Category: Church Page 1 of 3

Political puppet master clipart, vintage

Politics and Power

On December 27, 2023

The first article in the French Reformed Church Order is “Ministers ought not to Lord it over one another.” It is a warning against fleshly politics in the church of Jesus Christ.

We should discuss what the nature of politics is. People use the word politics without thinking of what it really means. Some define politics coercively as attempts to control and lord it over one another. This is what I understand the common phrase to mean “oh that’s just politics.” It is a reference to some person or group bidding for control over another person or group. Of course, we must also recognize that the There should be none of that sort of politic in the Christian view. Politics can also be defined as communal decision-making. This is the more common today, but the definition can ignore the reality of power dynamics that come within politics. People are given “rule” and that is power.

I like the definition that William Killbourn gives in his book, “The Firebrand” on William Lon Mackenzie. He defines politics as the “pursuit and direction of power to desirable ends.” This allows for all the various definitions that people give to the word politics. It reflects the reality of how people use power. Those desirable ends could be noble, the product of an ideology, or personal lusts.

For the Christian, politics are “the pursuit the direction of power to desirable ends through equally desirable means.” The pursuit of the power ought to be pursued through legitimate means. Once received, that power ought to be directed toward good ends through desirable means.

There is no grasping of power for the Christian, for he is called by God to never Lord it over another. That is the nature of the Gentiles or unbelievers according to our Lord Christ. The unbeliever is marked by anxiety, and his anxiety is subverted into a desire to dominate others. For the Christian, however, power is given, never taken. The Christian leader, whether ecclesiastical or civil, whether familial or whether he has power only over his own person, is called to use the power given to him for the good of the kingdom of God.

This does not mean that a Christian may not desire power. Paul says, “It is a good thing to desire to be an elder.” Elders have power in the church of God, the power of excommunication, the power of the Shepherd, as an ambassador for the Shepherd. If he may desire eldership, he may desire civil office as well, and may seek that by legitimate means.

The Christian must seek power legitimately, and he also must use power legitimately. Power itself is not evil, but it can be corrupting. We could compare it to Paul’s talk about money in 2 Timothy. “The love of money is the source of all sorts of evil.” The same can be said of power.

There is a deep desire to dominate one another that goes back to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve grasped for the power “to be like God” to be like God.” From then on man wants to be God not only before God, but before his fellow man. Jesus warns his disciples, “Do not Lord it over one another as the Gentiles do.”

That is why the Scriptures encourage us in humility. It is not without reason that God chose Moses as leader for the people of Israel, “Now Moses was a humble man, more humble than anyone on the face of the earth.” Humility is a pre-requisite to fulfilling one’s office before God well.

That doesn’t mean there is no willingness to exercise power. It is humility that teaches us how to use power rightly. We humble ourselves, first, before God and bind ourselves to his word, and that can make truly humble men appear to fleshly men as full of pride. Paul is very certain in his office and in the authority he has been given. He is more than willing to use it against those who plague the church of God. One of the constant struggles in the New Testament church is against those “who would spy out your freedom” and enslave you to some type of law again. Christians are free. Supposedly, good ends are not an excuse for evil deeds to reach those ends. Paul and the other apostles fight fiercely against those who seek to destroy the freedom of the Christian.

Yet Paul, Jesus, and many other Saints of the Old and New Testaments know that this power is given and they continually humble themselves before God and his Word as the source, the content, and the boundaries of the power they exercise.

The Spirit and the Magisterium

By James

On November 9, 2023

In Church, History, Traditionalistic exegesis

These are my half-formed thoughts as I seek to understand the Spirit’s authority in the church.

When Paul’s ministry and authority is questioned, he does not rely on the voice of the church or the Magisterium. Instead he appeals to the Spirit, ” The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

Paul does appeal to tradition and to the voice of the church and to his apostolic authority, but passage above demonstrates that one of his main appeals is to a shared Spirit that testifies to his message. This is a spirit he shares with Apollos so that both are counted as servants of Christ and are not to be pitted against one another.

Similarly in 1st Thessalonians, Paul attributes the willingness of the Thessalonians to hear him to a shared Spirit. “Because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” Later he adds, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of god, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

As protestants we do hold to a Magisterium, a tradition that speaks authoritatively into our lives. Many protestants deny this and act as if tradition has no authority, but this comes from fools who have no thought. If we believe in One God and one Spirit, who speaks the truth, then when this Spirit speaks through men who also have the Spirit, we also ought to listen, especially, when many who also share the Spirit respect and love these men and repeat their words through the Spirit themselves. Perhaps it is has more fuzzy lines than the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Magisterium, though it has a clear center, that being the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. I am not convinced that it has more fuzzy lines, however, because of the number of interpretations and just the amount of doctrine that counts as tradition in those two churches.

Yet alongside this we hold to the work of the Spirit. Christ has promised to be with us by his Spirit. Christ has promised that Christ will guide us in all truth. A Magisterium without the Spirit and Word as a norming norm will eventually quench the Spirit’s work of unity. Any church that simply appeals to the authority of the church without also appealing to a shared Spirit that illuminates that word in each one of us and is the ultimate judge of each heart is obscuring that important work and is itself undermining the Magisterium of the church. They too become fools without thought.

