Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 32

The Almighty and Ever Present Power of God

Q. What do you understand by the providence of God?

A. Providence is the almighty and ever present power of God by which he upholds, as with his hand, heaven and earth and all creatures, and so rules them that lead and blade, rain and drought, fruitful and lean years, food and drink, health and sickness, prosperity and poverty—all things, in fact, come to us not by chance but from his fatherly hand (Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 27).

*******

This is my favorite Lord’s Day in the entire Catechism.  I love its poetic description of providence. “Sovereignty” is the word we hear more often. That’s a good word too. But if people run out of the room crying whenever you talk to them about sovereignty, try using the word “providence.” For some people God’s sovereignty sounds like nothing but raw, capricious power: “God has absolute power over all things and you better get used to it.”  That kind of thing.  And that definition is true in a sense, but divine sovereignty, we must never forget, is sovereignty-for-us. As Eric Liddel’s father remarked in Chariots of Fire, God may be a dictator, but “Aye, he is a benign, loving dictator.”

The definition of providence in the Catechism is stunning. “All things,” yes all things, “come to us not by chance but from his fatherly hand.” That’s a remarkable statement.

And a biblical one too.

To be sure, God’s providence is not an excuse to act foolishly or sinfully. Herod and Pontius Pilate, though they did what God had planned beforehand, were still wicked conspirators (Acts 4:25-28). The Bible affirms human responsibility.

But the Bible also affirms, much more massively and frequently than some imagine, God’s power and authority over all things.

The nations are under God’s control (Psalm 2:1-4; 33:10), as is nature (Mark 4:41; Psalm 135:7; 147:18; 148:8), and animals (2 Kings 17:25; Dan. 6:22;Matt. 10:29).

God is sovereign over Satan and evil spirits (Matt. 4:10; 2 Cor. 12:7-8; Mark 1:27).

God uses wicked people for his plans—not just in a “bringing good out of evil” sort of way, but in an active, intentional, “this was God’s plan from the get-go” sort of way (Job 12:16; John 19:11; Gen. 45:8; Luke 22:22; Acts 4:27-28).

God hardens hearts (Ex. 14:17;Josh. 11:20; Rom. 9:18).

God sends trouble and calamity (Judg. 9:23; 1 Sam. 1:5; 16:14; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Kings 22:20-23; Isa. 45:6-7; 53:10; Amos 3:6; Ruth 1:20; Eccl. 7:14).

God even puts to death (1 Sam. 2:6, 25; 2 Sam 12:15; 2 Chr. 10:4, 14; Deut. 32:39).

God does what he pleases and his purposes cannot be thwarted (Isa. 46:9-10; Dan. 4:34-35).

In short, God guides all our steps and works all things after the counsel of his will (Prov. 16:33; 20:24; 21:2; Jer. 10:23; Psalm 139:16; Rom. 8:21; Eph. 1:11).

It’s worth noting that Lord’s Day 10 is explaining what the Apostles’ Creed means when it says, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.” If God is the Creator of all things and truly almighty, then he must continue to be almighty over all that he has created. And if God is a Father, then surely he exercises his authority over his creation and creatures for the good of his beloved children. Providence is nothing more than a belief in “God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth” brought to bear on our present blessings and troubles and buoying our hope into the future.

You can look at providence through the lens of human autonomy and our idolatrous notions of freedom and see a mean God moving tsunamis and kings like chess pieces in some kind of perverse divine play-time. Or you can look at providence through the lens of Scripture and see a loving God counting the hairs on our heads and directing the sparrows in the sky so that we might live life unafraid. “What else can we wish for ourselves,” Calvin wrote, “if not even one hair can fall from our head without his will?” There are no accidents in your life. Nothing has been left to chance. Every economic downturn, every phone call in the middle of the night, every oncology report, yes even every election, has been sent to us from the God who sees all things, plans all things, and loves us more than we know.

As children of our Heavenly Father, divine providence is always for us and never against us. Whether we are happy about Tuesday’s election, indifferent, distraught, or scared, we know that God is on the throne and the end is not in doubt. Jesus has crushed the head of that nasty snake and his preparing a place for us.

Whatever of your hopes or fears come true, God will never be untrue to those who love him and have been called according to his purpose. He will always lead his people, always listen to the brokenhearted, and always love his children. God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform. If we can’t predict a national election, what makes us think we can predict God’s plans for the next four years. What we do know is that our God never takes chances, never loses his way, and will never let us down. The unmoved Mover who moves all and is moved by none is not an impersonal force but the God who is my Father in heaven. We cannot often read the inscrutable lines of providence, but we can always trust the Author and Perfecter of our faith.

