This is the third post on why the EFCA's revision of our doctrinal statement is a good thing. In the first post, I gave an overview and linked to an article from Christianity Today that walks through the revised statement. In the second post, I talked about the process and the spirit with which the revision was done.
Now I would like to write briefly about the theological tools that the revised statement gives us. The revised SOF has "beefed up" statements on the doctrine of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, the hypostatic union in the person of Christ, justification by faith alone, the atonement, and individual responsibility to repent and believe. Things that were assumed by the writers of the 1950 SOF are no longer taken for granted among some who call themselves evangelicals. And so that which was assumed must now be made explicit in order to safeguard the faith "delivered once for all to the saints" (Jude 3). I'll focus on two issues in particular now: divine foreknowledge and penal substitution. Without doing a series of posts on each of these issues, I cannot do justice to either of them in this post. So I will only give a summary of what is involved and how the revised SOF handles each of them.
Open theism is the view that God does not exhaustively know the future, not because God is not all-knowing, but because the future is indeterminate and therefore not knowable. For a summary of the issues and the parties involved, read this post by Tim Challies, and for a list of resources available online critiquing openness, go to this page from Monergism.com. One excellent book that the EFCA has made available at its conferences is Steve Roy's How Much Does God Foreknow? My key concern is how to square the indeterminacy of the future with statements in the Bible such as Isaiah 48:5, which seems to indicate that one crucial difference between the true God and false gods is knowledge of the future. It seems clear to me that Scripture plainly teaches God's exhaustive knowledge of the future, and that any view to the contrary involves undermining our view of Scripture.
An advocate of open theism could have signed off on the 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith. But the revision says that God is not only "infinitely perfect" but has "limitless knowledge and sovereign power." What a tremendous improvement! And what an important safeguard to preserve our understanding of God's foreknowledge!
Penal substitution is the understanding that God satisfied His own wrath against sinners by sending His Son as a perfect substitute on behalf of sinners to bear His wrath. It is the doctrine at the heart of justification by faith, central to the Reformation, and the hope and confidence of Christians for centuries. And today it is under attack by some who would call themselves evangelical. One scholar even referred to it as "cosmic child abuse," as if the Father gleefully inflicted vengeance on His unwilling Son. Once again the arguments can get complicated, though the single volume that best addresses them at a fairly accessible level is Pierced for Our Transgressions. Not only do these attacks undermine the only righteousness that any of us can hope to have as we stand before our Creator, King, and Judge, they do not square with straightforward readings of Isaiah 53, Romans 3:21-26, and 1 Peter 3:18. That is only a smattering of passages -- at Bethel we will spend three months of Sundays preaching through passages throughout the Bible to understand what happened in the atonement.
A critic of penal substitution could have signed off on the 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith, which only states that Jesus was "a sacrifice for sins." But the revision says human beings are "under [God's] wrath," that Christ is "our representative and substitute" and that His "atoning death" is the "perfect, all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins." Again we see the improvement, in which what was assumed is made explicit. And again we see the safeguarding of the glorious riches of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ!
I could say more about the Scriptures, about the person of Christ, about the ordinances, and much more. And this fall when we teach through the revised SOF in Adult Life Training at Bethel, I will. The revised SOF gives us wonderful theological tools for helping us to understand and safeguard the gospel.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Way That We Did It
I want to start explaining why Free Church folk should be excited about the revision of the Statement of Faith by writing about the way we did things. This is not to say that things were always done perfectly all along the way. But the overall process was the right way to do things.
The Spiritual Heritage Committee (SHC) of the EFCA was commissioned by the Board of Directors with drafting and redrafting the revision. The SHC was made up of the EFCA director of credentialing and biblical theology, five pastors, and the president of Trinity International University (the EFCA's college and seminary). These men are pastor-theologians. They are not squirreled away in ivory towers, but are on the front lines of ministry, serving as undershepherds of the flock of God. The revision was not a mere academic exercise, but rather an exercise in practical theology and pastoral care.