Further, if we fail to receive those who share in the Spirit, becoming judges that go beyond what is clear in the word of God, we also undermine the work of the Spirit.

“And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”

two people reading bible while sitting on a sofa

CREC and the Reformed Baptist

By James

On November 4, 2023

In Church, Covenant

The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches holds the unique distinctive of allowing for paedobaptist and credobaptist churches within the denomination. A church may hold to the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminister Standards, among other reformed standards, or it may hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith. This means that the elders of that particular church may refrain from any requests to baptize a baby, whereas their fellow elders or ministers in another church would happily baptize that same baby.

The Logic of our Communion

How on earth does that work? Can it work? Some have told me that it can’t work, but there is a certain logic to how we, as members of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, work together in this way. The reasoning is in understanding what reformed Catholicity should be like and then applying that understanding to a mutual agreement to receive each other in the Lord. Throughout, we seek to respect the conscience as much as possible.

Whether it practically works in our world is a different matter. It remains to be seen whether a credobaptist church can have a long and multi-generational partnership with the CREC, for our communion remains overwhelmingly paedobaptist and paedocommunion. Yet, we are attractive to many from the Baptist world because of our faithfulness in the culture wars. Perhaps we are also attractive because we have many shared cultural values with the Baptist world, for many of our best ministers and leaders are from that world.

However, there is a certain sense to it. We desire to be as small-c catholic as possible, recognizing all our brothers and sisters in Christ who share the same Lord. We are willing to do what we can to accommodate those, even in leadership, who might differ from us. Within our communion, we allow a breadth of doctrine within the bounds of the various historic reformed confessions we recognize. A given church must hold to one of several reformed confessions to become a member of our communion, and its leadership must hold to that confession (generally membership in local churches has a much lower bar, for we wish to recognize all those who confess Christ). Technically, this is quite broad, even if it doesn’t always appear so. For example, our communion is associated with postmillennialism. Still, there is no formal expression of a millenarian position in the CREC.

Fundamentally, we seek to practice reformed catholicity. We believe that our reformed catholicity ought to extend to our Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters. Therefore, among the reformed confessions that a church may hold, we also have the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The culture of our communion allows anything from a Reformed Baptist on the one end to a Lutheran-inflected reformed thinking on the other end.

This broadness doesn’t take away from our calling to a depth in our knowledge and love of scripture. Only through deep study of scripture can we move toward sharing in the mind of Christ. That is why we expect our ministers to at least adhere to the fundamental reformed doctrines in our various historical confessions. This adherence gives us boundaries as we dig into the scriptures and seek to grow more and more united in the mind of Christ.

Reformed Catholicity

What do I mean by reformed catholicity? It is two things: guarding the deposit of sound words that the church has always held to and recognizing all who serve Christ as Lord.

I first mean a desire to uphold the central teachings, always taught by the church of Christ as Messiah and Son of God and his historical resurrection for the redemption of our sins. The doctrine of the Trinity defends the first, and the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures protects the second. All church doctrine defends either the reality of these truths or refutes false doctrines that obscure or distract from the effect of these realities for the average Christian. We all (in any denomination, federation, or communion) practice a form of theological triage in prioritizing certain doctrines as first, second, and third importance.

Reformed Catholicity is also about recognizing all those who serve Christ as Lord. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” I must offer the ministry of reconciliation to all men. That means I must receive into the church all those whom God defines as church. God defines the (social) boundaries church through his gift of baptism. Therefore, I will receive as brothers all who have been baptized into the name of the Trinity so far as they do not deny him in confession or life. I must recognize the church as God constitutes it, not as I would constitute it.

Reformed Catholicity in the local church.

How does this apply in a local CREC? I can only speak to the Presbyterian-minded CRECs. While it is not a rule in the CREC, the vast majority of churches allow families to join that do not hold to infant baptism. They are not required to baptize their children. Within Presbyterian-minded churches we allow for this because we understand the cultural significance of changing from one mindset to another. It is not a matter of showing someone a verse. We desire to respect the conscience of these families. Interestingly, it can create interesting scenarios in which some of the children in the church take communion, and some do not, but this is how we bear with one another.

In my understanding, it is within the authority of the minister and the elders to call a member to account who fails to recognize the status of their children and present them for baptism, but I believe it is better not to use this authority in this case lest we break something. If you exercise this authority, it is unlikely that the family will remain in which case the status of their children will not be recognized anyway, or you may push them into making a decision they regret, and they will resent you for it, causing division in the church. It is not always right to exercise a given power. So, we seek to follow the example of the gentleness and humility of Christ. In a different scenario, we could use this authority if a Baptist-minded member were to keep his grown son from baptism when that son desires to be baptized and also presents the evidences of a faithful Christian life. This, of course, is an extreme scenario. It also represents a scenario in which the Baptist goes against his own beliefs. However, in most cases, Baptist-minded members who participate in our churches tend to present their children for baptism at a younger age.

Baptist churches within the CREC are expected to have a similar approach albeit from a Baptist perspective.

