God is With Us

Where were you? How could you let this happen?

These are the questions whispered to God by the mother in the movie Tree Of Life following the death of her son at the outset of the movie. God answers as he did Job 38:4, 7, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?...and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (This is the passage shown at the very beginning the film.) All of Job 38 is a response to Job's questions in Job 31:3: "Is not calamity for the unrighteous, and disaster for the workers of iniqutiy?" In other words, shouldn't bad things only happen to bad people? Why should they happen to good people?

In the Biblical response, God has some questions of his own: Why do you think you are good? Who do you think you are? God reminds us that he created all that is and his ways are far above our own. The movie, Tree Of Life, does a great job showing this, and also shows that God cares for us. But it doesn't go far enough (just as Job ends well, but it is not the end of Biblical revelation).

The mother in the movie, who represents grace, points to a beautiful sky and tells her young son, "That's where God lives." Yes and no. As long as our Lord remains only a distant God who dwells in some remote heavens, then we cannot understand why calamity should befall the righteous, why bad things should happen to "good" people.

But the Biblical metanarrative is an unfolding of Immanuel ("God is with us"). He doesn't remain far away, but descends and condescends to his people. In Genesis he creates, and then relates to Adam. When man rebels (both Adam and in Noah's time), God preserves men and creates a nation to be a blessing to all nations (through Abraham). To his people, he reveals his power, his law and his character. The Living God who created all that is dwells with his people himself, leading them as a cloud by day and a fire by night. He dwells with his people in the Ark of the Covenant, the tabernacle and the temple. The Spirit of God rushes upon certain men for specific tasks. And yet, through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord promises a time when a virgin will bear a son named Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), a time when God would dwell with his people in a new and special way. This is what Christmas is about, God coming to be with his people, living a perfect and humble life, and dying a humiliating death on our behalf. So when we look at the evil and suffering around us, we may not have all of the answers, but we know there is one who has done something about it. Jesus is the final word about who God is (Hebrews 1:1-4). The God of the universe entered into our evil and overcame it. This is the gospel.

And still it's not the end of the unfolding of Immanuel. Jesus rose from the grave! He did not leave his people as orphans (John 14:18). He sent his Spirit into the world to dwell with his people, living inside of them as the Spirit of God lived in the temple in the Old Testament (1 Corinthians 6:19). God is still with us; he is in us if we trust in Christ.

And this isn't even the full good news of Immanuel. We have a promise that one day the Lord will dwell with his people in another new and special way. The apostle John describes the scene in Revelation: "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away (Rev. 21:3-4)...And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives its light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev. 21:22-23).

God doesn't just live far away from us in the sky. Where was he when loss or suffering happened. He was here. He has been here, he is here, and he will be here again. He has proved his love forever when he died on a cross for us. He became dirty so that we could be clean. He entered into our mess to destroy our mess so that he could dwell with us in perfect peace forever. This is a God we can trust, a God we can love.

William Lloyd wrote in the hymn, "My Times are in Thy Hand,"

My times are in thy hand,

Jesus, the crucified;

Those hands my cruel sins had pierced

Are now my guard and guide.

Why I Am A Presbyterian: Part IV (Covenant Baptism)

After tremendous anticipation (not really, I’m just making fun of myself), I’m finally picking back up the “Why I Am a Presbyterian” series that I started over a year ago. This is perhaps the issue that makes people uncomfortable about Presbyterianism. The following argument is fairly thorough, coming from much thought and study for my Sunday school class on the means of grace this fall. This is what I now believe on baptism, and I believe it is important, though I do not think that one’s view on this issue should be a cause for church division. It is not a matter of salvation (to those who believe this, I would point them to numerous significant discussions in the New Testament of what it means to be justified by faith, in which the idea of baptism is entirely absent). Baptism is a secondary issue at best, but still important because it should point to Christ and does affect how we view our salvation.

The consistent commands in the New Testament are "repent, believe and be baptized." This is not necessarily the order, for surely belief must precede repentance. If the first two imperatives are not in chronological order, one cannot argue that the last follows chronologically either.

The Biblical command to baptize is clear (Matt. 28:19). However, per Luther (and I agree) the Bible does not specify who, how, where or when to baptize. (This understanding assumes a descriptive reading of Acts, not a prescriptive reading. Acts is a narrative that describes the practices of the early Church; it is not meant to prescribe or dictate Church practice for all of history. In Acts, for example, we witness communal sharing of property and unpaid pastors. As cultures and economic systems have changed, these practices have changed. A descriptive reading allows Christianity to adapt to all cultures and eras. as it is meant to be.)

