does matter.

3. We must refuse to play into the binary stereotype which says the opposite of unconditional affirmation is fuming hatred.

There are two ways to make Americans more and more accepting of homosexuality: one is by making same-gender erotic relationships look normal and the other is by making those who oppose them look nasty. Everything about WBC plays into the thinking that says "either you approve of homosexuality or you despise homosexuals." This is one of the things that makes their visit to East Lansing so sad. It's sad to think of the students who will feel rightly repulsed by the in-your-face "God Hates Fags" provocation, and then will figure the only safe place away from that rhetoric is to land far on the side of "God couldn't be angry with anyone or anything for any reason."

If I were a pro-gay advocate, I'd send camera crews to follow WBC wherever they go. I'd send them money and buy them oversized signs and markers. Every "God Hates Fags" protest makes it harder for orthodox Christians to say what the Bible says, that God is angry with homosexuals (and with all sinners), but lovingly calls them (and us) to repent, to change, to be forgiven in Christ.

For all the parents and students in East Lansing, please know that this pastor of an East Lansing church is sorry for the picketing, sorry for the hurt and confusion it will cause, and sorry that a better message isn't being shouted from the rooftops–the message that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31).

Can the Reformed Resurgence Fly in Grand Rapids?

[image error]I recently spoke at a conference on reformed theology in Grand Rapids, Michigan. My first talk was entitled "Grand Rapids, a Great Resurgence, and a Guy Named Guido: Why Theology is To Die For" (I don't believe there is audio available for the session). In this address I explored (1) why theology matters, (2) why there has been a renewed interested, especially among the young, in theology in general and reformed theology in particular, and (3) why reformed theology faces unique challenges in a place like Grand Rapids. I thought my notes from this last point might be of interest to some, both for those in West Michigan and for those in places like it.

*******

Anyone who knows Grand Rapids knows that it is known for being a conservative town with lots of Dutch people and lots of churches, reformed churches in particular. There are hundreds of RCA and CRC congregations, not to mention URC, PCA, OPC, PR and various and sundry other initials. The area is home to Hope College, Calvin College, Kuyper College, Western Seminary, Calvin Seminary, and Puritan Reformed Seminary, just to name a few institutions in the reformed tradition. And yet, the most famous church in the Grand Rapids area is Mars Hill (the Rob Bell Mars Hill). Why is it that with so many Calvinist schools and churches (and I haven't even mentioned publishing houses like Zondervan, Baker, Eerdmans, Kregel) that the reformed resurgence is more well known in Minneapolis or Louisville than in Grand Rapids?

I grew up in Jenison (a suburb of Grand Rapids) and went to school at Hope College (a denominational school in Holland, Michigan). I haven't lived here for a number of years, but my family still does and I make the trip 75 miles west for a variety of reasons quite frequently. I feel like I have a pretty good feel for West Michigan. Having said that, forgive me if I'm blunt or if I'm just plain wrong in my assessments. These are just some of my thoughts on the challenges to the gospel and to reformed theology in a place like Grand Rapids.

1. There is a sense of "been there, done that." The only thing harder than finding the truth is not forgetting it. People in Grand Rapids are eager for something new. Jewish stuff is new. Social activism is new. Edgy worship is new (a pastor in jeans!).  Creeds and confessions aren't new, not for folks in Grand Rapids (though they are now new to many in younger generations).

2. Too many people have seen dead orthodoxy. Most Christians have to experience a few dates with dead orthodoxy before they start flirting with heterodoxy.

3. Others have seen too much obnoxious orthodoxy. Suspicious attitudes, graceless tones, hard lines on gray areas–these are the things that make people wary of more theology.

4. Even bigger than points 2 and 3 is the problem with assumed orthodoxy. There can be a feeling that theology is the one thing we have down already. So it is assumed more than it is taught, celebrated, or defended.