Save

A Prayer on Election Day

Father of lights, we thank you for every good and perfect gift. We praise you as the one with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17).

As we come to this Election Day, we ask for wisdom, knowing that you love to give generously to all without reproach (James 1:8).

Forgive us for all the times, especially during this campaign, where we have been quick to speak and slow to listen. Forgive us for too often exhibiting the anger of man that does not produce the righteousness of God. May we put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word (James 1:19-21).

Make us doers of the word, not hearers only (James 1:22).

Grant that our religion may be pure and undefiled before you. Give us a heart for the orphan and the widow. Keep us unstained from the world (James 1:27).

We thank you for the many freedoms we enjoy in this country–for the rights to worship, to speak, and to assemble. We thank you for the part we can play in self-government by casting our votes today. We confess we are often discouraged by the choices before us. Shape us by your truth so that realistic discouragement does not give way to cynicism and hopelessness.

Despite our many failings and sins as a nation, we pray that in your mercy you would give us better leaders, legislators, and judges than we deserve. May those elected to public office in America be men and women of high character, good judgment, and uncommon ability. May their policies promote human flourishing and protect the lives of the most vulnerable at home and abroad.

Help each one–from the President of the United States to the county drain commissioner–to act as servants, not as lords.  Give them open minds, humble hearts, and an unswerving commitment to think of others more highly than they think of themselves.

We ask for your blessing that we might continue to be a free and prosperous people. And if you do not mean to bless us as a country, empower the church to remain faithful and steadfast in the midst of judgment.

Grant us the courage to stand up for what is right, the strength to try to make a difference, and the gospel-formed humility to accept that there are no Messiahs except for Jesus and no heaven on earth except the one awaiting us at the end of the age.

Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.

University Reformed Church: Our 50th Anniversary

We had a wonderful weekend celebrating the faithfulness of God’s people, and, most importantly, remembering God’s faithfulness to us. This video tells a little bit of the church’s story.

Moral Philosophy and Marriage

A good deal of John Witherspoon’s influence in America came from the course he taught at Princeton on moral philosophy, the lectures of which were published after his death. In the 18th and 19th centuries, moral philosophy, a key part of college instruction, included topics as diverse as epistemology, politics, ethics, and the right ordering of society.

In Witherspoon’s Lectures on Moral Philosophy, he has a small section on the meaning of marriage. It is interesting to see how Witherspoon, a confessional Presbyterian, understands marriage to be an institution oriented not first of all toward personal fulfillment, but to the protection of children.

Human creatures at their birth are in a state weaker and more helpless than any other animals. They also arrive much more slowly at maturity, and need by far more assistance and cultivation. Therefore a particular union of the parents is absolutely necessary, and that upon such powerful principles as will secure their common care. Marriage is a relation expressly founded upon this necessity, and must be so conducted as to ascertain the property of the offspring, and to promise the most assiduous, prudent, and extensive care.

According to Witherspoon, there are five “particulars which reason and nature point out relating to the marriage contract.”

1. “That [marriage] is be between one man and one woman. Polygamy is condemned by nature; for it is found that the males born, are to the females as 13 to 12, or as some say, as 20 to 19, the overplus being to supply the greater waste of the male part of the species by war and dangerous occupations, hard labor, and traveling by land and sea.”

2. “The fundamental and essential part of the contract is fidelity and chastity.” Witherspoon goes on to say that in contrast to other authors of the day, we must insist on fidelity from both women and men.

3. “The contract should be for life—otherwise it would be short, uncertain, and mutual love and industry greatly weakened.”

4. “If superiority and authority be given to the man, it should be used with so much gentleness and love as to make it a state of as great equality as possible.” Witherspoon notes that “some heathen writers gave the man power of life and death over the woman, a thing evidently barbarous and unjust.”

5. “Marriages are sometimes dissolved by divorces.” The law, Witherspoon observes, only permitted divorce on three accounts—adultery, willful desertion, and incapacity. “The first two of these,” he argues, were “founded on the New Testament, and the last on reason, being not so properly a dissolution of a marriage, as a declaration that it was void from the beginning, and never took place.”

Christians (and not only Christians) have been thinking about marriage for a long time. We would do well to listen to them carefully, and, when there is a broad consensus on essential matters, set aside their wisdom only with great reluctance.

A Few Brief Thoughts on the Hatmaker Hermeneutic

In the past week we’ve seen a prominent Christian philosopher and a prominent Christian author state publicly that they no longer hold to the historic understanding of biblical sexuality. A number of excellent responses have already been written—most significantly, Wesley Hill challenging Nicholas Wolterstorff’s shallow exegesis and lack of charity, and Rosaria Butterfield reminding Jen Hatmaker that we must love our neighbors enough to speak the truth.