Since the Bible does not specify who, how, where or when, then we must ask why?

According to Westminster, baptism is a Sacrament. This means it is a visible expression of the means of grace. A means of grace is simply how God communicates grace to his people. Grace is available to people by the death and resurrection of Christ alone, but he communicates his grace through the Word, the Sacraments and prayer (Westminster’s tri-fold means of grace).

So the Sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are ways that God’s grace in Christ is communicated to God’s people in a way that visibly communicates/demonstrates the gospel. Every part of a worship service should have the gospel as its center. The preaching should be Christ-centered, as well as the hymns, the liturgy, the prayers and the Sacraments. If this is the case, then the gospel of Christ is communicated to everyone there in varied ways.

The gospel is Christ coming to us as helplessly dependent persons, washing away our sins, wholly outside of what we’ve done, wholly outside of our own merit. What represents this helpless dependence more than a tiny, helpless infant? An infant can’t do anything for himself, can’t circumcise himself, can’t baptize himself, can’t wash away his own sins. He is helplessly dependent on another to do all of these things for him.

Baptism is a visible picture that the promise of salvation in Christ is offered to this child. It does not save the child, but is a picture of salvation for all present to see. This is another important point. One should stop thinking about baptism as "doing something" for the child. Baptism is practiced because it has been instituted in God's Word and because it is a visible expression of the Gospel. Also, this view of baptism envelops everything meant at baby dedications, which seem to be growing in popularity. At the infant's baptism, his parents promise to raise him up with instruction in the gospel. The congregation promises to help in any way possible. These are also important elements of the baptism of an infant.

Most everything in the New Testament is a fulfillment of Old Testament practices. Jesus is the true tabernacle, the true sacrificial lamb, the true prophet, priest and king. On the eve of Passover, he instituted the Lord’s Supper to be the New Covenant expression of Passover (“This is the new covenant in my blood”). In Genesis 17:7, 13, circumcision is called an “everlasting covenant.” So it must have some New Covenant expression. Baptism in the New Covenant corresponds to circumcision in the Old Testament. The link is made between the two in Colossians 2:11-12. Also, see the similar language in Genesis 17:10-13 and Acts 2:39. The promise of salvation, represented by circumcision and baptism, respectively, is for “you and your offspring/children.”

It is wrongly believed that Presbyterians are paedobaptists (paedo=infant), but we really believe in covenant baptism. All those who enter into the covenant people of God should be baptized. When Abram first entered into the covenant, he circumcised himself as an old man and his entire household. In the New Testament, the promise is extended outside of ethnic Israel, so it is now shown by baptism, not circumcision. Therefore, everyone in Acts is baptized (Jew and Gentile), along with their households (Acts 16:14-15; 16:33). The first generation to receive the promise of the covenant (that promise being that forgiveness of sins is available to all who believe) should be baptized, and children within believing housholds should also be baptized. At my church, a Jewish man came to believe the gospel, and he was baptized as an adult, along with his wife and children.

There are records of the second generation following the death of Christ baptizing infants, the most notable record is of John (the disciple/apostle) himself baptizing the infant Polycarp, who was famously martyred in the late second century. Numerous views of baptism existed in the early Church, from infant and covenant baptism to believer's baptism to get-baptized-on-your-death-bed-in-case-you-sin-again baptism. But St. Augustine records that the true view of baptism passed down from the apostles is infant baptism. Beginning with Augustine, for the next 1000 years +, this was the 99% practice of all believers. The Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican traditions that came out of the Reformation still continued to baptize infants (though with different understandings and emphases). Church history doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it does help to think that probably 90% of believers in history, those who were also guided by the Holy Spirit and many of whom (especially after the Reformation) also read God's Word.

In closing, just as the old covenant expressions of worship were to point forward to Christ, so the new covenant expressions should point back to Christ. am not critical of credo-baptism (believer's baptism) as long as it points to Christ, and not to the individual being baptized. Yet, the picture of a helplessly dependent person having their sins washed away is the most accurate depiction of the gospel, that which Christ has done for us.

The Christmas Gospel

"In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation of our sins."

- 1 John 4:10

"Unreciprocated love is the Gospel."

