Jared Longshore's Blog, page 28

Are Your Children Members of the New Covenant?

Everyone is agreed that Abraham’s children were members of the covenant God made with him. Genesis 17:7 makes that much plain, “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Now, this covenant was one in which God promised to be God to him, as well as his shield and reward (Genesis 15:1). These promises were covenanted to the children, and the whole matter was made plain and clear with a covenant sign: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.”

But, many claim that the new covenant is so unlike the Abrahamic covenant that the natural children are no longer included as members. This argument is that there was a genealogical principle in the Abrahamic covenant that does not carry over to the New Covenant. The chief text of Scripture supplied as support for this claim is Jeremiah 31:31-34. God says through the prophet— 

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake, Although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, And write it in their hearts; And will be their God, And they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For they shall all know me, From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: For I will forgive their iniquity, And I will remember their sin no more. 

The argument then runs as follows. The Old Covenant which God made with Abraham and Israel included natural children and Israel broke that covenant. The New Covenant will be different in that it is not made with natural children but spiritual children (only those who are regenerated unto saving faith) and thus it will not be broken as the Old. Moreover, there will be no need for every man to tell his brother to know the LORD for each and every one in this New Covenant is regenerated unto saving faith. There are no unregenerate covenant members in the New Covenant as there was in the Old back in the days of Abraham, Moses, and David.

Not only can I see how someone could hold to this line of thinking, I myself did hold to it for some time, albeit with a variety of modifications, clarifications, and attendant arguments. Indeed for me making points like the one in this post is an exercise in what Chesterton once said: “If this book is a joke it is a joke against me. I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before. . . . No one can think my case more ludicrous than I think it myself; no reader can accuse me here of trying to make a fool of him: I am the fool of this story, and no rebel shall hurl me from my throne.”[1] 

Indeed for some time, I considered the various biblical promises God made to His people’s children in the Old Testament as promises God made to Israel and their offspring and in some general sense similar promises were made to New Covenant members and their offspring. I could not say with confidence that they were covenant promises from God to covenant children in the New Covenant for I was convinced that New Covenant membership necessitated regeneration. I was not prepared to claim the active regeneration of my infant so I was not ready to recognize either their New Covenant membership nor the biblical promises above as being vouchsafed to them by Christ’s blood. I took these promises as announced to the Christian’s children, even promises made to such children in a special way given their presence in a Christian home. But I did not take them as promises stuck to them, promises from God signed and sealed upon them. But that is what they are. They are not promises potentially made to your seed or promises merely announced like a general gospel call to the world. They are promises covenantally made, indeed, promises vouchsafed to your children by the blood of Christ. They are sworn oaths of blessing made to your children in a particular way for they are covenant children and the promises are to them, and fulfilled by faith. 

But what about the Jeremiah 31 objection above? I believe the objection I detailed above simply straps too much on the back of Jeremiah. He is a strong prophet, but if we load the stated objection on his shoulders, then we weigh him down with more of an argument than he can bear. Really, we must take it easier on him. The objection claims that Jeremiah 31 proves that each and every New Covenant member is regenerate at this very moment when Jeremiah’s point is that the New Covenant will be better than the Old. Particularly, the New Covenant will be better in that it will not be broken as the Old was, it consists of God’s law being written on the heart of his covenant people, and it will be far more efficacious and potent in the lives of the covenant people. 

Broken

Regarding the New Covenant not being broken, Jeremiah’s point is not that an individual covenant member cannot break covenant with God in the New Covenant. Rather, his point is that the New Covenant itself will not be broken. The Old Covenant as a whole was broken such that it came to an end (2 Cor. 3:11). Think of the administration of the new covenant like a presidential administration, say the Washington or Jefferson administration. Jeremiah is not saying that a card-carrying member of the Jefferson administration cannot resign his membership and leave it. He is saying that administration itself is never going to fade away like the old one did. 

On the Heart

Concerning God’s law written on the heart in the New Covenant, Jeremiah speaks to the degree of the Spirit’s power and efficaciousness upon the New Covenant people. He does not imply that the saints under the old administration of the covenant of grace were saved without the work of the Spirit upon the heart. Calvin, for example, writes, “A question may however be here moved, Was the grace of regeneration wanting to the Fathers under the Law? But this is quite preposterous.”[2] He places the difference not as to the substance of the Spirit, but the form or degree of the Spirit—“Then we know that this grace of God was rare and little known under the Law; but that under the Gospel the gifts of the Spirit have been more abundantly poured forth, and that God has dealt more bountifully with his Church.”[3] 

Calvin tracks with this distinction between substance and form throughout his exegesis: 

He afterwards says, I will put my Law in their inward parts. By these words he confirms what we have said, that the newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers. He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.[4] 

In other words, whether you believe there is one covenant of grace in substance which has undergone a significant renovation in form and structure with the coming of Christ, or you believe there has been two separate covenants, the old housing the natural family and the new merely individuals who are marked by active regeneration, makes a big difference. 