Reformed Catholicity Across our Communion

So how does that work out in the relationship with the Presbyterian-minded and the Reformed Baptist-minded in the CREC? Presbyterians would argue that the Baptist denies that reformed catholicity, while the Baptist would see the Presbyterian as improperly washed. They both have to give something. For this it’s helpful to go through the fundamental commitments that Council 2023 adopted for the preamble to the CREC constitution.

It means that we receive each other’s ordination. God has given the church the keys of the kingdom. The pastor is entrusted with these keys for the sake of the church. These keys open up the kingdom of heaven and close it through the preaching of the word and through discipline. The ordained pastor recognizes and receives the one who belongs to the kingdom of heaven and refuses the one who does not belong to the kingdom of heaven, as evidenced by that person’s life. At its most basic, a communion, if it to be meaningful, however much they might disagree on various issues, must receive and recognize that their colleagues legitimately exercise the keys of the kingdom of heaven. They do their basic job well.

That means within the CREC, we must receive one another’s baptismal status. The Presbyterian must receive that the son in a Baptist family is not baptized and bear with the fact that he receives this family even though they hold back their children from this gift of God. He can rest knowing that he is not the one who refuses them. The Baptist must receive the Presbyterian son as baptized, even though he is not appropriately baptized. Joe Rigney, in his studies on the London Baptist Confession of Faith has discovered that there has always been a group of Baptists that received infant baptism as “valid but improper.” It is not merely a new teaching among Baptists today. So, there has historically been room within the Baptist understanding to receive an infant baptism.

Accepting the ordination of the ministers in the CREC means that we also receive the communicant status that the elders of a given church confer. If one minister opens the door, the other church cannot close the door unless the man or woman is living in rebellion against God and his church. Again, this is derived from recognizing the ordination of the other ministers and elders in the church of Christ.

While there are difficulties in working this all out in a practical way, I believe this is a good step forward in recognizing that the boundaries of the church and the church’s ministry are God’s to decide, not ours. I don’t know if this system can work. I can still spot tensions within it. However, we are trying to be objective about the church’s current situation while remaining principled in our approach to our ancient and catholic faith.

close up photography of concrete tombstones

How to be Lords of the Universe, Part II

By James

On November 4, 2023

In Church, Witness

Here I seek to apply the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 to the church today. Do we live as if “all things are ours?”

I must recognize James Wood’s work on Hoedemaker here, as well. He pointed out the importance place of several of the slogans that I use from Hoedemaker and further contrast them with Kuyper. You can find his article here.

Here is the video:

How to be Lord’s of the Universe, Part 1

By James

On October 21, 2023

In Church

I will be posting my speeches from the Canadian Theopolitan’s conference on my blog. To look at the other speeches (They are not their yet, but will be soon) go to canadiantheopolitans.ca.

Here is my first speech:

Why submit to the civil magistrate?

By James

On August 13, 2022

In Church, Freedom, The Basics

A fourth installment of my series on Romans 13.

Why is it good to submit to the civil magistrate? Our text gives several reasons: because he is established by God, because he provides a particular service to society, because he is there for my good, and because if we do good, we will receive his approval. These are four distinct reasons we can find in Romans 13. Paul wants to establish that the civil magistrate is a good thing, just as the church is a good thing, and marriage is a good thing. If the civil magistrate is a gift of God, it is good for the Christian to recognize the civil magistrate’s proper function in society. We cannot simply reject the place of the civil magistrate for his failures, as our situation tempts many Christians to do.

We’ll look at the meat of Paul’s teaching on the civil magistrate by digging into three questions: “Why is Paul defending the civil magistrate?”, Why submit to the civil magistrate?”, and “What about a civil magistrate that does not approve of what is good?”

Why is Paul defending the civil magistrate?

The history of the exegesis of Romans 13 is a history of over-exegesis and under-exegesis. On the one hand, we magnify the civil magistrate to such an extent that we turn Christians into people without a voice or other ways to resist oppression. Here we argue from the word “submit” and apparently, “submit” means counting every government law as worthy of total submission. Unless it explicitly contradicts Christian teaching. Because, after all, God established him, so to obey his every whim is to obey God.

Suddenly, the Christian becomes the slave of the civil magistrate. And even though the New Testament recognizes that some might have the status of the slave, it does not teach that the Christian ought to arbitrarily let himself be enslaved. This view fails to see why God wants us to submit to the civil magistrate or what the civil magistrate is for. It fails to allow for God’s providence in giving individuals specific responsibilities derived from God and not from the civil magistrate. Finally, it fails to understand that the total submission they demand toward the civil magistrate only belongs to God.

Or we under-exegete the passage and end up ignoring or rebelling against the civil magistrate. We use every little mistake or weakness we see in the civil magistrate as something to cry out against. We forget that he is a gift and primarily view him as an enemy. Or we use his mistakes as an excuse to sin, not only against human law but against divine law. We allow envy and pride to dwell in our hearts, and we begin to curse man, whom God made in his image. That leads to further sinful actions such as lying, stealing, and murder until we are worse than the civil magistrate.