- Alex Ayris

Have you ever gone out of your way to be a friend to somebody who just would not reciprocate the friendship? Have you ever given a gift to someone who never even thought to get you something? Have you ever loved and served someone who did not love or serve you back? These things have "the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" written all over them. As my friend and Beeson classmate Alex once said, "Unreciprocated love is the gospel."

Christmas should remind us that when we were yet sinners and enemies of God, he entered into our messed up world in the person of Jesus Christ, took on our messed up flesh, died and rose again to redeem a people for himself. The LORD's promise from the beginning was that he would be our God and we would be his people (Ex. 29:45; Jer. 31:33; Ezk. 37:23; Rev. 21:3). Christmas reminds us that God stops at nothing to fulfill that promise. Even when we don't love him, he loves us and sacrificed himself for us (1 John 4:10). He did this knowing we would never love him the way he loves us. Yet he poured out himself unto death, and he pours out his Holy Spirit on his people. The true knowledge of Christ's victorious and vicarious sacrifice for us, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit that we are God's children (Rom. 8:15-16), enable us to love him, however imperfectly, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

I think about the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Lk. 20:9-18). Time after time in the Old Testament, the word of the LORD came through the prophets and was rejected. When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) as the full and final revelation of God to his people, he was rejected as well. He knew that he would be (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). As the hymnist writes, "Man of sorrows, what a name for the Son of God who came, ruined sinners to reclaim. Hallelujah! What a Savior!"

This is what makes Christmas great. The God we rejected and continue to reject on our own continues to love his people. He has removed every obstacle (namely, our sin and hearts of stone) from him lavishly pouring out his love upon us.

And so we love him, or try to love him. I resonate with Elizabeth Clephane, who wrote one of my favorite hymns: "If ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now." There are particular moments when I feel I really love Jesus, but I'm not sure I've ever really loved Jesus as I ought I, with all my heart and soul and mind and strength. I'm not saying that to be self-effacing. I, Matt Owens, do not love the Lord as I should. I, the seminary student, dos not really dwell upon the gospel everyday as I should.

Fortunately, there is one who has loved the Lord with all his heart and soul and mind and strength, and lived his life accordingly. All of this was done on my behalf. So, in Christ, I have loved God with all my heart and soul and mind and strength. Christ loved the Father perfectly on my behalf. This is why Christ coming was necessary. So, on this Christmas Day, may we think about such things and love and serve the God who first and always loved us. And may we extend this grace to our neighbors and families and co-workers. Keep pouring out your love and service and friendship to the ones who don't deserve it, to the ones who don't appreciate it, and to the ones who don't reciprocate it. For in doing so, you are being like Jesus and reflecting the salvation he gives his people. Christmas is unreciprocated love, and it is necessary, and it is beautiful.

Loving God from the Heart: A Perpetual Truth from Moses to Jesus to Bonhoeffer

It's a beautiful thing when everything you're reading intersects, when several different subjects converge to make one point. This is nearly impossible for me during the semester, since I'm reading at least five books for five classes. The last three weeks, however, I have been enjoying a short break. I have been reading the Gospel of Matthew, the book of Deuteronomy and Eric Metaxas' biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The relationship between the the two testaments and the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany is explored in a chapel sermon given at Beeson by my Old Testament professor, Dr. Paul House: http://www.beesondivinity.com/media#!/swx/pp/media_archives/116700/episode/20758

If one starts Deuteronomy and Matthew at the same time and reads at the same pace, one will find striking similarities between the two books in chapters 5 and 6. There are also striking similarities between Israel and Jesus Christ, the true Israel. The Hebrews, after passing through the waters of liberation from slavery in Egypt, is tempted in the wilderness for forty years. Jesus, after being baptized, is tempted in the wilderness from forty days. Moses then brings the law down from the mountain from God to the people. Jesus returns from the wilderness and preaches a sermon on a mountain, aka the Sermon on the Mount. In it, he exegetes what it looks like for the people of God to follow God's law from the heart. External obedience is not enough; one must obey from a pure heart. The two are not that different. Both are in response to God's faithfulness. Both are from a heart of reverence and trust. We fear God and at the same time know that his commandment are for our good. Deuteronomy 6 reads:

When your sons asks you in time to come, 'What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the Lord our God has commanded you?' then you shall say to your son, 'We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, TO FEAR THE LORD OUR GOD, FOR OUR GOOD ALWAYS, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.'