I’ve written before about gay marriage and about why the church can’t simply agree to disagree on this issue. And if you want more in depth discussion, I wrote a book entitled What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?. No doubt, you can find even better stuff out there from other men and women defending the historic understanding of biblical marriage and sexuality. I won’t repeat those arguments here.

But I do want to offer a few quick thoughts about the Facebook post from Brandon Hatmaker (Jen’s husband). While I commend the Hatmakers for what seems to be a serious process of reading, reflection, and prayer, I find the logic of their position unconvincing. Most of Brandon’s post is about the work they did to come to their new position. The defense of the position itself comes in these two paragraphs:

Every verse in the bible that is used to condemn a “homosexual” act is written in the context of rape, prostitution, idolatry, pederasty, military dominance, an affair, or adultery. It was always a destructive act. It was always a sin committed against a person. And each type of sexual interaction listed was an abuse of God’s gift of sex and completely against His dream for marriage to be a lifelong commitment of two individuals increasingly and completely giving themselves to one another as Christ did for the church.

But not one of these scriptures was written in the context of marriage or civil union (which simply did not exist at this time). Each act mentioned in the bible was sin, no doubt. In context, we believe the same today. Just like heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sin for obvious reasons, whether consensual or not, we still believe homosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Three quick thoughts:

1. The “not that kind of homosexuality” argument has been refuted by a number of conservative exegetes and by a host of LGBT-affirming scholars. If Paul only meant to talk about pederasty, why didn’t he use the Greek word for pederasty? If he wanted to spare committed homosexual partnerships from his condemnation in Romans 1, why did he echo the language of creation and talk broadly about “exchanging” natural functions for those that are unnatural? If the New Testament only had “bad” homosexuality in mind, why do sources from the Greco-Roman world demonstrate that every kind of homosexual relationship was known in the first century, from lesbianism, to orgiastic behavior, to gender-bending “marriage,” to lifelong same-sex companionship (see Thomas Hubbard, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents)? Non-Christian scholars know better than to try to “rescue” the New Testament from itself. Which is why Louis Crompton, a gay man and pioneer in queer studies, could write: “Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian” (Homosexuality and Civilization, 14).

2. I fail to see how the logic for monogamy and against fornication is obvious according to Hatmaker’s hermeneutic. I appreciate that they don’t want to completely jettison orthodox Christian teaching when it comes to sex and marriage. But the flimsiness of the hermeneutic cannot support the weight of the tradition. Once you’ve concluded that the creation of Adam and Eve has nothing to do with a procreative telos (Mal. 2:15), or the fittedness of male with female (Gen. 2:18), or the joining of two complementary sexes into one organic union (Gen. 2:23-24), what’s left to insist that marriage must be limited to two persons, or that the two persons must be faithful to each other? Sure, both partners may agree that they want fidelity, but there is no longer anything inherent to the ontology and the telos of marriage to insist that sexual fidelity is a must. Likewise, why is it obvious that sex outside of marriage is wrong? Perhaps those verses were only dealing with oppressive situations too. Most foundationally, once stripped of the biological orientation toward children, by what internal logic can we say that consensual sex between two adults is wrong? And on that score, by what measure can we condemn a biological brother and sister getting married if they truly love each other (and use contraceptives, just to take the possibility of genetic abnormalities out of the equation)? When marriage is redefined to include persons of the same sex, we may think we are expanding the institution to make it more inclusive, but in fact we are diminishing it to the point where it is something other than marriage.

3. The appeal to Christ and the church does not support Hatmaker’s argument; it emphatically undermines it. Paul’s reference to the mystery of Christ and the church only works if there is differentiation in the marital union. The man loves and leads and sacrifices as Christ; the woman submits and respects as the church. However that plays out in practice, the irreducible minimum is that the two are not interchangeable. Hatmaker can say that in marriage “two individuals increasingly and completely giving themselves to one another as Christ did for the church,” but that was positively not Paul’s argument. He did not foresee two individuals acting as Christ, but one (the husband) cherishing like Christ and the other (the wife) following like the church. We cannot insert two men (or two women) into the logic of Ephesians 5 and get the same mystery, let alone a full-orbed picture of the gospel.