Shall All Know Me

The greater efficaciousness and potency of the New Covenant is seen in Jeremiah’s language—“they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’” (Jer. 31:34). Jeremiah here speaks hyperbolically. His point is not that the substance of the New Covenant is different such that each and every New Covenant member is regenerate, opposed to the Old when that was not the case. Rather, Jeremiah amplifies the point that the New Covenant manifests God and his truth far more brightly than the Old. Again, Calvin writes, 

Here is mentioned another difference between the old and the new covenant, even that God, who had obscurely manifested himself under the Law, would send forth a fuller light, so that the knowledge of him would be commonly enjoyed. But he hyperbolically extols this favour, when he says that no one would have need of a teacher or instructor, as every one would have himself sufficient knowledge. We therefore consider that the object of the Prophet is mainly to shew, that so great would be the light of the Gospel, that it would be clearly evident, that God under it deals more bountifully with his people, because its truth shines forth as the sun at noon-day.[5]Indeed, God deals more bountifully with his covenant people in the New Covenant, not less bountifully. The fact that God told Abraham to place the sign of the covenant upon his children is a testimony that his children were included in God’s covenant with him. Does it not stand to reason that in the more bountiful covenant, the children would likewise be included? 

[1] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2009), 23. 

[2] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations, vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 131. 

[3] Ibid., 131.

[4] Ibid., 131–32. 

[5] Ibid., 134. 

The post Are Your Children Members of the New Covenant?  appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Endure Hardness

Paul told Timothy that he must endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. And this is an exhortation that we need to hear regularly.

It is far too easy for us to forget that we are at war. Scripture makes this point often. But it can still surprise us. The kingdom of God has not yet been consummated. So, we still live in the time of Christ’s advance and the world’s resistance. It is easy to forget this point when you live in such a blessed community. So don’t make the mistake that is often made by very good high school football teams. They crush the competition without much of a fight. And this is great for what it is worth, but good coaches start to get nervous. He knows that what the boys really need is to face an opponent who is taller, stronger, and faster than them.

Here’s the application. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that implementing the principles of Scripture in your life is going to be easy. “Ah, but we’re postmill,” you say. Yes, and that is wonderful. But the advances we make in postmillennialism are much more like the advances we made in the D-day invasion than they are the advances one makes down a lazy river.

We are in a war. You are a good soldier of Jesus Christ. And that means you must endure hardship. You must suffer distress, pain, and loss. 

But, as you endure hard things, remember that they are not pointless. You suffer as a soldier in the kingdom of God. And that kingdom is coming in power on earth as it is in heaven. As the Puritans would say, “The way down is the way up, to bear the cross is to wear the crown.”

The post Endure Hardness appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

A Word About Me and Joe Rigney Prompting a Jim Hamilton Bible Study

Jim Hamilton, a Southern Baptist pastor and professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, released the audio of a church-wide bible study that he did at Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He addressed the themes of postmillennialism, theonomy, and the serrated edge, marking disagreements with each. He was very clear about why he was doing this church-wide bible study. One of the reasons was because of me and Joe Rigney, “Baptists who defected and joined team Doug Wilson,” according to Jim. You can hear Jim spelling this out in the first few minutes of his bible study. Evidently, there are other Baptists in Jim’s orbit who are in danger of defecting, so the messaging is, “Don’t defect like Rigney and Longshore did.

Now, I have only listened to Jim’s bible study on postmillennialism. But, given that he named me and that I spent many a year there in Louisville at Southern Seminary, it seems fitting that I should say a few words about this little encounter.

A Bit of Scattershot

Let me start with a shotgun blast, as several things need to be said:

First, praise the Lord for pastors like Jim, who will tell their sheep, “I don’t think this is good, and here’s why.” I worshipped with the saints at Kenwood Baptist Church one Sunday when visiting Louisville to study at Southern Seminary, and it was a lovely time. 

Second, the best part was Jim calling Christians to be manly, full-human beings with the Southern Seminary flavor of “roast coffee and use fountain pens.” This made me recall my old friend Don Whitney shaming any non-fountain pen as a mere “writing stick” when I was back at Southern. I commend the sentiment and say to my Southern Seminary brethren, “Roast on, write on, we’re gaining ground.”

