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...