The biblical teaching about marriage is not an oh-by-the-way piece of ethical advice that can be easily swapped out for other arrangements. I know these are difficult, painful issues. But we have to prayerfully and rigorously think these things through. We are bound to hear more stories in the years to come about other Christian leaders and other Christian institutions celebrated for their new-found enlightenment. What we won’t hear about–though there will be plenty of examples—are the stories of all those who will continue to hold to historic orthodoxy, and do so with winsomeness and without wavering. Neither will we hear the stories of those whose Christianity ends up looking very different on the other side of their theological change of heart. If we tug at the Bible’s teaching on sex, family, and marriage–the basics of which have been affirmed for two millennia and are still affirmed by almost all Christians outside the West—we will lose more than logical and hermeneutical consistency. We lose important elements of the gospel itself.

Magnify Conference 2016

Living for Approval, Dying from Rejection

The Magnify Conference is a two-day conference at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. This year’s conference is December 2-3, 2016. Magnify is a great opportunity to meet other brothers and sisters from mid-Michigan (and beyond) and hear excellent teaching. It’s also inexpensive–only $5 for students and $10 for adults!

The keynote speaker this year is from Ed Welch. Ed is a counselor and faculty member at CCEF. He earned a Ph.D. in counseling (neuropsychology) from the University of Utah and has a Master of Divinity degree from Biblical Theological Seminary. Ed has been counseling for over thirty years and has written many books and articles on biblical counseling, including When People Are Big and God Is Small; Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave; Blame It on the Brain?; Depression; Running Scared; Shame Interrupted; and Side by Side: Walking with Others in Wisdom and Love. He and his wife, Sheri, have two married daughters and eight grandchildren. In his spare time, Ed enjoys spending time with his wife and extended family and playing his guitar. Ed will speak three times on the topic of shame; I will also give a plenary address.

A leader’s breakfast (designed for church leaders and counselors) will be offered on Saturday morning. Seating is limited and we always fill up, so sign up soon. You can register for the Magnify Conference here.

Monday Morning Humor

Semper Reformanda

Who doesn’t love a good Latin phrase, especially when it can be bandied about in support of the spirit of the age?

Semper Reformanda. Always Reforming.

When the church changes its mind—or a professor or pastor or professional blogger demands that the church changes its mind—on, say, the definition of marriage or the nature of sexual sin, we can rest assured that, however much some traditionalists may object to the change, the church is courageously embodying the legacy of the Reformers and their insistence that the church should be always reforming. The Spirit reveals new truths for a new day. The body of Christ learns to set aside encrusted orthodoxy. The risen Jesus teaches his people what they had never seen before. That’s what semper reformanda is all about, right?

Not exactly.

While it’s true that we all see through a glass dimly and must be open to changing our minds, the Latin phrase semper reformanda was not about change for the sake of change, let alone reforming the church’s confessions to keep up with the times. In an insightful chapter entitled “Reformed and Always Reforming” (Always Reformed: Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey, p. 116-134), Mike Horton explains the origins of the oft-repeated phrase. The saying first appeared in 1674 in a devotional book by Jodocus van Lodenstein. As a key figure in the Dutch Second Reformation (Nadere Reformatie), van Lodenstein wanted to see the members of the Dutch church, which had seen its doctrine become Reformed during the Reformation, continue to pursue reformation in their lives and practices. His concern was personal piety, not doctrinal progressivism.

It is important to see the entirety of van Lodenstein’s phrase: ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei (“the church is Reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God”). Notice three things about the saying.

First, it begins by addressing the church that is Reformed. Given van Lodenstein’s context in the Netherlands, we are right to capitalize Reformed. The saying was not generally about churches of the Reformation (though it has application for those churches too). Rather, van Lodenstein was addressing the Dutch church that had identified as confessionally Reformed, specifically in subscription to the Three Forms of Unity. In other words, far from encouraging doctrinal innovation, the original phrase presumes doctrinal stability. Whatever semper reformanda means, it cannot mean figure out your theological standards on the fly.

Second, the Latin verb reformanda is passive, which, as Horton points out, means the church is not “always reforming” but is “always being reformed.” The difference is consequential. The former sounds like change for the sake of change, while the latter suggests adhering to the proper standard. The passive construction also suggests that there is an external agent operating upon the church to bring about the necessary reform.

Which leads to the third and most important point: the church is always being reformed according to the Word of God. There is nothing Reformed or Reformational about changing the church’s theology and ethics to get on “the right side of history,” or to stay current with the insights of the social sciences, or even to prove that we love the least of these. The motto of the Reformation was not “Forward!” but “Backward!”—as in, “Back to the sources!” (ad fontes). As Horton puts it, the Reformers “wanted to recover something that had been lost, not to follow the winds of a rising modernity” (p. 123). If the church can never stand still, it is because it always needs re-orientation according to the Word that is over us (p. 125).