The fact is, we need the rest of the teaching of scripture to fill out our relation to a particular civil magistrate. God gives many and varied examples in the Old Testament of how Israel related to her leaders, and we need the wisdom to apply it. We must also keep in mind the ultimate goal, the kingdom of God. And the means for pursuing that kingdom, which is doing good according to our calling.

Paul is not arguing for a particular type of government. Paul teaches that God ordains the civil magistrate as a gift to man. He argues against Christians who minimize and reject the civil magistrate. He wants the Christian to look to the civil magistrate as protection against evil and support the civil magistrate by doing good.

It is important to see here that Paul is relying on general truths. He is not exploring every avenue of the question of government. He is not investigating every situation a Christian might encounter concerning his civil government. Instead, he demonstrates the importance of working within the status quo that God gives, transforming from within rather than seeking to inaugurate an earthly kingdom of God in opposition to the powers that be. These general promises are why the promise is here: the authorities will reward those who do good. He also demonstrates that God gave the civil magistrate for the good of society. Like other leadership positions such as the Pastor or the husband, Paul views the civil magistrate as a gift from God that fulfills a particular purpose.

Why submit to the civil magistrate?

It’s easy to look at the negatives of what the civil government has done, even to focus on it in an unhealthy way. We love to dwell on the injustices we experience. However, it is crucial in approaching the role of the government to begin with Paul’s perspective: that God intends the government, whatever its failings, for something good. Further, if we believe in the resurrection, the civil magistrate is not irredeemable. Rather, we have a job to do in relation to the civil magistrate to demonstrate the way of redemption through good deeds.

Paul has very positive things to say about the civil government. God gives them the authority to bear the sword as an avenger. They are there to reward good and punish evil. They are keepers of virtue. God has appointed them in this role, even if they might not recognize the appointment of God. That appointment is made through his providences.

God appoints them for his service. They are not just another service like a shoe salesman. The shoe salesmen may serve God, but he is not God’s minister in the sense that the civil magistrate is, or for that matter, the church officer. He does not speak for God. The civil officer and the ecclesiastical officer directly represent, respectively, justice and the mercy of God.

In the providence of God, God provides for all sorts of leaders in society. The civil magistrate is vital in bringing peace and order so that the wicked do not take over and attack and destroy the righteous. For the Christian, the civil magistrate is to be loved and honored because he is from God and ideally should reflect God. He is honored so that he might be encouraged to see who is truly an enemy of the land: not the Christian, but the one who seeks to destroy the good order of God.

They are ultimately a gift. Dealing vengeance according to one’s personal law or a sort of “might makes right” is not healthy for society. God gives the civil magistrate to adjudicate evil and good, not according to any law, but according to his law. Even an unbelieving civil magistrate can (the word can is important; many do not and many Christian civil magistrates do not) understand what sort of person provides stability for society and what creates instability and disorder. In that light, Christians have an important role in demonstrating that subjection to God’s Law is what is best for society.

Ideally, in such a situation, the Christian will also receive commendation from the civil magistrate for doing good. If the magistrate cares about justice and order for all, he will see the valuable life and the excellent example of the Christian even when they must not obey the demands of the magistrate.

What about a civil magistrate that does not approve of what is good?

The fact that our civil magistrate has lost this ability to distinguish between good and evil makes our society so unstable. Citizens who lawfully protest (I speak generally for there are exceptions)) unjust Covid regulations are jailed and mocked, while Black Lives Matter, an organization dedicated to overthrowing good order, is praised. What do Christians do in this sort of situation?

One line in Romans 13particularly helps us. Romans 13:4 says, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do good and you will receive his approval.” That good is ultimately not defined by the government; the word of God defines it. If we took this statement in some absolute sense, we would almost have to conclude that Paul is lying or is incredibly naïve. However, Paul is neither. Paul is speaking in more proverbial terms.

Doing good will bring reward from the civil magistrate, but not necessarily immediately. If Christians are in a situation where they suffer for doing good, they ought to persist in doing it. Ultimately God sees that, and God sees the civil magistrate. And we trust that eventually, God will work the heart of the civil magistrate in our direction as long as we persevere with faithfulness. Sometimes that takes generations, as it did with the Roman Empire. But suppose we have Christians willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake, who are firm in their duties and firm in standing strong for the gospel and the kingdom of God? In that case, we will produce good order among ourselves and beyond us. Finally, we trust that we will earn the commendation of the civil magistrate.

In his own life, Paul didn’t always have an easy time with the civil magistrate. He was jailed, he was beaten, and he was mocked. However, he had moments where he did receive the approval of the civil magistrate. The Philippian jailer, for example, was moved to come to Christ through Paul’s example. King Agrippa and Festus were both profoundly impressed with Paul.

On a smaller scale, we have an example from the Covid pandemic: Pastor Stephens, who was jailed for his willingness to worship during Covid, had the opportunity to preach the gospel to the Calgary Police Force at a funeral for one of their members who attended his church.

So, we are to give the magistrate due obedience because they are a gift from God, appointed by God for the good of the peace and order of society, and in general, if we continue to do good, even when we suffer for doing good, there is a promise here of the magistrate’s eventual approval for persevering in obedience to God. The suggestion here is that we want not just a passive submission to the civil magistrate but an active submission that seeks the good of the country and the community. Ultimately in the hopes that the civil magistrate might see the goodness of Christ in us. May his name be glorified.