5. I love my hometown. I am not one of those who cries to everyone who will listen about growing up in a bubble or how bad it was to have churches on every corner. It wasn't bad. It was mostly terrific. But in my experience, there is in Grand Rapids a strange combination of being tight on cultural categories while at the same time being loose on doctrinal categories. Whether its Christian schools, or things you don't do on Sunday, or Republican politics, or being really nice, or being tall and Dutch, or being very put together there is a certain feel to Christianity in Grand Rapids. It's hard to break out of these categories. And yet on the doctrinal side, there's been an unwillingness to get worked up about theological issues. The yard should look a certain way, but  the historicity of Adam is flexible.

6. Those who seriously hold to reformed theology can be suspicious of other reformed groups and overly protective of the label. As a consequence, some groups hold smallness (and irrelevance I would add) as a badge of honor. They don't want a resurgence.

7. The RCA and CRC are, in my opinion, quite insular, often unaware of movements and leaders in the broad stream of conservative evangelicalism. This is changing, but slowly. There is a strong tie to denominations, which can be good but can also rob the church of fresh water from other streams.

8. I know you can't prove these things, but again in my experience, I have seen a niceness and "inbredness" that leads Christians to avoid careful delineation and controversy. The unwritten rule is that he who mentions the problem is the problem. Getting along, maintaining the peace, not rocking the boat is the name of the game. And since there are so many overlapping family relationships (not really inbred of course), controversy is usually avoided at all costs. It's too easy for family ties to be upset of for close friendship way back from Hope and Calvin days to be threatened. As a result, theological laxity is a huge problem.

9. Many of higher ups in both the RCA and CRC have aligned themselves with something other than the evangelical stream of Reformed thinking. They've leaned toward the PCUSA instead of the PCA. Many have been more interested in the Barth and Berkouwer side of things instead of, say, Hodge and Warfield (or even Berkhof). They read books from Westminster John Knox Press instead of from Banner of Truth or Crossway. And with almost all of the denominational leaders in the RCA (and CRC?) landing firmly (and often aggressively) in the egalitarian camp, it's meant little interest in or respect for the New Calvinism.

10. Reformed churches have not always done well at connecting reformed theology with the real engines of Christianity: the gospel, the Scriptures, the cross, the glory of God. If you lead with the confessions, you will not get many converts. But if you lead with God's glory, with Christ and his cross, with the power of the Word of God, then you'll bring people into the church where they can eventually rest in our wonderful creeds and catechism.

C.J. Mahaney at URC this Sunday

If you remember this…

…then you may remember this:

C.J.'s heartache is finally paying off for Spartan Nation. As per our friendly wager, C.J. will be preaching at University Reformed Church this Sunday, November 21. Our morning services are at 9:15 and 11:00. All are welcome.

When the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Plain

Don't Call it a Comeback

This won't be last time I try to put in a good word for Don't Call it a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day. I'll have more to say about the book over the next two months. But just to whet your appetite a little I thought I include a couple paragraphs from D.A. Carson's Foreword.

A year or so ago, in a private conversation, John Piper and I agreed it was a great time to be sixtyish. For—surprise, surprise—the generation below us actually wants to be mentored, wants to hear and read the expositions and theology of quite a number of sixty-year-olds. In the West, it has not always been like that, but it is now. It's a great time to be sixty.

But it would be a huge mistake to imagine for one moment that everything depends on the sixty-year-olds. God is raising up a remarkable generation of twenty-somethings, thirty-somethings, and forty-somethings who are articulate, eager to be faithful to the Lord Jesus and his gospel, hungry to teach the Bible rightly and with unction, eager to use their minds while loving with their whole being, and struggling both to believe and to do the truth. The contributors to this book represent only a small fraction of them.

The book, which features chapters from Collin Hansen, Justin Taylor, Tim Challies, Darrin Patrick, Thabiti Anyabwile, Tullian Tchividjian, and many others will be released January 31, 2011.