In addition, these men handled themselves with great integrity and displayed much love and self-restraint. They were criticized, sometimes rightly, sometimes unfairly. But they consistently responded with humility. I learned much from watching their work.
The process was handled transparently. Each draft was made widely available through mailings, emailings, and the EFCA website. The revision was discussed at national meetings, district meetings, and ministerials. It was written about, blogged about, and debated. It was handled patiently, with the first draft going public in December 2005, but the final vote taking place two and a half years later.
It was done with the right attitude. The debate at the June 2008 National Conference was characterized by a sweet spirit of love and patience, with a genuine desire for unity, but at the same time with an unflinching commitment to truth. In an age in which we see too many denominations being pulled apart by wavering on biblical truth, the EFCA moved in the opposite direction and grasped our biblical convictions with an even fiercer embrace.
The EFCA did it right. I came away from the National Conference rejoicing over being part of this denomination, and worshiping God for His faithfulness to us.
The Spiritual Heritage Committee (SHC) of the EFCA was commissioned by the Board of Directors with drafting and redrafting the revision. The SHC was made up of the EFCA director of credentialing and biblical theology, five pastors, and the president of Trinity International University (the EFCA's college and seminary). These men are pastor-theologians. They are not squirreled away in ivory towers, but are on the front lines of ministry, serving as undershepherds of the flock of God. The revision was not a mere academic exercise, but rather an exercise in practical theology and pastoral care.
In addition, these men handled themselves with great integrity and displayed much love and self-restraint. They were criticized, sometimes rightly, sometimes unfairly. But they consistently responded with humility. I learned much from watching their work.
The process was handled transparently. Each draft was made widely available through mailings, emailings, and the EFCA website. The revision was discussed at national meetings, district meetings, and ministerials. It was written about, blogged about, and debated. It was handled patiently, with the first draft going public in December 2005, but the final vote taking place two and a half years later.
It was done with the right attitude. The debate at the June 2008 National Conference was characterized by a sweet spirit of love and patience, with a genuine desire for unity, but at the same time with an unflinching commitment to truth. In an age in which we see too many denominations being pulled apart by wavering on biblical truth, the EFCA moved in the opposite direction and grasped our biblical convictions with an even fiercer embrace.
The EFCA did it right. I came away from the National Conference rejoicing over being part of this denomination, and worshiping God for His faithfulness to us.
Why the EFCA Doctrinal Revision Is a Good Thing
After returning from the EFCA National Leadership Conference, I gave a brief report to the congregation during our Sunday worship service. I mentioned the workshops I attended, the networking that I did, the teaching we received on living on mission. No one blinked. I think someone may even have yawned.
And then I shared that the revision of the Statement of Faith had been passed by an 86% affirmative vote. A few folks sat up a bit straighter at that. I did not think it would be that much of a surprise -- we have discussed the revision process at congregational business meetings, and we make copies of EFCA Today available free of charge.
Some of you who are reading this are laughing at me now for being naive. I deserve that. After the service, several people approached board members with questions and with concern. Why change the old Statement of Faith, which has served the EFCA so well for over fifty years? That's a fair question, and I intend to address it through a variety of means: a letter sent to everyone in the congregation two weeks ago, an evening meeting next week, a Sunday school class this fall using the new Statement to help us all know our doctrine better and understand what it means to be the Free Church.
And this blog. I'd like to spend several posts explaining why I think this revision is not just a good thing, but a great thing that all Free Church folk should be excited about. In this post, I want to direct our attention to an article in Christianity Today that gives an excellent overview of the revision and the reasons for it. The key idea is this: By revising now, we saved ourselves much trouble later. The EFCA leadership showed farsighted vision and concern for the church for which they should be commended.
I look forward to diving in with the next post!
And then I shared that the revision of the Statement of Faith had been passed by an 86% affirmative vote. A few folks sat up a bit straighter at that. I did not think it would be that much of a surprise -- we have discussed the revision process at congregational business meetings, and we make copies of EFCA Today available free of charge.