Semper reformanda is not about constant fluctuations, but about about firm foundations. It is about radical adherence to the Holy Scriptures, no matter the cost to ourselves, our traditions, or our own fallible sense of cultural relevance. If Christians want to change the church’s sexual ethics, so be it. But don’t claim the mantle of the Reformers in so doing. The only Reformation worth promoting and praying for is the one that gets us deeper into our Bibles, not farther away.

Stand your ground, hold fast, guard the good deposit. And be open to change whenever we drift from the truth or fail to grow up in it as we should.

Why Go to CROSS 2016?

If you are a student (roughly 18 to 25 years old) or a campus worker, I hope you’ll consider joining us at the Cross Conference this December 27-30 in Indianapolis. The aim is to raise up a generation of students eager to reach the unreached, for the global glory of Jesus Christ. Speakers include John Piper, David Platt, J. D. Greear, Thabiti Anyabwile, Trip Lee, Conrad Mbewe, Mack Stiles, and Richard Chin. Matt Boswell and Trip Lee will be leading us in music. The early bird registration rate ends October 31.

Several students from our church attended the first Cross Conference in 2013. Devon and Taylor were two of those students.  Three years later, Devon and Taylor are married, have one child (and another on the way), and are preparing to go overseas with Mission to the World (the sending agency of the PCA). Devon’s story, and the role Cross has played in that story, is below.

*******

When I came to college, I came with the intention to do missions after I finished my four-year degree at Michigan State. I wasn’t driven by an emotional impulse, and I didn’t feel especially burdened for some tribe in Africa. I simply made the connection (1) that no one can be reconciled to God unless they put their faith in Jesus, and (2) that I was interested, available, and willing to pursue cross-cultural ministry.

The story was slightly different for my wife. After becoming a Christian during her senior year of high school, she came to college wanting to learn more about the Bible. Though she was vaguely familiar with the idea of missions, she first began thinking about it in college.

We took important steps toward missions during our years as undergraduate students. We traveled to Southeast Asia to work short-term with missionaries during a summer break. We hosted Bible studies and shared the gospel with international students at our university. Just as importantly, we realized that people close to us actually affirmed us in our consideration of missions.

When we heard about Cross Conference 2013 during our senior years of college, we eagerly signed up. We still felt pretty naïve about missions and had no concrete plan for moving forward. We had been captured by the vision of an almighty, holy God. We were learning to delight in knowing him and earnestly desired that others might know him too. We were convinced that God’s plan for the nations to be blessed through Jesus was a main thread in the storyline of Scripture, and we understood that God accomplished this mission by sending human messengers like us. On one level, we already knew all this, but we needed to hear it again and be challenged by God’s heart for the nations. Which is what we found at Cross. We were eager to hear the speakers, having already benefited from the messages and ministries of so many of them. We were also helped by our campus ministry, which promoted the Cross Conference and arranged for the logistics to attend.

But why not just read books? Aren’t there plenty of good missions sermons online? What about the people who don’t end up being missionaries—isn’t this just a waste of time for them? I am sympathetic to questions like these because I’m a practical guy and want to invest time and money effectively. And yet, I really believe Cross can provide something that books and online messages cannot. Cross is no substitute for your local church, of course. But it can come alongside your church and give you a big vision for the big task that is yet to be finished.

Besides, if you want to read good books that encourage you toward missions, the Cross Conference can point you in the right direction. We received several books for free, including Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which has been enormously encouraging to my wife and me as we explain the gospel to others. Crucially, the conference allows for the uninterrupted time that young adults usually won’t make for themselves to consider the prospect of missions. It also provides a rich context in which students can discuss their hesitations, convictions, and aspirations regarding future missions work.

And what if you’re not sure you want to be a missionary? The conference isn’t just directed toward future missionaries, but also to future prayer warriors, supporters, and senders. The work of reaching the unreached is not only for the people who cross cultures, but also for the whole church. We all must be involved and well equipped for the task at hand.

For individuals who are seriously considering missions, the Cross Conference will provide exceptional encouragement and resources. Dozens of missions agencies are represented, which gave my wife and me the opportunity to be much more well-informed about the doctrinal standards, strategies, and emphases of many evangelical missions agencies. We began our correspondence with an agency for long-term missions during this conference and plan to go to the field within a year.

Cross Conference itself is not the sole reason that my wife and I are making progress toward the mission field, but the Lord greatly used it to encourage and equip us toward that end. I pray that the Lord will continue to use Cross as an important part of the process that encourages and equips young men and women to respond to the call to “make disciples of all nations.”

Check out the conference this December. It may just change your life . . . and the lives of those who have never heard.

Monday Morning Humor