Third, it is intriguing to me that SBC leaders and other evangelical leaders think that men adopting postmillennialism are “joining team Doug Wilson.” This would also be team B. H. Carroll (the first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), team Jonathan Edwards, and team a host of other puritans and reformers. I understand that there is still quite a line drawn between Moscow and much of the Reformed and Evangelical world. But I would note here how silly and artificial that line is. The silliness is quite obvious when a professor at Southern Seminary characterizes becoming a postmillennialist, a long-standing and widely held position in the history of the church, as “joining team Doug Wilson.” 

Fourth, I have been a postmillennialist for over twelve years or so, including my time at Southern. This was not a peculiar position. I sense there are droves of Reformed credo/paedo folks who hold to or lean toward postmillennialism. For an encouraging read see: “The Puritan Hope” by Iain Murray. 

Fifth, the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse Jim addressed is, likewise, not a funky Moscow or Canon Press thing. I learned the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24 years ago from the likes of R. C. Sproul and Marcellus Kik. See: “An Eschatology of Victory” by Marcellus Kik.

Sixth, I understand why Jim speaks of “Baptists who defected.” It fits the Baptist theological paradigm and the pure church sentiments embedded in that tradition. The rock-ribbed Baptist position would not permit Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Rutherford, J. C. Ryle, or R. C. Sproul to become members of their churches. I knew all of this when I was a Reformed Baptist, so I’m not crying foul. Just a note to say it isn’t the same from the other direction. Baptists are “on team” as far as we are concerned.

Seventh, The CREC Council recently reaffirmed that we are a Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches, including Baptist Churches. And this unity is indeed another piece of evidence supporting postmillennialism. 

The Mojo

Jim’s take is that many men are adopting postmillennialism and other doctrines, not because of the Bible verses, but because of a mojo. I think the doctrinal changes are much more due to the widespread availability of good teaching made available by podcasts, blogs, and media like Canon+. Nevertheless, Jim is concerned about a fanboy problem. And I at least agree that this is a thing to watch out for. But, the mojo problem is a danger that lurks in every direction. You can bet that there are men walking around Southern Seminary who insist others have changed their theology because of a certain “man,” namely Doug Wilson. So, “Don’t join team Doug Wilson” is one of the messages writ large. 

But these same men partake in an institution where one can obtain a President Al Mohler bobblehead doll. There is a Ph.D. lounge at Southern, with a tightly governed passcode for entry. This lounge sits atop the fourth floor of the stately Boyce Library and overlooks a perfectly manicured lawn the length of a couple of football fields. You get there by passing Charles Spurgeon’s Bible encased in glass. Southern has a fancy store just across that lawn where seminarians can purchase both the wax and a wax seal stamp with Southern’s emblem on it, along with fountain pens north of $800, and a tie that is mapped off of the one that Al Mohler is going to be buried in.

Now that is some mojo. 

I’ll be honest with you, I am all for well-manicured lawns and I have no problem whatever with special lofty spots where the PhDs can do their research. I actually think it is all quite fun and would happily go back to Louisville for a visit to trod that ground again with friends. But I do want to check the notion that the only mojo you should watch out for is what is coming out of Moscow.

Genuine Differences

Now to the nub of the issue. Jim is highlighting real differences that exist within the Bride of Christ. We should thank God for our unity while taking note of these differences. Postmillennialism, general equity theonomy, and the serrated edge, for that matter, stem from an approach to the Christian faith that is concerned with all things of earth. It is not earthly-minded. But this approach does look for the kingdom of God to come on earth as it is in heaven, as our Lord taught us to pray. Jim made clear that he believes our Father will only answer this prayer after the final coming of our Lord. I disagree. And that disagreement results in different approaches to the Christian life, including Christian ministry, worship and sacraments, and family. 

If the Southern Baptist flavor errs, it errs by leaving the faith in the upper story, a practice that Francis Schaeffer warned about. Quite frankly, that error is leading to the devouring of our society and the Christian gospel. Granted, if postmillennialism, theonomy, and the serrated edge err, they do so by becoming worldly (the danger Jim is likely worried about). 

The fact is, we are talking about these things now because the world has gone mad, and the saints are rediscovering that Augustine’s City of God was embedded in the city of man, not simply up in Plato’s realm of the forms.

A while back, I wrote on three different futures for your Christian community: Separatist Pietism, Defensive Evangelicalism, and Reformed Kuyperianism. It is clear that the Southern Baptists and Southern Seminary toggle between the first two options. The third position, the one I commend, involves the principles that Jim is concerned about, and those principles have become very appealing. Given these developments, I have a very simple encouragement to those who are taking note of things.