The commandments of the Lord do not include only the Ten Commandments, but also the "greatest commandment" to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deut. 6:5). This certainly informs the Sermon on the Mount, which shows us that pleasing God is not about keeping rules, but is a matter of the heart. That brings me to the third reading on that day from Metaxas' biography of Bonhoeffer. He wrote to his friend and fellow student Elizabeth Zinn:

I plunged into work in a very unchristian way. An...ambition that many noticed in me made my life difficult...Then something happened, something that has changed and transformed my life to the present day. For the first time I discovered the Bible...I had often preached. I had seen a great deal of the Church, and talked and preached about it--but I had not yet become a Christian...I KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME I TURNED THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST INTO SOMETHING OF PERSONAL ADVANTAGE FOR MYSELF...I PRAY TO GOD THAT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. Also I had never prayed, or prayed only very little. For all my loneliness, I was quite pleased with myself. Then the Bible, and in particular THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT FREED ME FROM THAT. Since then everything has changed.

It took a lot of consideration and struggling over the first words in CAPS to come to terms with what Bonhoeffer meant. Is the gospel of Christ not of personal advantage to all Christians? But in context, he is talking about ambition. I confess that I have at times struggled with the same thing. I have made my knowledge of the gospel my ticket to impressing people, to people thinking highly of me. This is what the Pharisees and other religious leaders of Jesus' day sought to do as well, and they misunderstood what the gospel was all about because their hearts were far from God. They didn't love him with all their mind and soul and might, but they loved him externally in order to get something from him...fame, reputation, status, etc. Bonhoeffer is writing here that he had the same approach until he was freed from it by his reading of the Sermon on the Mount.

One last thing...The Sermon on the Mount has at least two purposes: to expose our unrighteousness so that we might cling to the righteousness of Christ and to challenge us to live a life of Christlike obedience from the heart. When Jesus tells his listeners that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20), he is making a statement that merely external righteousness (law-keeping without the heart) is no righteousness at all. When he says that "you must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48), he is leading people to himself, for only Christ can make us perfect by his blood. At the same time, his blood motivates us to strive for perfection, not outwardly by rule-keeping, but a continual renewing of the heart leading to a continual renewing expression of love for God in action. There are Christian teachings/teachers that emphasize one and forget the other. The Biblical message is that we should rest in the grace of God while always working to further his kingdom. While we bear our crosses, we may rest in the fact that he bore the cross for us.

Would you be content if...

Jonathan Edwards illustrates contentment with this illustrative question: Would you be content to shine the shoes of the servant who shines the King's shoes IF you knew that the King knows your name and has promised you all that is his?

As is true with so many other good things, the main enemy of contentment is pride. We become malcontent when we start thinking we deserve certain things. This is the premise on which the prosperity gospel is based, which is scary, but that is a subject for another day. The great men in the Bible had at least this one thing in common: out of a sense of their own unworthiness, they were content to be servants/slaves of God. My Old Testament Theology professor Paul House has pointed out several times that the highest title bestowed on any individual in the Old Testament is "servant (Hebrew: ebed) of God." This title is usually reserved for only Moses and David. In the New Testament, John the Baptist shares this humble disposition (see John 1:19-27) and Jesus said that no one born of woman is greater than John (Luke 7:28). Paul often refers to himself as a slave (Greek: doulos) of Christ. Of course, it was Paul that wrote the words of Colossians 1, which you will see at the top of the page. When one has a view of Christ like that, they can no longer see themselves as anything all that terrific.

Going back to Edwards' example, all these men believed the promises of God that found their "Yes" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). They were convinced that the King not only knew their names, but every hair on their heads (Matthew 10:30). They know that all the blessings that Christ won by the cross are ours through him (Luke 15:31; 2 Corinthians 5:21). As Calvin wrote, "Since Christ has been so imparted to you with all his benefits that all things are made yours, that you are made a member of him, indeed one with him, his righteousness overwhelms your sins; his salvation wipes our your condemnation; with his worthiness he intercedes that your unworthiness may not come before God's sight." (This is the theological concept of union with Christ, of which I will hopefully post about soon.)

In Christ, we find contentment to face life's challenges boldly. We know we don't deserve it, but it is a free gift of God. As the hymnist writes, "this is all my hope and peace: Nothing but the blood of Jesus." Thanks be to God!