Grumblers in the Refining Fire

You have wearied the Lord with your words. (Malachi 2:17)

God's people have a history of grumbling. Things were no different in Malachi's day. In this fourth argument, the people voiced two main grumbles against God. "First, Lord, you're treating the bad guys like the good guys. Second, you're sitting in heaven doing nothing when you should come and judge the wicked." They wanted the God of the ten plagues and Mt. Carmel to zap their enemies. It's not that they were consumed with zeal for the Lord's glory. They just wanted their problems to go away. So they grumbled.

We are grumblers too. We're too busy, too bored, we don't have enough money, we're not appreciated, we don't like our church, our sports teams stink, we don't look good, don't feel good, we're too skinny, too fat, too short, too tall, our clothes are worn out, our car's a lemon, we're single and we wish were married, we're married and we wish we had kids, we have kids and we wish we could be single again. We moan and murmur like a whiney two year old.

But God calls us to patience and longsuffering. And he calls us to confidence too. When we are assured that God is working all things according to his good purpose, we are freed to "do everything with grumbling or complaining" (Philippians 2:14).

*******

Then I will draw near to you for judgment…" (Malachi 3:5)

The Israelites were accusing God of turning a blind eye to sin. They wanted him to strike down the wicked like the good old days. How surprised they must have been when the Lord granted their request and promised to come near to them for judgment. The Israelites had a bad case of foot in mouth disease. They had the "gift" of knowing exactly what was wrong with the world. It was simple, the problem was always somebody else. They never thought that asking God to fix things might entail God fixing them.

Thankfully, the Lord didn't come just for judgment. He came to refine. He came to make covenant keepers out of covenant breakers. God came to hammer the sword out on the anvil that he might see his reflection in it. Godliness comes only through the refiner's fire.

If we want holiness, if we want God's presence, if we to be worshipers, then it might mean hardship and rebuke, because I for one need a lot of pounding and a lot of fire before I'm going to shine. But only those who have been through the flames will be able to stand on the day of the Lord. So let us say with David, "It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees" (Psalm 119:71).

*******

"For I the Lord do not change." (Malachi 3:6)

The fifth of six arguments in Malachi begins with another theological fact. The theological term is immutability. It's the belief that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He certainly responds and reacts. But his character, his attributes, his sovereign will, his providential care over all things are unchangeable. "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind" (1 Samuel 15:29).

God's immutability is the reason the sons of Jacob were not destroyed. The Lord is saying, "Because I chose you, because you are my people, and because I am an unchanging God of mercy, forgiveness, and compassion, you will get another a chance. Ever since I called you as a people you have been stubborn and hard-hearted. You have turned away from me and my decrees time and time again. You should be out of chances, but I am not out of mercy. Return to me, and I will return to you." If we come to God broken hearted for sin, wanting to change, and call out for mercy in Jesus' name, he will not turn us away. We may have changed, but his character has not. Come near to God and he will come near to you" (James 4:8).

Worship in Spirt and Truth

And you say, 'What weariness this is'…says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 1:13)

The second of six arguments in the book of Malachi begins in verse 6. The people ask "How have we shown contempt for your name?" The Lord replies with a three part answer.

First, their worship was apathetic. Worship had become boring and burdensome. So they cut corners and brought blemished sacrificed. The priests were particularly to blame, offering injured and diseased animals, which were unacceptable in the Lord's sight.

The priests knew the right thing to do. But they weren't interested in complete obedience.  That would have cost them something. "A little religious ceremony is one thing," they thought, "but why give away the best and strongest animals when you can give your crippled animals? What does God care? It'll be no big deal." But it was a big deal, because God had told them what he desired, he was worthy of the best, and the sins of the people demanded a perfect sacrifice.