Do Work Through It

My encouragement, as my friend Timon Cline puts it, is to do the reading. Do work through the issues. Some men have studied and become convinced of historic premillennialism. Others are convinced of an approach to civil government that claims secularism is just as good as Christendom, as Scott Aniol recently announced. If you have worked through things and landed, then good on you. We are all brothers and very much on team together. But, others are pressured by comments like, “Longshore and Rigney defected” and “for Pete’s sake if you adopt an optimistic view of the kingdom’s advance, you are joining that naughty man from Moscow who burns couches in November.”

They hear, “Bad! Bad! Bad!” But then they realize that R. C. Sproul, the man all over their bookshelves, held to the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And then they start to wonder why Calvin, Owen, and Edwards, along with loads of the other godly Puritans and reformers, held to a Christian faith that proclaimed Christ is Lord of all, including the public square and the civil magistrate. 

We have extended several invitations to those who have spoken up as of late with concerns on these matters and the related one of Christian Nationalism. The invitation is to come sit down and talk these things over. The response has been along the lines of, “I am not able to engage in a public conversation,” and “I don’t think there is much of an advantage in doing so.” Even so, the invitation remains. This is the lot of the matter: As we have pulled down deep heaven on our heads, God has given us an opportunity to look good and hard at Scripture. So, “To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, It is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

The post A Word About Me and Joe Rigney Prompting a Jim Hamilton Bible Study appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

For the People Had a Mind to Work

Nehemiah tells us that the Jewish returned exiles finished the wall, even in the face of Sanballat’s mockery, because the people had a mind to work. They didn’t seem to care that Sanballat was over there saying, “What do these feeble Jews think they are doing? Will they rebuild out of the heaps of rubbish which are burned?” And Tobiah added, “Even if a fox went up on the wall, he would break it down.”
 
We love the story. But we can’t simply love it in theory. What do you do when you are working on a project that really does need improvement? How do you respond when the wall you are building starts to wobble and your fellow brick-layer starts to look like he’s dreaming about how nice he had it back in Babylon?
 
Everyone wants to be the guy who lays the last brick on the unshakeable fortress. Everyone wants to enjoy the protection of the fortresses’ high walls. Everybody wants to play for the Chicago Bulls in the ’90s Michael Jordan era when all of the three-pointers seemed to fall, and the wins came easy. But there is a world of difference between wanting to cultivate a lovely family, church, or community and simply wanting to live in one. Working and keeping the garden is not the same thing as eating its fruits.
 
God has called us to build and fight in the day of adversity. And Proverbs 24:10 says, “If thou faint in the day of adversity, Thy strength is small.”
 
So here is your exhortation: Fear not wobbles in the wall. But do fix them, having a mind to work. Pay attention, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

The post For the People Had a Mind to Work appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Missing Covenant and the Disintegration of the Gospel-Centered Movement

I have seen a few posts cross the line covering the dissolution of the gospel-centered movement. There was this very good one from Jamie Brambrick that emphasized the lack of God’s law in the gospel-centered movement. Toby Sumpter noted that some have objected to Brambrck’s take, since Piper, Mohler, and others affirm the third use of the law. But, Toby writes, “COVID showed how flimsy that understanding was.” Very true. Then there is the very fine piece from Stephen Wolfe that signals the downturn involved the “politics-as-witness model” meeting Aaron Renn’s “negative world.”

I find both Brambrick’s take and Wolfe’s to be stirring. They are hitting on topics and history that I lived through, up close and personal. Brambrick points out the problem of neglecting the law. As I listened to him, I recalled all of the trips I took up to Southern Seminary to complete seminary studies. Back then, I was already squared away on the third use of the law, and there was a good deal of hesitation about the law of God there in Louisville. I remember thoroughly marking up a book by Jason Meyer while taking the plane home from Louisville after a week of classes. That book was called, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. I believe this work was his dissertation. Shortly after my flight with his book, in which I kept arguing with Meyer about his take on the end of the law, he became the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church. As I saw Bethlehem deal with a rise of wokeness, I could not help but think that there was a connection between the neglect of God’s law and the inroads made by the social justice movement at Bethlehem. 

Likewise, on the political front, Wolfe noted the misdeeds of Russell Moore and other evangelical elites. We used to hammer these misdoings quite thoroughly when I was back in the Southern Baptist Convention. I still remember when the Founders Ministries “By What Standard” trailer dropped. The internet did a thing, and nearly everyone out there was calling me and Tom Ascol racists, misogynists, haters, and any other naughty title that could be cooked up. All of the members of the Founders board resigned in the wake of that “By What Standard” trailer and there was a bit of a lonely road to walk for a while before the tide turned and it became easier and even advantageous to stand against the woke. We have been in that new season now for a couple few years. But, I remember the time when pointing out the woke compromises of “the evangelical elite” was uncommon and risky. 