PS - The "Why I Am a Presbyterian" series will continue, I promise. We're currently reading and discussing Calvin in my Reformation class, and I want to wait until after we've covered baptism and the Lord's Supper before writing on those matters here. I will probably write on the issue of church government last, for I am now gaining more insight into what this looks like (I have been interning there 4-5 hours a week).

The Approachable Jesus

In keeping with the heritages of the Reformed and Evangelical traditions, I am convicted to share a particular idea: the approachable Christ. So often today, we take this for granted. The Reformers certainly would not have. In my Reformation history & doctrine class, we discussed the view of Christ in Luther's time as an angry judge. This is part of the reason the Church of Luther's time found it appropriate to pray to Mary or to certain Saints. These were seen to serve as mediators between sinful man and Jesus Christ. Luther himself was terrified of Christ. Believing he would only be saved from God's wrath in hell or extended purgatory, he was meticulous about confessing sins, afraid he might forget some small sin. His confessions became so extensive that his abbot told him to come back when he had a real sin to confess. Luther wrote of his perception of God during this time:

I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience.

What he discovered for himself upon studying Romans 1:17, and we must never forget, is that God's righteousness is not a standard we are required to live up to on our own, but something he gives to his people by his substitutionary atonement for sins. In other words, if we are required to meet God's righteous standard on our own, this could never be described as gospel (which means "good news"). In fact, this would be terrible news. The good news is that, "For our sake (God) made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Luther re-discovered that Jesus was not an angry judge to his people (though he will be to those who reject him), but he himself was the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Far from adding "pain to pain" (above quotation), he came that we might receive "grace upon grace" (John 1:16).

The cross, then, is the basis for a personal relationship with God, for Hebrews 4:16 informs us that this mediator has achieved for us the right to go boldly before the throne of grace. If your "personal relationship" with God is through some other means than the cross, then it will not save you. Those who are not trusting Christ have great reason to be terrified of God as Martin Luther was. But hear the good news:

God is not angry with those who trust him and the forgiveness that has come by the cross. When God sees his people, he does not see their sinful failures, but the perfect righteousness of his only Son. God is not annoyed with the prayers of his people, but sees them as his children, co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). And "he who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not with him graciously give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32). The logic there is that if God has proved his redeeming love by the blood of the cross, why would we not trust him to do what is best for us? Why would we be afraid to approach a God like this? He delights to be in fellowship with his children. He has made himself approachable at great cost to himself. The assurance of pardon from Cahaba Park Church's liturgy on Sunday best sums it up:

Hear the good news!

Who is in a position to condemn?

Only Christ. Christ died for us, Christ rose for us,

Christ reigns in power for us, Christ prays for us.

Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. The old life has gone; a new life has begun.

Know that you are forgiven, and be at peace.

ALL: Thanks be to God.

Historic Evangelical Christianity

Again, I interrupt my "Why I Am a Presbyterian" series, this time to explain why I am an Evangelical Christian and what that means historically. I suppose the impulse leading to this post is to be clear that there are certainly some things more important the Presbyterian doctrines. I am very much a believer in sharing the gospel with others and having a personal relationship with God through Christ, both emphases of Evangelicals historically.

Christian. I am a Christian by God's grace alone. Historically, the term "Christians" were given to Christ-followers in Antioch (present-day Syria) in Acts . That is fairly well-known. But Evangelical? Linguistically, the term comes from the Latin word evangel, which is derived from the Greek euangelion. Both mean "good news" or "gospel". So, to be an evangelical means to be one who is committed learning about and sharing with others the gospel.

Historically, the Evangelical movement came out of the emphases of evangelism and having a personal relationship with God. This movement was led by John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, among others. A close synonym to "evangelical" during this time was enthusiasm. This is what John Newton, the great Anglican preacher and hymn-writer of the late 18th century, was often accused of. It was a term of condescension from those who practiced a more dry, ritualistic, cultural and comfortable Christianity. Newton, a former slave ship captain, understood himself a wretch, saved by grace from beginning to end; he could not help but exhibit enthusiasm for Christ. But he was, nevertheless, accused of enthusiasm, which was frowned upon. This is the reason William Wilberforce sought his counsel so secretly and the counsel he received (for Wilberforce to remain in Parliament and fight the slave trade instead of become a minister) quickened the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain.