Some of you who are reading this are laughing at me now for being naive. I deserve that. After the service, several people approached board members with questions and with concern. Why change the old Statement of Faith, which has served the EFCA so well for over fifty years? That's a fair question, and I intend to address it through a variety of means: a letter sent to everyone in the congregation two weeks ago, an evening meeting next week, a Sunday school class this fall using the new Statement to help us all know our doctrine better and understand what it means to be the Free Church.
And this blog. I'd like to spend several posts explaining why I think this revision is not just a good thing, but a great thing that all Free Church folk should be excited about. In this post, I want to direct our attention to an article in Christianity Today that gives an excellent overview of the revision and the reasons for it. The key idea is this: By revising now, we saved ourselves much trouble later. The EFCA leadership showed farsighted vision and concern for the church for which they should be commended.
I look forward to diving in with the next post!
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Church's Greatest Issue
My wife subscribes to the True Woman blog, and I came across this comment from Mary Kassian, professor of Women's Studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Her comment is in reference to this question: What do you think is the greatest issue facing the church today in relation to the role of women?
"The greatest issue is that we tend to absorb our beliefs by 'osmosis' rather than by thoughtful, intentional study of Scripture."
What a thoughtful response! And how true not only in relation to the role of women, but in relation to all things regarding Christian living and belief. I recently led a group of men through a study of J.I. Packer's book Knowing God, and this was a recurring point of discussion. How much of what we believe about God, about salvation, about loving and living for Him, comes from thoughtful, intentional study and reflection upon Scripture itself? And how much comes from "osmosis" as we unconsciously and unreflectively absorb what we hear and read around us? Packer argues that knowing God in Christ is our greatest need, both corporately as the church and individually. How strange then that we would be passive in what we believe about Him and about the world He created!
How do you know what you think you know? It is a question well worth pondering.
"The greatest issue is that we tend to absorb our beliefs by 'osmosis' rather than by thoughtful, intentional study of Scripture."
What a thoughtful response! And how true not only in relation to the role of women, but in relation to all things regarding Christian living and belief. I recently led a group of men through a study of J.I. Packer's book Knowing God, and this was a recurring point of discussion. How much of what we believe about God, about salvation, about loving and living for Him, comes from thoughtful, intentional study and reflection upon Scripture itself? And how much comes from "osmosis" as we unconsciously and unreflectively absorb what we hear and read around us? Packer argues that knowing God in Christ is our greatest need, both corporately as the church and individually. How strange then that we would be passive in what we believe about Him and about the world He created!
How do you know what you think you know? It is a question well worth pondering.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wrap-Up on the Puritans
I started this blog several weeks ago by writing about six gifts that the Puritans have left us. Over these past few weeks, I have written about each of these gifts in the hope that a few readers might be encouraged to pick up a Puritan book or two and discover for themselves the riches therein. My own appetite for the Puritans has been whetted as well.
It seems only fitting to end a series on the Puritans by sharing this link with you. When I came across it, my reading docket was already long... but who's to say a calendar proposed for 2008 couldn't be used in 2009? Or half-way through 2008? So I hope this proves helpful.
Let me especially commend to you The Valley of Vision, a book of Puritan prayers. My own soul has been greatly nourished by reading and praying these prayers, so saturated in biblical truth that they often seem to express better than I the things I ought to be praying. Sovereign Grace Ministries also has a CD of worship music inspired by the book -- though no substitute for the book, it does make a good companion.
If you were looking for a starting place in approaching the Puritans, I would recommend starting where that reading calendar starts: Richard Sibbes' The Bruised Reed. It is short and approachable (something not always true of Puritan works), and I have found in it much of Christ's balm for a wounded conscience.
HT: TC
It seems only fitting to end a series on the Puritans by sharing this link with you. When I came across it, my reading docket was already long... but who's to say a calendar proposed for 2008 couldn't be used in 2009? Or half-way through 2008? So I hope this proves helpful.