By the way, that documentary is downright fantastic. It is free, informative, and a testimony to the genius of The Chocolate Knox. There is also a book that I edited by the same name, which addresses key themes in the film. You can get a copy here.

These two themes taken up by Brambrick and Wolfe go a long way to explain why the gospel-centered movement dissolved. But they leave me with a theological itch to scratch. We desperately need a recovery of the third use of the law and a robust and faithful political theology. But undergirding those two recoveries, we need a foundational recovery. That is a recovery of the covenant, the covenant mind, covenant theology, the covenant of grace, and its implications. Much needs to be said about this covenant, more than I can put into this article. But I would at least like to sketch it from 10,000 feet.

The Missing Covenant

Take Doug’s recent post as a leaping-off point to get the blood circulating. He writes, “The collapse of the gospel-centered movement was not due to their center. It was the result of a refusal to define the circumference. The gospel as the center of what exactly?”

I honestly don’t know what Doug would say to the question, “OK, Doug, so what is the circumference?” But that question makes me think of both the 2nd London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith on the doctrine of covenant. Notice the language:

“Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” (WCF 7.3 and 2LBC 7.2)

A striking thing about both of the confessions is that they indicate the gospel (indeed the gospel’s center) is found “in” God’s covenant of grace. What is the circumference of the gospel’s center? It is the covenant of grace. Look again at that section from the confession. God freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith that they may be saved. That is the kind of message that you would hear at Together for the Gospel, and in that message, we rejoice. But where is that offer made? It is made in God’s covenant of grace.

The reformed like to talk about that covenant. We have covenant promises, covenant children, covenant churches, and covenant coffee roasters. But as soon as you ask what this covenant of grace actually is, you can get a good many responses with several different flavors. Even so, it is an important study. The word “covenant” appears nearly 300 times in the Old Testament, and over 30 times in the New Testament. Here is a definition of the covenant of grace, followed by three key themes found therein, which the gospel-center movement lacked, and thus collapsed.

The covenant of grace is the Heavenly Father’s solemn oath to man on earth of grace in and by Jesus Christ that constitutes a legal and relational bond in blood, a community, and/or an organization over and to which God says, “I am your (plural) God and you (plural) are my people.” 

First, it is the Heavenly Father who covenants with man on earth. That is because a divine covenant with man is executed in history. What is in view is not a platonic covenant. It is not the idea of a covenant. It is not the gospel flying overhead at 10,000 feet. It is not a covenant up in the heavens. A covenant is cut on earth. Covenants must be established, or they are not divine covenants with man. You have no divine covenant with man if you don’t have a bond in blood. Blood and people are essential ingredients in the covenant of grace. So the heavenly and earthly language is a reminder that covenants originate with God in heaven and they are executed down here on earth with man.

One of the problems with the gospel-centered movement was that it didn’t have enough earth in it. It didn’t go thwack. It didn’t put feet to pavement. A recovery of the covenant fixes that problem.

Second, the covenant of grace involves the creation and formation of a constituted people. Theologians often use the language of administration. And that is fine language. But many can mistake such language to mean “getting thing A to individual B” like I administer lotion to my daughter’s knee. That idea does not capture what is involved in the word administration. Rather, think of how we use the word administration when we refer to the Washington or Jefferson administration. The Washington or Jefferson “administration” refers to an entity, a people, an organization, a corporate reality. You can be a member of such an administration or not a member of such an administration. In fact, it sounds strange to speak of being a member of a covenant if a covenant is nothing more than God’s promise to an individual. You might say that you are a believer of the covenant in that instance. But covenant membership implies that a covenant is more than a promise, it is an administration, organization, or league. Membership in an administration involves rights and responsibilities. None of that comes through when we conceive of a covenant as a mere promise from God to an individual. Note, God makes promises to individuals. I’m not disputing that he does so. I’m saying that to reduce covenant to such a notion is to do injustice to the covenant idea.

This second point answers the problem of atomization in the gospel-centered movement. The plan was to be “Together for the Gospel” and a “Gospel Coalition.” But how serious was that togetherness? How tight was that coalition? It fractured in part because there was no objective covenant acknowledged which binds the saints together.