So many of my heroes have displayed this enthusiasm and written clearly against those who denounced enthusiasm in their time. This is basically the subject of 18th-century New England Theologian and Pastor Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections. William Wilberforce often concerned himself in his writings with the "bulk" of society who cared little for learning or living out the gospel in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (though some would debate him as an evangelical, he was strongly influenced by German Pietism, a parallel movement to English Evangelicalism) was constantly challenging Christians in the Third Reich to follow Christ even to death (which he did) in The Cost of Discipleship. Today, men like John Piper and David Platt still challenge nominal Christians out of their complacency by the gospel.

It is on the shoulders of these great men that I stand, firmly believing that the good news of the gospel should be shared with others and that Christ has secured for his people a personal relationship with God.

Part III: The Reformed Tradition

The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century (Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza, John Knox and others) believed very differently on several issues. However, they all agreed that man was saved by sola gratia (grace alone) through sola fide (faith alone) in sola Christus (Christ alone), and that the Holy Scriptures are the primary source of authoritative truth. This means that man can do nothing to save himself, but it has all been done for him in the person and work of Jesus Christ should he trust in this. Man is required to repent and believe, but the Reformers, on the whole, taught that even these acts were gifts given by God (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25, Eph 2:8-9). They did not develop any of these ideas for the first time, but attempted to draw their ideas from Scripture and from some of the early Church Fathers. I am a child of the Reformation because I believe these things.

What is referred to as "Reformed Theology" today is often much more specific than this. It seems that in the centuries following the Reformation that the terms "Reformed" and "Calvinist" became increasingly synonymous. John Calvin agreed with all of the above, but had additional emphases. Today, his theology is often summarized with TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement/particular redemption, irresistable grace, perseverance of the Saints). John Piper facetiously calls himself a "seven-point Calvinist." While I love Piper, I'm not exactly sure what the seven points would be. If you asked Calvin what the five or seven major points of his theology were, I think he would respond much differently than with TULIP. So I don't feel the need to expand or argue the points of TULIP here and now. The Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper were very important to Calvin, and Piper would have a much different view on these things. Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are on the docket for blog posts (see the intro for "Why I Am a Presbyterian").

Calvin emphasized the priesthood of the believer (as did Luther), the idea that Christians may go boldly before the throne of grace in prayer without an intercessor (such as priest), for the great High Priest has gone behind the curtain and now lives to make intercession for his people (Heb. 4:14-16, 6:19). Because of his belief in sola Scriptura, Calvin also was influential in the recovery of the main Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew.

In the middle of the sixteenth century, Calvin's theology spread from Switzerland through Europe and particularly to Scotland by means of John Knox, who had fled to Geneva because of threats on his life in Scotland. There, Knox was greatly influenced by Calvin. Knox is considered the founder of the Presbyterian Church. This is why, as a Presbyterian, I claim Calvin and Knox.

The emphases and theology of the Reformed tradition remain very present in my church, for the great deal of the liturgy come from Calvin's Switzerland, Knox's Scotland or the Westminster Confession (indisputably influenced by Calvin). The vast majority of the hymns we sing (accompanied by more modern music) come out of Reformed circles in England and Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Reformers emphasized the three-fold office of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. Knox seemed to have focused more than most of the other Reformers on the role of Christ as Priest, the Great High Priest who actively intercedes for his people by the merits of his finished work. This is a concept that has been passed down from Knox through Scottish Presbyterian theologians to my theological man-crush James Torrance. It is in his book, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, that I encountered the idea most richly within the last six months.

Now, someone out there is reading this and asking, "Why do I need to follow a specific tradition or interpretation? Can't I just read the Bible and decide for myself by the guidance of the Holy Spirit?" To ask that shows that you are a child of the Reformation. It was the Reformers who first taught that Scripture could be understood by the common man and it was the Reformers who sought to translate the Bible into the vernacular (the common languages). The answer to the second question is ultimately "yes, you can." But what is specifically 20th or 21st-century about the question is the assumption that your view is equally as valid as Biblical scholars who spend invest their entire lives studying and praying over what the Bible teaches. Wouldn't it be helpful to at least consider what they have to say?