Live Peaceably with All?

By James

On July 5, 2022

In Church, Freedom, Hermeneutics, History, Holiness, The Basics, Witness

Another contextual clue to Paul’s teaching in Romans 13 is the words that come almost immediately before Romans 13, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” The call to submit to the Roman civil magistrate is part of the call to “live peaceably with all.” Our living peaceably with all depends on our ability to obey God; to live according to our calling before him. We are to honor God before men.

What does it mean, “if possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all?” There are a lot of ways to apply those words to today. Does that mean we are to do everything for the sake of peace?

A good understanding of these words begins with an understanding of the church’s mission. The mission of the church, the mission of Christ, informs what it means to live peaceably with all. Our goal is nothing less than the reconciliation of all things to Christ. The church’s work in fulfilling that mission can bring times we are offensive to the world around us. In fact, says the scriptures, “to those who are perishing we are the smell of death.” Jesus says, “the world will hate you as they hated me.” This is a reality, but within that Paul wants us to work our best to live peaceably with all, including the civil magistrate, as much as possible.

But when the magistrate interferes with the mission of the church whether in her worship or in her call to love one another, the church is called to stand up to the civil magistrate. But even so, she does not do this in a way that is malicious, angry, or threatening. She does this in a way that continues to keep the peace, recognizes the importance of law and order, and seeks the city’s good.

The good of the city is our ultimate goal. It is a good that is defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This good has two aspects. First, the righteousness and order of Jesus Christ: those in Christ and out of Christ have two different value systems. We want to bring the value system of Christ to the world as a whole.

The second aspect of this good is how it defines our resistance of evil in this world. Or we might say how we seek to bring Christ’s value system into our world’s value system. It is a spiritual war, not a physical one, which we fight. We do not seek to destroy our enemies. No, we love our enemies and aim to transform them by putting away our desire for vengeance and ultimately seeking their good. We seek peace with our enemies by continuing to do what is good, thus heaping burning coals on his head. This action is all according to the law of love and in line with Christ’s act of obedience to our Father in heaven.

Our ability to live peaceably with all depends on our ability to live according to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Living according to the righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only about the things we don’t do, but also about the things we do. An example of the first might be where the government commands us to give a pinch of incense to Caesar or commands us to kill somebody who is innocent. An example of the second might be things that interfere with our worship or our call to love one another, basically anything that interferes with our three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king in Jesus Christ.

We must recognize that we have a duty toward the government as those who bear the sword for vengeance. According to this calling, they are to defend the righteous and condemn the wicked. We are called to give due honor, due obedience, and due monetary support, with regard to that calling. That is part of the righteousness and order of Christ. Some could argue that those things interfere with our ability to fulfill our duty as Christians, but they are also part of our duty as we seek the good of those in authority over us. Ideally, they also secure the peace and order of the community of God.

But when the civil magistrate begins to use its monopoly on force to deny or undermine our duties, then we ought to start to think through where we might owe obedience to God before we owe obedience to the government. I say start because there is an important place for patience and for conversation before action.

Here I want to discuss a bit the use of prudence in these things in making that decision about how best to respond to various types of tyranny. The very command “as much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” assumes a call to prudence. Our goal is the peace of God, but at the same time, faithfulness can disturb the peace. Ahab calls Elijah “A troubler of Israel.” Zechariah 1 describes a type of peace that is not due to faithfulness but due to unfaithfulness. The Apostle Paul is accused of “turning the world upside down.” He too is a disturber of the peace.

So is it time to be an Elijah or a Paul, or is it time to be quiet and patient? How do we accomplish the goals of the kingdom in our station of life? Paul is not a revolutionary, he desires to transform from within. Just as the Spirit comes into a person and crucifies the flesh and brings to life the new man, so those moved by the Spirit transform from within society with deeds of love and mercy. We look to the Spirit to apply the wisdom of scripture in our current situation.

Part of this prudence is in recognizing your situation. If the evil done to you comes from those who are positioned over you, the response is different than to one who is your equal or under you. You owe greater honor and patience to the civil magistrate than to your average citizen because of the nature of their role in society. You will also have a different response as a pastor, plumber, farmer, policeman, or nurse. Each of those comes with varying factors of risk. It also matters whether you have dependents or not. Paul sees the importance of the work of providence in giving us each a different vocation in our lives. That is why he tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 to “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him.”

Another part of that prudence is discerning what you are willing to risk or what hill you are willing to die on. The natural way of the Gentiles is to lord it over one another and we should expect that they will try to lord it over the church as well. The natural way of our hearts is to lord it over one another. Therefore, the first attitude toward the rise of tyranny is one of patience.

In terms of Covid, which is the apparent reason for writing these articles, I would argue that most Christians responded with patience. Still, beyond initial patience, Christians had different metrics for deciding when civil disobedience was necessary and different understandings of the severity of the pandemic, understandable because of the lack of open conversation about these things in the public square.