Third, the covenant of grace maintains an eschatological orientation. It is not a static thing. It is the solemn oath of grace in and by Jesus Christ. But that does not mean that the covenant of grace only has in view your personal justification. Jesus came to save the world—”For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:17). The covenant of grace regards the promise of the Father of grace, the increase of grace, grace upon grace, grace to the ends of the earth. This covenant community grows. It fills the whole earth as the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. The kingdom of God advances and that kingdom is a covenanted kingdom.

This eschatological orientation was also lacking in the gospel-centered movement. It didn’t quite know where it was heading in this world. It was very American and evangelical in that regard. I remember attending Billy Graham’s last crusade in Raymond James Stadium in Tampa Bay, Florida. There are similar themes between Billy’s evangelistic preaching and what the gospel-centered movement was up to. Both preached Christ, and for that we are thankful. But neither developed the truth of Christ as the Second Adam who has come to constitute a new, redeemed humanity that would exercise dominion to the ends of the earth, teaching the nations to obey all that Christ has commanded. Here again, the doctrine of the covenant comes with blessings in its hand.

Much more needs to be said on this subject. I said some of those things in my recent book The Case for the Christian Family.

The post The Missing Covenant and the Disintegration of the Gospel-Centered Movement appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Slow to Wrath in the Middle of a Great Work

Proverbs 14:29 says, “He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: But he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly.”

It’s striking how God’s commands scale in difficulty depending on the circumstances. Are you slow to wrath? Well, it depends. Am I sitting on a dock of the bay watching the tide roll away? Or am I in the middle of closing a months-long business deal with a cranky and lazy partner? It is one thing for mom to hear that a feverish child just vomited down the side of his bed on a lazy Sunday afternoon. And it is another to hear that news when you’re in the fourth quarter of dinner prep for a family of six. 

When the spirit of dominion takes root in God’s people, that is a sign of his kindness. And that particular gift comes with a variety of temptations. One is the temptation to be quick to wrath. We know there is a lot on the line. Our society falls apart with every passing day. And amid that decay, we seem to be resolved to run with men, and even try our hand at running with horses if the Lord would grant us the ability. But when you run that hard, your blood really gets pumping. It is then that it is very easy to bite, grab, snap at a kid or a co-worker, slander a teacher, or complain that someone keeps merging into your lane.

First, thank God that He has given you such a high calling and such an advanced test. Confess any and all sinful anger. And ask God for a great heart to do great works with a cool and unhasty spirit.

The post Slow to Wrath in the Middle of a Great Work appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Rod Dreher and the Moscow Mojo

Andrew Isker’s book, “The Boniface Option,” received a critical review from Rod Dreher. Dreher’s main issue? Alleged resentment and anger in Isker’s work. I can’t comment on Isker’s book since I haven’t read it, but Dreher seems determined to link this “grumpy muffin” spirit to Moscow. 

Here’s the essence:

Dreher’s subtitle: “If ‘The Ben Op’ Came from a Brawling Calvinist Memelord in Moscow, Idaho…” 

In his article, Dreher asks, “What kind of world will Isker create? What about dissenters, Christian or not? What about women? Is everything destined to become Moscow, Idaho?” 

Dreher’s conclusion: ” When I finished The Boniface Option last night, I could only imagine a future in which Douglas Wilson’s brogue is stamping on a fake, disgusting, corpulent, but all too human face, forever.”

A couple of years ago, I interviewed Rod Dreher on The Sword & The Trowel Podcast. We discussed his book, “Live Not By Lies,” which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Shortly after that, my family and I moved to Moscow. We’ve been here for two years now, deeply ingrained in the community. I’m a minister at Christ Church, dean at New Saint Andrews College, and our kids attend Logos School. We live amidst the well-known Kirkers vs. the children of darkness divide. I share this context so that you can know where I stand and have another perspective by which you can judge Dreher’s critique of Moscow more fairly. 

You don’t have to be a sage to know that my trying to explain how badly Dreher misjudged Wilson won’t do much good. I could tell you that Doug Wilson is a cross between Tom Bombadil and Santa Claus. But those who have done their homework already know that to be the case, and those people who are unfriendly are pretty set in their ways. 

But, there might be readers who, like Rod Dreher, believe that Moscow is a hotbed of conservative Christian resentment over our crumbling civilization. They’d be mistaken, and in a big way. Dreher does pinpoint a real problem but fails to embrace one of the solutions:

The Dilemma

The problem, as Dreher often points out, is that the world has gone mad. We need something like the Benedict Option, but it’s so bad out there that it’s pulling the faithful in two wrong directions.

Direction one: Some think you can be sinfully angry and righteous, clinging to Christianity and sanity while drowning in bitterness and rage, as Dreher warns. You can watch the news, be appalled by paganism’s latest advances, and wring your hands, uncertain about what to do.