Now, you may object that Biblical scholars in other eras and in other lands have also studied and prayed at length and come to different conclusions. This is true. But the reason I value the ideas coming out of the Reformation so much is because I believe that their presuppositions and emphases were where they were supposed to be. Referencing back to my post, "Helpful Presuppositions to Understanding the Bible", I believe that the Reformers started with (as I said earlier) the person and work of Christ and that the Bible is the authoritative, infallible word of God, a book primarily about God, not man or what man can do to earn God's love. These were the cornerstones of the theology of the Reformers. As they built, these were what they fell back on. Everyone either bases their theology on a specific historical time period or movement (most American Christians today base theirs on the widespread humanism of 21st Century America). In interpretation, one cannot escape presuppositions, so I choose to accept the presuppositions of the Reformation, that the Bible is authoritative and is primarily about Christ's work for us.

Part II: Covenant Theology

Covenant theology, very basically, is the idea that God's historical plan of redemption is consistent and coherent. Instead of seeing the Bible as a series of random, unrelated stories, covenant theology emphasizes the central Biblical narrative which centers on the cross. Central to covenant theology is the view of God as a covenant God (seems pretty obvious). This means that God makes promises to his people and with the acceptance of these promises come specific responsibilities. A portion of a post I wrote back in September, "A Brief History of God and Man," summarizes covenant theology well:

God’s covenant with man, his commitment to redeem and recreate a kingdom for himself, is the most dominant, over-arching theme of the Bible. This commitment is perhaps best summarized by the statement repeated throughout Scripture: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Ex 29, Jer 31, 2 Cor 6, Heb 8, Rev 21). There is but one covenant which has a number of different expressions in the course of redemptive history. Each expression was initiated by God, the superior party, but in all instances, something was required of man: obedience. This covenant was perfected in the person and work of the God-man Jesus Christ, who lived a perfectly obedient life and bore the wrath of God on the cross so that God might be reconciled to his people forever. All other expressions of the covenant foreshadow this new covenant.

This is why PCA churches have a strong commitment to the centrality of the gospel, for they believe the entire Biblical narrative centers on (either by foreshadowing or explaining the effects of) Jesus' death and resurrection for us. Understanding how the Bible fits together consistently also vastly reduces major misinterpretations that might lead to false emphases and regulations. There are some doctrines man cannot know with absolutely certainty, and others in which we should be charitable. But I am glad to be in a church that, for the most part, knows what it believes and relates it through and to the cross.

The Counter-Conditional Love of God

I interrupt the "Why I Am A Presbyterian" series to share a few thoughts inspired by a Tim Keller sermon. The interruption is fitting with the series, for Keller could be considered reason #7 of why I am a Presbyterian.

This morning, I listened to his sermon, "Does God Control Everything?" The whole sermon was brilliant, but there were a few ideas I felt a strong urge to share. When such ideas cannot fit into the size limitations of a facebook status, that's what this blog is for. Preaching on Romans 8:28 and following, Keller explains the superiority of God's infinite wisdom and decision-making over our own. Based on this, he states:

Very seldom do we even get a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a glimpse of how God is working all things together for the good of those who love God. But he is. And, therefore, you can be assured that no matter what bad stuff's happening inside you and no matter what bad stuff's happening outside you, he has not abandoned you. He loves you.

If you've heard Keller before, it is no surprise where he will take the finale of the sermon: to the cross. This is the basis for God's love for us. Many people walk around out there believing God loves them unconditionally, but this is not enough. One must rely on the basis of God's love for them, they must "personalize" God's love in Jesus. Keller says:

Don't think of love abstractly; Jesus is the love of God. In the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, do you know what was happening? All the greatest forces in the universe were arrayed against Jesus, and he could have stopped them. He could have stopped the rejection, he could have stopped the torture, he could have stopped the death, he could have stopped the rejection of his Father, he could have stopped eternal justice coming down on his head. All he had to do was give up on us. That's all he had to do, just walk away...Jesus was up on the cross bleeding and dying, looking down at the people betraying him and forsaking him and denying him, and in the greatest act of love in the history of the universe, he stayed. Bomb after bomb after bomb was coming down on Jesus Christ trying to get him to drop us, to separate him from us, and even hell itself couldn't do it. He stayed. Nothing could separate him from us, his love from us. He held onto us; he was our Savior. He died for us! Now that's how you know nothing can separate us from the love of God. It's not an abstraction. It's not just saying, 'Oh, I just believe that God loves me unconditionally.' No, he loves you counter-conditionally; he loves you against conditions, because of Jesus.