Thankfully, God has provided the perfect sacrifice for us in the person of Jesus Christ. But God still opposes apathetic worship. He does not want us to merely go through the motions Sunday after Sunday. He is not pleased with half-hearted songs, prayers, and sermons. "Stop lighting your useless fires!" say the Lord Almighty (1:10). The Lord is a great king and desires to worshiped, with our whole hearts, in spirit and truth.

*******

"…you do not lay it to heart." (Malachi 2:2)

The people despised the Lord by coming with an apathetic attitude, and, secondly, by approaching God with irreverence. Specifically, the priests were not honoring his name, not standing in awe before him. Thus, the Lord promises to curse their blessings. "I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices" (v. 3). Offal is a nice word for animal innards and fecal matter–guts and dung  It doesn't pay to cheat God in worship. He calls for reverence.

This doesn't mean our services have to be somber and grave, but they should be weighty. Awe and reverence can be hard to come by, but they can be had in different ways. Traditional worshipers think reverence means old hymns and organs. Contemporary worshipers think reverence means raised hands and lots of emotion. Pomo worshipers think reverence means candles and darkness. Reverent worship can takes place in all these settings, but the fear of the Lord is something more. Truly reverent worship requires beholding the inviting and terrifying face of God.

When the Lord descended on Mt. Sinai, the people trembled. When Peter realized Jesus was the Messiah, he fell on his knees in a pile of smelly fish. When John beheld the glorified Christ, he fell at his feet as though dead. May the Lord give us such a sweet and startling glimpse of his glory that we might worship him with reverence.

*******

"For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge…for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." (Malachi 2:7)

Third, and finally, the priests showed contempt for the Lord with their unfaithful teaching. It is hard to overemphasize the importance of good teaching. One of the main causes of Israel's waywardness was, as 2 Chronicles 15:3 puts it "[because] for a long time Israel was without the true God, without a priest to teach and without the law." Without good teaching, the people faltered. In Amos, the Lord says "I gave you empty stomachs. I withheld rain from you. I struck your vineyards with blight and mildew. I sent plagues among you. And I overthrew your cities." Those were dreadful. But worst of all "The days are coming, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I will send a famine through the land–not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord" (8:11-12).

The church needs pastors devoted to "the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching" (1 Timothy 4:13). The minister must a diligent student of the Bible and committed to its teachings. The story is told that the philosopher David Hume went to hear the evangelist George Whitefield preach. Someone said to Hume, "But surely you don't believe what Whitefield preaches, do you?" To which Hume replied, "No I don't, but he does." Our world and our worship needs preachers who know and believe the word of God.

35 Years Ago Today…

Every good Michigander knows this song and this story.

No Generic Love

Proverbs 27:9 says, "the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel." Of all the ways the Lord treats me better than I deserve, having good friends is one of the best. I'll be spending the rest of this week in North Carolina sharing, laughing, and praying with some of my buddies from seminary. During our time at Gordon-Conwell nine of us met weekly for prayer and accountability. Upon graduation we committed to meet together once a year. We are now on our eighth reunion. I think I've missed only once. Our weekends are invariably full of football, food, challenging conversation, and usually a few tears. It's a blessing to get together (and a blessing that our wives let us go!).

All of that is an introduction to the blog posts for the rest of the week.  I'll be posting a few brief devotionals from the book of Malachi. I'll be back "live" next week.

*******

"I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say "How have you loved us?" (Malachi 1:2)

The book of Malachi is made up of six arguments between God and his people. The first argument (1:2-5) begins with a theological fact. "I have loved you," says the Lord. But the people don't buy it. "How have you loved us?" they ask. You can almost hear them murmur. "Have you forgotten what the Babylonians did to us? They looted Jerusalem, leveled our homes, and tore down the Temple. Well excuse me, but how have you loved us?!"

It's an amazingly contemporary question. Parents ask it when they lose a child. Abuse victims ask it. Divorced spouses ask it. Sometimes all it takes is a bad afternoon or a computer crash and we start asking, "Lord, how have you loved us?!"