Direction two: You can surrender your cares, anger, and bitterness to the unfaithfulness of clown world. Folks taking this second option have had enough of self-righteous, reactionary conservatism, but without genuine community or a game plan, they become desensitized to the corruption around them.

Dreher likely sees both these pitfalls. His review of Isker aims to steer clear of the first one. Whether Isker is guilty of it (again, I haven’t read his book), Dreher is right that many conservatives are growing angrier and more resentful.

However, there’s a path that avoids both extremes, though it’s challenging and rare. It’s the road of faithfulness, renewal, reformation, and revival – a path filled with the spirit of the Narnians:

“Instead of being grave and mysterious like most Calormenes, they walked with a swing and let their arms and shoulders go free, and chatted and laughed. One was whistling. You could see that they were ready to be friends with anyone who was friendly, and didn’t give a fig for anyone who wasn’t.”

If I might speak plainly, that is just the spirit that has, generally speaking, taken over the Kirker community here in Moscow. It’s a rare thing, and worth of emulation. The general thankfulness, festivities, and cheerfulness of the place are no secret. 

Take, for instance:

A video of Christ Church singing Christmas Carols downtown amid heckling, responding with cheerful “Merry Christmas” and a simple move across the street.

Clips of block parties (here and here) thrown by Christ Church in downtown Moscow, where everyone, Christian or not, enjoys free food (hundreds of pounds of tri tip at this last one) and the best party in town.

The spirit of cheerfulness tied to a fearless apologetic approach, which has been taught and can be found in various resources (here, here, and here)

Doug’s debates with Christopher Hitchens – a display of winning not only arguments but also hearts – a spirit that resonates well in Moscow.

We need a jolly spirit as we press on, and Dreher seems to overlook that Moscow’s saints have been blessed as a shining example of the spirit we need. Does every place have to be Moscow? Of course not, but I invite Dreher to come and see for himself. The proof is in the pudding; something remarkable is happening here.

Look no farther than our sea shanties:

To the Word Sea Shanty

Sea Shanty – Psalm 136

Doug has already extended an invitation to Rod. We would love for him to come and speak in Moscow. I will go ahead and underscore this offer. As dean of New Saint Andrews, I arrange outside speakers to address our entire faculty and student body at what we call Disputatio. This is an open invitation for Rod to come address New Saint Andrews College. Let’s make it happen, beer, psalms, and tri tip included.

Here’s a snap shot of the spirit around here:

The post Rod Dreher and the Moscow Mojo appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Full and Hungry

You don’t have to look far into the history of the church to find, on the one hand, those advocating a life of wealth and, on the other, a life of poverty. You will find those commending a theology of glory and a theology of the cross. “Christianity is really about feasting,” says one. “No, Christianity is really about fasting,” says another. 

Paul seems to walk into that conversation and say, “Hey guys, I have done it all, and I’ve found gratitude and fullness no matter the condition.” That’s Philippians 4:11, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” He went through seasons of being honored, and seasons when his name was mud. He knew what it was to push back from a table and need to take a nap because the food stuck to his ribs. And he knew what it was like to run on an empty stomach. At times he had enough to share and at times he needed someone else’s stuff to keep him alive.

Now, what do you do with a guy who is really good in all situations? He can’t be manipulated. He can’t be thrown off course. Find a man who only knows how to abound. Well, good on him. But what is going to happen to him if God tests him like Job and he loses everything. Come to find out, he’s an abounding man who is weak. 

The poor man says, “Yeah, that’s right. Poverty is where it’s at.” But take that poor man who only knows how to be in need. What happens to him when the Lord opens up the windows of heaven on him, and he has not room to store so much bread and wine? He breaks under the pressure of all those heavy material blessings and the responsibility that comes with them.

What is the solution? We must know how to hustle joyfully and gratefully when we are full and when we are hungry. How do you do that? Well, you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you.

The post Full and Hungry appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

He Became Poor and We Became Rich

Scripture says that our Lord was rich and became poor. Not without reason, of course. He became poor so that we might become rich. And become rich we have, every one of us. Our wealth is here laid out before us. 

David could say that the LORD had put more joy in his heart than vain men had when their grain and wine abounded. We can and must say the same with him. But, we can say more. We live in the new covenant. We live in the year of the Lord’s favor. We live in that age in which the Son of God has taken upon human flesh and given it as life for the world. He has given his flesh and blood for us. 

As the old hymn says, “Here he gives Himself to us as bread. Here as wine we drink the blood He shed.”