John Newton, the author of the hymn 'Amazing Grace' and my favorite hymn writer said it like this:

Though afflicted, tempest tossed,

Comfortless awhile thou art,

Do not think thou can be lost,

Thou art graven on my heart;

All thy wastes I will repair;

Thou shalt be rebuilt anew;

And in thee it shall appear

What the God of love can do.

Part I: The Value of Liturgy

The liturgical impulse is closely related to the impulse of worshipping God in song. Both are forms of verbally expressing one's worship to God. Old men who used to "Amen" in the Baptist services I grew up in certainly have that liturgical impulse; liturgy gives them an opportunity to express themselves in a more intelligent way. Liturgical services encourage more participation from the congregation, thus allowing the congregation to feel less isolated and more unified. As well as giving one a chance to verbalize worship, it teaches deep, Biblical truths to the congregation (which are very unknown to most today).

My only experience of liturgy in my childhood was at Catholic wedding services of uncles and cousins, at which I was completely lost. When I moved to Nashville, I visited a few churches that incorporated liturgy, but ended up at a PCA Church that did very little. It was when I arrived in Birmingham that I started to see the value of liturgy. I started attending Red Mountain Church, which is very liturgical without being formal, and I instantly loved it. I visited some other churches, including Christ the King Anglican, of which my Evangelism professor Dr. Lyle Dorsett is minister. I loved the way he led the liturgy, so full of passion and and moved by the Holy Spirit. It was liturgy with heart, if you will, as opposed the dry, monotonous, repetitive liturgy in most high churches. Cahaba Park Church, now my Church, is a good mix of Red Mountain and Christ the King.

I foresee myself one day being at a church that incorporates a good deal of passionate liturgy in their worship, without being formal. I believe this would be especially relevant in areas that have a remnant of traditional, possibly dry liturgical services, places like Ireland and Scotland. But there are many people in the U.S. that prefer this style of worship and can't find it. I think one of the many errors of the seeker-sensitive movement is to assume that all seekers want services that are completely unstructured. This does allow them to blend in, as if that's a good thing, but not every seeker wants that.

I am so in love with liturgy that I compiled my own liturgy for my family's worship on Thanksgiving. Though I think there was some skepticism coming in, I can confidently say that it was a valuable time of worship for all who were there.

Below is part of the liturgy from this morning's service at Cahaba Park.

(From the Belgic Confession)

Leader: What do you believe about the work of God?

People: We believe that God - who is perfectly merciful and also very just - sent His Son to assume the nature in which the disobedience had been committed, in order to bear in it the punishment of sin by His most bitter passion and death.

Leader: And what do you believe about the work of Jesus Christ?

People: We believe that Jesus Christ presented Himself in our name before His Father, to appease His wrath with full satisfaction by offering Himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out His precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.

Leader: Why did he endure all this?

People: He endured all this for the forgiveness of our sins.

Leader: What comfort does this give you?

We find all comforts in His wounds and have no need to seek or invent any other means to reconcile ourselves with God than this one and only sacrifice, once made, which renders believers perfect forever.

Why I Am A Presbyterian: Introduction

I don't really make New Year's Resolutions because I hate making promises I won't/can't keep. This endeavor to write a six-part blog post series on this topic is about as close as I come. I may not complete it. It may be unrealistic for me, like Sufjan Stevens' Fifty States Project. But I will try.

The impulse for writing about this comes from my new internship at Cahaba Park Church, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I have wrestled pretty thoroughly with the decision to pursue ordination in a particular denomination. My first semester at inter-denomination Beeson Divinity School has more firmly anchored me to the Presbyterian tradition. Though a few hesitancies are still present (and maybe I will endeavor to write of them after I finish the reasons why), they have been overcome by the things I love about the Presbyterian Church. Of these things, I write from a personal perspective. I am not saying everyone should be Presbyterian; neither am I elevating denominational differences above Christian unity. I am certainly not against other denominations; I am all for inter-denominational unity. I am simply explaining my decision to be a part of the Presbyterian Church in America. Some of my doctrinal reasons are matters of interpretation and the worship practices are mostly preferential. So I write partially for myself and partially for the reader to consider a different view. I think it is important to know what one's church believes and why.

The six-part series, not in order of significance necessarily, I hope to complete is as follows:

I. The Value of Liturgy

II. Covenant Theology

III. Reformed Tradition

IV. Church Government

V. The Lord's Supper

VI. Paedobaptism

Stay tuned...