Let me especially commend to you The Valley of Vision, a book of Puritan prayers. My own soul has been greatly nourished by reading and praying these prayers, so saturated in biblical truth that they often seem to express better than I the things I ought to be praying. Sovereign Grace Ministries also has a CD of worship music inspired by the book -- though no substitute for the book, it does make a good companion.
If you were looking for a starting place in approaching the Puritans, I would recommend starting where that reading calendar starts: Richard Sibbes' The Bruised Reed. It is short and approachable (something not always true of Puritan works), and I have found in it much of Christ's balm for a wounded conscience.
HT: TC
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Real Needs of the Soul
In my denomination, the EFCA, there is a question that shapes our ethos, that was foundational to the birth of the Free Church. "How goes your walk?" was a question that the Free Church founders asked one another regularly. It was a question that led to the formation of churches free from state control in Scandinavia, churches in which personal piety and holiness were emphasized. It is a question that continues to shape the ethos of the EFCA today. It is a question that points to the real needs of the soul. The writer of Hebrews tells us that without holiness, no one will see the Lord. The apostle Paul tells us that God chose us and saved us for holiness. The apostle Peter argues that salvation, holiness, and joy are inextricably tied together in God's plan for His people.
Some of us need to have our sinfulness proclaimed to us -- we need to be taken by the lapels and shaken so that we wake up. We find that type of proclamation in the Puritans. Some of us need patient, systematic instruction on pursuing holiness. This also we find in the Puritans. But some of us are all too aware of our sins. The words of Isaiah 64:6 ring in our ears, reminding us that our best deeds are no better than polluted garments before the holiness of God. Jeremiah 17:9 is an indictment that pierces the soul: I know that my heart is deceitful and sick. And the danger for those who are sensitive of conscience is that they will despair and give up. Yet even this concern we find addressed in the Puritans, particularly in Richard Sibbes' marvelous little book The Bruised Reed.
Yet even holiness points us towards something greater. The point of holiness, according to Hebrews 12:14, is to see the Lord. We see in I Peter 1:8 that the ground of our joy is that even though we have not seen Jesus, we love Him and believe in Him. Paul opens up so we can see his heart beating inside, and as we read what he writes in Philippians 3:8-11, if our hearts are not similarly quickened, then perhaps we have not the life of God in us:
I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Knowing God in Jesus Christ. A consuming passion for knowing Jesus. This brings us back full circle to where we started.
The Puritans understood what human beings really need: holiness and joy that come from knowing God in Christ. That is what you and I really need. And the Puritans can be our guides if that is what we would seek to address.
Some of us need to have our sinfulness proclaimed to us -- we need to be taken by the lapels and shaken so that we wake up. We find that type of proclamation in the Puritans. Some of us need patient, systematic instruction on pursuing holiness. This also we find in the Puritans. But some of us are all too aware of our sins. The words of Isaiah 64:6 ring in our ears, reminding us that our best deeds are no better than polluted garments before the holiness of God. Jeremiah 17:9 is an indictment that pierces the soul: I know that my heart is deceitful and sick. And the danger for those who are sensitive of conscience is that they will despair and give up. Yet even this concern we find addressed in the Puritans, particularly in Richard Sibbes' marvelous little book The Bruised Reed.
Yet even holiness points us towards something greater. The point of holiness, according to Hebrews 12:14, is to see the Lord. We see in I Peter 1:8 that the ground of our joy is that even though we have not seen Jesus, we love Him and believe in Him. Paul opens up so we can see his heart beating inside, and as we read what he writes in Philippians 3:8-11, if our hearts are not similarly quickened, then perhaps we have not the life of God in us:
I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Knowing God in Jesus Christ. A consuming passion for knowing Jesus. This brings us back full circle to where we started.
The Puritans understood what human beings really need: holiness and joy that come from knowing God in Christ. That is what you and I really need. And the Puritans can be our guides if that is what we would seek to address.