That means that your wealth is not merely some idea. Your wealth is not imaginary. Your wealth is not even immaterial. Your wealth is a man. You have been yoked to Him, bound to Him. He is your head. What your head gets, you, His body, get. How could you not? He’s not a decapitated head.

This Second Adam, to whom we have been bound by covenant, is no mere man. He is a man-King. He owns Nebraska. Nebraska is ours in Christ. Things are ours. But you must always remember that they are ours in Christ, which is something altogether different than things being ours apart from Christ.

As we come to this table, we come as one rich body. So come grateful for this grace of God; and come assuming the responsibility laid on the rich man: Be rich toward God. Come in faith and welcome to Jesus Christ.

The post He Became Poor and We Became Rich appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Ezekiel’s Temple

Introduction

It is common for Christians to consider that the Spirit of God is given to us. But we often forget that the Spirit is also given through us. Ezekiel’s temple vision is one place where we see this truth. The Spirit flows out from the Christian Church to heal all of the sick places.

In Ezekiel 47, the prophet has a vision in which he is brought to the door of the temple where waters issue forth, run down by the side of the altar, and flow east (v. 1). The man with Ezekiel took him a thousand cubits east and this river was to the ankles, another thousand and the water was to the knees, another thousand and the water was up to his loins, and after another thousand it was deep enough to swim (v. 3-5). 

On both banks of this river were many trees (v. 6). The man told Ezekiel that the river flowed down to the desert and eventually would reach the sea, resulting in the sea being healed (v. 8). This river would give life. There would be so many fish that fishermen would spread their nets and catch boatloads of various kinds (v. 9-10). While the river will bring healing and blessing, there are some marsh places that will remain unhealed (v. 11). Because the waters from the sanctuary feed the trees, they won’t die. They will produce new fruit for food and leaves that will heal like medicine (v. 12). 

Ezekiel’s Temple Is the Christian Church

The temple Ezekiel sees is the Christian Church and the river flowing from that temple is the Holy Spirit. This becomes clear by considering two other texts of Scripture closely associated with Ezekiel 47.

In Revelation 22, right after John beholds “the bride, the Lamb’s wife . . . the holy Jerusalem” (Revelation 21:9), he sees the river of life as Ezekiel did. It proceeds out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. On either side of the river, there is the tree of life, bearing fruit every month with leaves that were for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:1-2).

The second text is John 7:37-39 where Jesus cried out on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, calling those who were thirsty to come to Him and drink. Christ said, “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38). John adds, ” But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).

In addition to these two texts, the context of Ezekiel 47 contains indicators that Ezekiel’s temple is a vision of the Christian Church. A few chapters prior, Ezekiel prophesies of the new covenant, saying, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” (Ezekiel 36:25-27). This new covenant is depicted in the valley of dry bones in the very next chapter (Ezekiel 37). 

The temple vision follows. Strikingly, the east gate of the temple remains closed, and it is only opened for the prince to enter (Ezekiel 44). This east gate reminds us of Eden, the first temple, and the Cheribums that were place at the east of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life. The only one who could enter back into Eden through that east gate was the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is that prince from Ezekiel’s vision, who has entered back into Eden through the east gate, so that we might enter back in through Him. 

It is no coincidence that a prophecy of the new covenant and a depiction of Christ coming to His temple as the Second Adam, the Man-King, precedes Ezekiel’s vision of the river of Living Water proceeding from the temple. These signs point to this temple being the Christian Church from which the Spirit goes forth to heal the nations.

East of Eden?

A great amount of confusion comes because we do not know where we are. Many Christians think that they are still east of Eden. But God has said that in the day He cleanses His people, “they shall say, ‘This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden'” (Ezekiel 36:35). Ezekiel’s temple vision was full of Edenic imagery (cherubims and palm trees). And in Christ, the prince, we have come back into Eden to worship God as forgiven and free people. 

We may not be east of Eden. But there are some still out there in those desert places to which the river flows. Many Christians make the mistake of thinking that the muck of the marshes will climb their way up to the temple of God and pollute it. But water flows downhill after all. We have believed in Christ and just what He promised has come to pass. The Holy Spirit—the river of living water—flows out of our hearts to the world bringing fruit and healing with it.

Knowing where we are is foundational. Knowing that the river is flowing is essential. But we must progress to see how this particular operation works. Christ is the source of this Living Water. We are not the headwaters. Apart from Christ, all you have is the flesh. But Christians walk by the Spirit. We come to Christ and drink. Doing so, we find that water has welled up in us and flows from our hearts. 

“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come . . . Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17).

The post Ezekiel’s Temple appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.