Yet even when we decide that it is necessary to ignore government mandates, we must still seek peace with all men as much as possible. That doesn’t mean we can’t be sarcastic or confront the authorities. After all, Christ gives us examples of precisely this type of action. But we must, in all this, prioritize mercy and justice. In all this, we must follow the way of Christ. “Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” “Bless those who curse you,” says the Lord. God gives us this truth generally and this is where prudence and the leading of the Spirit come in. We’ll come to this more in our next article, where we will discuss resisting the government God’s way.

Love the Brotherhood. Honor the Emperor

By James

On June 22, 2022

In Church, Reformed Theology, The Basics, Worship

(This is the first of a series on Romans 13. The Covid regime has pushed Romans 13 to the front of conversation between Christians. I am working on putting out several articles on the issues that surround Romans 13 to shed more light on the big picture of what God is doing through his instruction in Romans 13.)

Many of the regulations our government put forward during the Covid-19 crisis undermine the fundamental duty of Christians to love one another. While keeping peace with all men, Christians should continue exercising this divine instruction as much as possible. In this sense, I agree with the many memes that say, “to resist tyranny is to obey God.”

Our duty to demonstrate an embodied love is a higher duty than that of honoring the civil magistrate. In fact, honoring and submitting to the civil magistrate is, in Romans 13, subsequent to the call to promote peace. Such an attitude allows the church to do the necessary work of proclaiming the gospel among men. The nature of the civil magistrate is such that it is good for the church to submit to them, for God has established them to bear the sword of vengeance. But the embodied love of the saints for one another remains a higher calling.

The word “embodied” is essential here. “Glorify God in your body,” God says to the Corinthians in the context of warning them about sexual immorality. The way we use our bodies is vital to God. If it is crucial, then the church’s authority as an expression of the power of Christ is an authority that affects the body as well.

I seek to prove this in two parts. First, I will demonstrate that the love of the brotherhood is the highest calling after the love of God. After that, I will seek to illustrate the importance of that love being embodied instead of projected through letters, phones, or screens.

Before I get to Romans 12 and 13, I will bring in several passages that more clearly point to the priority of the love of the brotherhood. (I assume, of course, that the most important love is the love of God. Brotherly love flows from the love of God and demonstrates that love.)

The most striking passage in this regard is John 13. There Jesus, having washed his disciples’ feet and having expressed his love toward his disciples through the love feast of the Lord’s Supper, says this: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” The unique expression of Jesus’ love defines the Christian brotherhood’s love for one another. There is a constant willingness to give oneself for one another, just as Christ gave himself for us on the cross, just as Jesus expressed his love by washing the disciples’ feet.

Christ gives this command to the brotherhood, the Christian church. Jesus is speaking to his disciples, giving them instructions on what it is to be the new Israel. Significantly, this is the central commandment he gives his disciples before going to the cross. This command marks out the church as an alternative community, an alternative community that is defined by the self-giving of Christ.

Another place where we see the priority of brotherly love is in 1 Peter 2: 17, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the Emperor.” Notice the gradations of command. “Fear God.” Obviously, God is first. God is the only one we ought to tremble before truly. God is the only one whose opinion matters in the end. “Love the Brotherhood.” We owe the brotherhood the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ. “Honor everyone… Honor the Emperor.” These deserve honor because of God’s image and their office. The commands of Peter demonstrate priority, however. We owe God, the brotherhood, and then we have duties to others in society.

The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians reflects this on a practical level. In the opening chapters, Paul calls on the Corinthians to prioritize Christ over their attachment to various Christian leaders, but even more the world’s wisdom. Then, in 1 Corinthians 5-10, Paul warns Christians about attachments to the world, especially regarding the temptations of sexual immorality and idolatry.

One passage that particularly stands out for our purposes is in the first part of chapter six, where Paul warns about settling civil matters before the ungodly civil magistrate (in other places, Paul clearly sees the benefit of the civil magistrate for criminal matters). A deduction from this passage might be that the church ought to oversee her own civil affairs as much as possible, especially when the civil magistrate is ungodly.

The remainder of 1^st Corinthians defines the love of the community, especially as it pertains to the practices of worship and the use of each person’s gifts for the sake of the community. Again, we see the priority of the love of the community of Christ.

Now we come to Romans. Romans 13 is sandwiched between calls to love the brotherhood. Romans 12 begins with personal transformation, but that personal transformation turns into the service of love toward the community of God, calling each member to use the gifts of grace given to them for the sake of the community. It all culminates in the words of verses 9 and 10, “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.”

Similarly, after the teaching on civil government in Romans 13: 8, Paul goes back to the love we owe one another, “owe no one anything except to love one another.” The teaching on the civil magistrate is sandwiched in the primary commandment of Christ, “just as I have loved you, so you also are to love one another.”

We can make our case even stronger in Paul’s theology of the church in Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. All emphasize our priority in connecting to our head as the body of Christ. In Ephesians, we are told that we are “raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” In Colossians, “you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God,” and “you died to the elemental spirits (a reference to the social order) of this world.” Finally, in Philippians, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

We are citizens of heaven who do not truly belong to this earth. The order of our affairs is distinct. According to that reality we have the calling that is only second to our fear of God to love one another.

And in this love of one another, we have Christ as our example, which brings us to our second part, where I seek to demonstrate the importance of embodied love.