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Power of Words
I thought about lumping this post in with the previous post on the Puritans. I decided not to, but I would like to do something different with it. Rather than exploring the contributions of individual Puritans, I want to take the obvious appreciation the Puritans had for the power of words and reflect on it.
And it should be obvious that the Puritans believed words were powerful. They have left us the treasures of their writings in which the explored the things of God. I suppose you could even argue that the Puritans must have believed in the power of words, given the number of words and the complexity of the sentences with which they often wrote. :-)
Today the adequacy of words to convey truth has come under fire, even within the church. If words are inadequate to express truth, let alone truth about God, then being dogmatic about theological matters makes no sense. That includes not only important theological differences about which we may disagree and still be Christians, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, but also more central doctrines such as the nature of the Atonement. One community's website goes so far as to say that they "firmly hold that living in reconciled friendship trumps traditional orthodoxies." What is important is relationship, and what defines community is dialogue. Arguments about truth only divide us.
But is language really so inadequate? I would hardly argue that any one of us have the market cornered on truth. And I can hardly give a full-blown theology of language. But it seems to me that if God spoke first, then words must be capable of more than some today might think. If Genesis 1:3 and Psalm 33:9 are true, then "before" there was anything created at all, God spoke. And His Words bring that which is not into existence. If John 1:1 is true, then a logos, a message, a wisdom, a Word existed eternally with God and was in fact God Himself.
Words have power to communicate truth. And that is part of what I love about the Puritans. Richard Sibbes believed that God could take what Sibbes wrote and use it to comfort the wounded conscience. John Owen believed that God could take what Owen wrote and use it to help believers mortify sin. Jeremiah Burroughs believed that God could take what Burroughs wrote and use it to create contentment.
And so He does. The Puritans knew the power of words that were founded upon the Word. We'd do well to learn the same.
And it should be obvious that the Puritans believed words were powerful. They have left us the treasures of their writings in which the explored the things of God. I suppose you could even argue that the Puritans must have believed in the power of words, given the number of words and the complexity of the sentences with which they often wrote. :-)
Today the adequacy of words to convey truth has come under fire, even within the church. If words are inadequate to express truth, let alone truth about God, then being dogmatic about theological matters makes no sense. That includes not only important theological differences about which we may disagree and still be Christians, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, but also more central doctrines such as the nature of the Atonement. One community's website goes so far as to say that they "firmly hold that living in reconciled friendship trumps traditional orthodoxies." What is important is relationship, and what defines community is dialogue. Arguments about truth only divide us.
But is language really so inadequate? I would hardly argue that any one of us have the market cornered on truth. And I can hardly give a full-blown theology of language. But it seems to me that if God spoke first, then words must be capable of more than some today might think. If Genesis 1:3 and Psalm 33:9 are true, then "before" there was anything created at all, God spoke. And His Words bring that which is not into existence. If John 1:1 is true, then a logos, a message, a wisdom, a Word existed eternally with God and was in fact God Himself.
Words have power to communicate truth. And that is part of what I love about the Puritans. Richard Sibbes believed that God could take what Sibbes wrote and use it to comfort the wounded conscience. John Owen believed that God could take what Owen wrote and use it to help believers mortify sin. Jeremiah Burroughs believed that God could take what Burroughs wrote and use it to create contentment.
And so He does. The Puritans knew the power of words that were founded upon the Word. We'd do well to learn the same.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Happy Birthday Dear John
John Piper reminds us that today is John Calvin's 499th birthday, and he helps us understand why we should be grateful for his ministry.
And I want to add my own thank you to both of these men, for pointing me time and again to the unshakable Word of God and the inexhaustible glory of God in Jesus Christ.
HT: JT
And I want to add my own thank you to both of these men, for pointing me time and again to the unshakable Word of God and the inexhaustible glory of God in Jesus Christ.