The Lord's reply is curious. "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." The is comparative language, a way of stating opposites. But it's more than that. It is the language of election. Jacob and Esau were twins, but before they had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob (Romans 9:10-13). He decided out of his own good will to set his affection on Jacob and make him his treasured possession.

The Lord's reply is curious, but good. It reminds us of our great privilege. No matter how bleak our present, we know God will guide our future because he chose us in the past.

*******

"Yet I have loved Jacob…" (v. 1:2)

We may think the doctrine of election impractical, but God doesn't. He wants us to know a love that is more than just common grace. Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that the Father causes his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust. That's common grace–sun, breath, rain, life, water, clothes.

But that doesn't begin to describe how God loves his people. If you belong to Christ, you are loved individually and particularly. Don't think: "God loves the world. I guess I'm in the world, so he must love me too." That doesn't do justice to the electing, redeeming love whereby God loves you, and even likes you, at the cost of his Son's blood.

You are loved like a parent loves a child, not like a nursery worker loves a child. A nursery worker loves children with a general, common grace, kind of love. That's great. But parents love those same children with a love stronger and deeper and more particular.

Oh, how we need the doctrine of unconditional election! Without it, we will not know how we are loved. It's not a doctrine to divide people or to be snooty about. It's a doctrine that demonstrates God's selective and particular love for you.

Christian History and Christian Hedonism: Did Edwards Read Ursinus

One of the critiques of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" is that it is novel. In particular, some have argued that Piper's emphasis on enjoying the deity deviates from, or at least was unknown to, the Reformed Catechisms and Confessions. For example, in Desiring God Piper tries to counter (and does so successfully in my opinion) the claim by Richard Mouw that Christian Hedonism does not square with the opening lines of the Heidelberg Catechism (pp. 21-22). Others are wary of Christian Hedonism because it seems to put too much emphasis on subjective religious experience, an emphasis, it is said, which owes more to the Great Awakening than to the theology of the Reformers.

On this latter point, a comparison between Jonathan Edwards and Zacharias Ursinus (author of the Heidelberg Catechism) is instructive. Here's Edwards in his sermon A Divine and Supernatural Light on the rational and  the experiential nature of faith:

He that is spiritually enlightened truly apprehends and sees it, or has a sense of it. He don't merely rationally believe that God is glorious, but he has a sense of the gloriousness of God in his heart. There is not only a rational belief that God is holy, and that holiness is a good thing; but there is a sense of the loveliness of God's holiness. There is not only a speculative judging that God is gracious, but a sense how amiable God is upon that account; or a sense of the beauty of this divine attribute. (127)

Later, in distinguishing between a notional understanding of God and a "sense of the heart" Edwards remarks, "There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes; but a man can't have the latter, unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind" (127-28). These are well known passages to anyone who has listened to Piper over the years.

What is less well known is that Ursinus speaks in the same way. I even wonder if Edwards at some point read the 16th century reformer's Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Here's Ursinus, in Edwardsian fashion, explaining the nature of justifying faith:

No man, however, truly knows what justifying faith is, except he who believes, or possesses it; as he, who never saw or tasted honey, knows nothing of its quality or taste, although you may tell him many things of the sweetness of honey. But the man who truly believes, experiences these things in himself, and is able, also, to explain them to others. (111)

Ursinus goes on to argue that with genuine faith, "Joy arises in the heart, in view of such benefits, which joy is accompanied with a peace of conscience that passes all understanding." Indeed, "He who truly believes, experiences all these things in himself; and he who experiences these things himself, truly believes" (111).

All of this may strike you as quire unremarkable. But it is a good reminder that the experiential nature of faith, the spiritual mark of delight in God, and the expectation of pervasive joy are not the inventions of John Piper. Nor are they owing only to the influence of Edwards and the Great Awakening. They go back to the Reformers themselves.

Who knows? Maybe Edwards read Ursinus.