The very act of Christ in washing the feet of his disciples as a demonstration of his love shows the importance of bodily presence in our love of one another. Christ shows his love in a very personal and human way. The fact that Christ has sent his Spirit upon us allows us to call the kindness we do to one another in visiting and sharing good works that we have done to him. We see this in the teaching on the sheep and the goats before the judgment seat of Christ in Matthew 25. “What you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.”

There is also what we noted in our introduction, the call to glorify God with one’s body, which affects most prominently sexuality, but we can also note, again in 1^st Corinthians, how the use of one’s body brings glory or shame to the church of Jesus Christ. Particularly, we can think of the Lord’s supper, where the way the Corinthians have organized themselves is so offensive to God that God tells the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper they are eating. The way they use their bodies demonstrates their service of God.

Neither can the body be replaced by letters or other forms of distance communication. Most prominent in this is the example of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated himself through a love that could touch, that could become sick, that could be maimed. God did present himself to his people in the Old Testament at a distance, necessarily behind a veil and through mediaries. However, in his most significant act of love, God becomes flesh so that he can be physically present with his people. Christ has the fullness of the glory of God within him. If we are to imitate Christ’s love, our love should also be physical.

The Christian has the Spirit of Christ. He is a temple, like Christ. That is why corporate worship is so important; we come to see Christ in one another. The church has always taught, based on a chapter like Hebrews 12, that Christ is present in a unique way in the corporate worship of the church. Long-distance communication, whether letters or live streams, cannot take the place of this corporate worship. In the same way, private Bible Study cannot replace membership in the body. We need the body.

Of course, we must take circumstance and necessity into account. I cannot be present with my father and mother at this time, so I use other means. But in the community where God put me, where I am fully able and willing to go, I ought to be a part of the communion of saints. Sickness can take us away from the body, weather, coercion, and persecutions, and God gives us strength in these times. Nothing can keep us from his love, even if our bodies are somehow unable to make it to the communion of the saints. However, if possible, I ought to search out the body and join it regularly for my spiritual health. The arm does no good to the heart if it is not physically present.

I ought to make a caveat here that some regulation is helpful in a pandemic. There are regulations I would be happy to follow. There are excellent resources demonstrating a different and wiser path our government may have taken, which considers the flourishing of all parts of society and respects the historical rights of individuals and institutions. One example is the Great Barrington Declaration. But, since the government chose the road of tyranny (as best I understand it), we must figure out how to self-regulate according to the best sources we have on Covid, which isn’t always ideal. Yet even then, we still ought to prioritize the communion of the saints as much as possible.

Therefore, if I owe love to the brotherhood more than I owe submission to the government, and if I that love I owe ought to be embodied, then when governments undermine my love for the brotherhood through mandates, I still ought to fulfill what I owe to my brothers as much as possible. This love can be shown in visiting brothers when we are not allowed to visit. This love can be in showing equal kindness to vaccinated and unvaccinated. This love can be my presence in church for the joy of assembling before the Lord. Because of the importance of the love of the brotherhood, the possibility of fines, mockery, and jail time (all of which have proved relatively low risk if you choose to be non-confrontational and respectful), should be a small price to pay for reflecting Christ in our love toward one another.

In conclusion, the church should count her duties to one another as more important than her duties to the government. There is, however, a big “however” here. Paul notes the importance that as much as possible we ought to have peace with all men. Even where we must obey God before men, we are do so out of a desire for the good of our country, even out of love for our enemies. There is the critical question of prudence in these things. I hope that in our next blog post, we can deal with this question. We also not that we do not dismiss the government entirely even when it acts in a tyrannical fashion. Paul also notes that, properly speaking, the civil magistrate does have a vital role to play which we are called to recognize, submit to, and obey. We owe the civil magistrate for certain services, but that cannot take away from what we owe one another.

Respectability and the Ministry of Reconciliation

By James

On May 11, 2021

In Church, Witness

If you can faithfully keep the Ministry of Reconciliation without any conflict, you are a better missionary than Jesus. If you can obey God without losing respectability in our society, you are a better Christian than Christ. That’s ridiculous! Your Saviour and Lord said, “I send you out as sheep among wolves,” but “fear not, for I am with you even to the end of the age.”

At Least Weekly: Part 8 of 8

By James

On June 24, 2020

In Church, sacraments

A call to restore the Lord’s Table to our weekly worship

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7

The weight of Scripture is for a frequent communion. Yet, our hearts may still have some objections. I’d like to use this final article to address some of those objections and to give some recommendations on how to begin the path to greater obedience in our churches.

Counter-arguments

It is helpful, at least briefly, to deal with some counter-arguments here. There are at least two that are commonly given. The first argues that weekly communion will bring an improper focus on the sacrament so that we will slip into the error of the Roman Catholic Church. The second argues that if we use the sacrament too often, we will not value it.

We rightly see that the Roman Catholics give a false pre-eminence to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In the 16^th century, the result of this was not weekly communion for the average member of a Catholic church. Many laymen in the church at that time only had the sacrament once a year. The high view the Catholic Church had of the sacrament was cause of takingcommunion away from the average Christian. The reformation restored the Lord’s Supper to the average Christian, although not in every reformation church and only in part for some. The Roman Catholic fear of the holiness of the Supper (ultimately a failure to understand justification), continued to play a role in the understanding of many Reformed people. This fear, in part, might explain why we still do not practice weekly communion today.