HT: JT
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
A Love for Preaching
After some time away to attend the EFCA Leadership Conference and visit family, I have the opportunity to write about one of the chief reasons I love the Puritans: their preaching.
During a class in seminary on preaching narrative, the professor challenged us to try something. (I would be remiss if I did not at this point thank Dr. Mike Bullmore for his instruction and feedback during my time at TEDS.) He observed that narratives tend to have a unifying idea or ideas woven throughout the text. So he challenged us in our preaching for that class to retell the story, highlighting the key elements that help us to see the point the author wants to make. Then after telling the story, draw out that main unifying idea. If you've told the story properly, the congregation should say "of course" when you state the main idea. Then offer points of application based on that main idea and conclude.
I tried. I failed -- it is still the worst experience with preaching I have ever had. But what he said made sense to me. I just needed more exposure to how such preaching looks.
Enter the sermons of Robert Murray M'Cheyne, an early 19th century pastor and preacher that were recommended to me by my pastor at the time. I discovered that the structure of text-doctrine-use was the basic structure his sermons. And then I discovered that he had learned at the feet of the Puritans. So I went further back in time and discovered the preaching of men such as Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Watson. And then I worked my way forward and discovered more disciples of the Puritans in C.H. Spurgeon and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I discovered preaching that was both deeply theological and intensely practical to the soul that seeks to know itself and the Lord more clearly. I discovered preaching that was both logical and passionate.
The Puritans did not think much of dividing the head and the heart. Their preaching laid out the Scripture and reasoned through its implications, and also cut to the quick and pierced the heart. Here I have found the richest of treasure and had my soul ministered to. The church would be much richer if we rediscovered the preaching of the Puritans.
During a class in seminary on preaching narrative, the professor challenged us to try something. (I would be remiss if I did not at this point thank Dr. Mike Bullmore for his instruction and feedback during my time at TEDS.) He observed that narratives tend to have a unifying idea or ideas woven throughout the text. So he challenged us in our preaching for that class to retell the story, highlighting the key elements that help us to see the point the author wants to make. Then after telling the story, draw out that main unifying idea. If you've told the story properly, the congregation should say "of course" when you state the main idea. Then offer points of application based on that main idea and conclude.
I tried. I failed -- it is still the worst experience with preaching I have ever had. But what he said made sense to me. I just needed more exposure to how such preaching looks.
Enter the sermons of Robert Murray M'Cheyne, an early 19th century pastor and preacher that were recommended to me by my pastor at the time. I discovered that the structure of text-doctrine-use was the basic structure his sermons. And then I discovered that he had learned at the feet of the Puritans. So I went further back in time and discovered the preaching of men such as Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Watson. And then I worked my way forward and discovered more disciples of the Puritans in C.H. Spurgeon and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I discovered preaching that was both deeply theological and intensely practical to the soul that seeks to know itself and the Lord more clearly. I discovered preaching that was both logical and passionate.
The Puritans did not think much of dividing the head and the heart. Their preaching laid out the Scripture and reasoned through its implications, and also cut to the quick and pierced the heart. Here I have found the richest of treasure and had my soul ministered to. The church would be much richer if we rediscovered the preaching of the Puritans.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Pardon the Delay...
...between posts here. I haven't been in town to post properly. Last week my wife and I attended the EFCA Leadership Conference, the past few days have been spent with her family in central Illinois, and the next couple of days will be spent in Chicago at a meet-up for BabyWhisperer.com, a not-for-profit parenting website for which my wife volunteers.
The Leadership Conference (and the passage of a revised doctrinal statement for the Free Church) has given me much to blog about. I'll be home this Saturday, will preach on Sunday, and get resettled over the next couple of days. I'll have plenty to write about (including finishing the series on the Puritans).
The Leadership Conference (and the passage of a revised doctrinal statement for the Free Church) has given me much to blog about. I'll be home this Saturday, will preach on Sunday, and get resettled over the next couple of days. I'll have plenty to write about (including finishing the series on the Puritans).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