Yet the worry remains. If we make the Lord’s Supper a more significant part of our church life, we will create a false reliance on the earthly elements of the Supper for salvation, rather than the God who gives the Supper. That is possible. That is possible when the Lord’s Supper is done weekly, or monthly, or quarterly, or yearly. History demonstrates that our current system will just as likely result in people having a Roman-like attitude toward the Supper, viewing it as a supper only for the extra holy. We merely need to think of the Netherlands Reformed Church and their attitude toward the table. You will often hear that one must have a mystical experience of the certainty of faith before we approach the table. This possibility should not undermine our obedience to the call of God to practice the Supper frequently.

We should also note that Baptists will argue in the same way about the practice of infant baptism. If you practice infant baptism, people will look to the baptism rather than to Christ. This error happens in churches that practice infant baptism, but that doesn’t make the argument true. The answer is to teach people that the proper purpose of the sacraments.

A proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper depends on preaching that takes time to teach people about what the Lord’s Supper means. This preaching will always point the eyes of the people to the Lord Jesus Christ who gives of himself in the Supper. As we’ve tried to emphasize throughout this whole series: word and sacrament must work together. Both must show the Lord Jesus otherwise both will be ineffectual.

Our answer to the second objection is very similar. Might a higher frequency of communion correlate with less respect for the Supper? Possibly. Again, what matters is the teaching. If we follow Christ in all things, the Supper will be a spiritual benefit for the people of God. In my experience, and I admit that it is merely anecdotal, our current system does not necessarily result in a deep desire for communion. We have both those who desire the Supper and those who don’t understand what the big deal is. The only way to counteract that is good teaching.

The crucial thing in combatting apathy toward the Supper is to emphasize that this is Christ’s self-gift to us. Weekly communion may be one of the best ways to combat this apathy. To value this truth we must continually be reminded of it. Through the Spirit, we eat of Christ, so that we are transformed into his image. That is amazing! That boggles the mind! That should create in us a desire for a closer, deeper, and more frequent union and communion with Christ.

Both of these arguments are based on conjectures of how we might experience weekly communion. We ultimately don’t know. What we do know is that if we obey Christ, he will bless us. That means we can’t base our decision on the possibility of spiritual problems. Besides, apathy and superstition are things the church will always have to fight. The question is how best to fight those problems. If we are willing to hear the Word of God on this point, one weapon in that fight is frequent communion. We go forward with confidence in Christ; not in ourselves.

If you have followed the argument so far, you will see that in the Supper, there is the offer of Christ himself; our Lord. The Lord’s Supper was created to give us the assurance that God loves me. The word without the Lord’s Supper is like a marriage with no physical contact. Again I ask, why would we refrain from using that good gift frequently? God is not a miserly God. Why do we keep this demonstration of his grace limited to a quarterly or a monthly practice?

What to do

As far as I can see, there is no principled stance against weekly communion. There is only a pragmatic one. That is not how reformed ministers are supposed to argue for or against a practice in worship. I believe the arguments laid before us demand a serious response. We ought to have weekly communion embedded in our church order. If we call our churches to preach at least twice a Sunday, we ought to have communion at least once a Sunday. In this way, we will follow the good pattern, the good tradition, which God has laid out for us in the scriptures. I give the caveat that we would have to give years, perhaps decades, to work through that transition. God is patient.

Of course, if implemented, we will have many practical problems. We have a system that is built around quarterly communion (even so many of our churches practice monthly or bi-monthly communion). We would need a form that assumes weekly communion. Due to logistical problems, many of our churches that practice communion at the table would likely have to move to the pew (If we think of the feeding of the five thousand as a sort of proto-Lord’s Supper, this is not entirely without precedent). We recognize that this is a functional thing, not necessarily an ideal thing.

Perhaps the architecture of our churches would have to change so that they look more like banquet halls rather than lecture halls. Remember, things like pulpits and pews are not necessarily that old. The church has had had different ways of using space for gathering together. Of course, that looks far into the future. What is important is that we do it. Naturally, this will take different forms in different places.

I do not believe that this is something worth dividing the church over. Although it is clearly a defect, analogous to belief in credo-baptism, it does not depart from true worship to the same degree as something like credo-baptism or other defective forms of worship in our day. I do not intend to break with my brothers over this even though their stubbornness saddens me.

Yet I do have hope. Recently, I came upon Nehemiah 8: 17, when reading Scripture, “And all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in booths, for from the days of Jeshua, the son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so. And there was very great rejoicing.” It seems that even though the feast of booths may have been celebrated, it was not done in the way God called Israel to practice that festival until the time of Nehemiah. One may wonder why David or Solomon or Hezekiah did not follow this institution of God, whether it was the stubbornness of the people or their lack in zealously following all the law of God.

But God was gracious. More than that; he went from grace to grace. In restoring his people after the exile, he also gave them a fuller experience of his blessings than they had enjoyed before.