Category: Church Page 3 of 4

At Least Weekly: Part 1 of 8

On June 22, 2020

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

(This article will hopefully be published (a much shorter version) in the Clarion, the magazine associated with the Canadian Reformed Churches). I write to my federation, but all faithful churches should hear the call to restore to the communion table to its proper place in the life of the congregation.)

The churches ought to receive the nourishment of Christ at the Lord’s Table at least weekly. Calvin wrote, later in life, of the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper four times a year, “I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective so that those who come after me may correct it the more freely and easily.” In my experience, though Scripture is clear on this question, the correction of this defect has not been as free and easy as one would hope.

As Canadian Reformed Churches, we have an opportunity to correct this oversight on the part of our fathers. Within our tradition, we have, from the past, the voice of Van Rongen, who has called on us to reconsider the frequency of communion among ourselves.

I am arguing that the church ought to celebrate communion at least weekly. At least: there is room to do it more often. Preaching was never limited to Sundays in the history of the church. Neither should communion. We may celebrate the Lord’s Supper at any assembly of the saints.

In the same way, that we desire to preach at least once a week, so we ought to want communion at least once a week. The word and sacrament belong together. Weekly preaching without the supper should be as inconceivable to us as a weekly celebration of the supper with monthly preaching.

I do not intend to make an argument from the history of weekly communion. There are many excellent resources out there that demonstrate the respectability of this practice. A simple google search of “Michael Horton, weekly communion,” will bring you to an excellent article on the history of it, which he wrote for the Mid-America Reformed Journal. Robert Godfrey has also done excellent work on the history of weekly communion. I can also recommend Paul Aasman and Theo Lodder’s works. Each of those men wrote a short series of articles for the Clarion. Paul Aasman in 1997 and Theo Lodder in 2008-9. These also form a good historical and theological background for what I will argue in this series.

I would like to focus on the argument from Scripture. I will give seven arguments: “an argument from precedent, an argument from meaning, an argument from presence, an argument from order, an argument from the week, an argument from Holy War, and an argument from the call of the gospel. In my first article, I take up the first argument.

The argument from precedent

The New Testament church practiced weekly communion. We can note three places in the New Testament, where we see this practice implied. We see it most clearly in Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. 1 Corinthians 11-14 contains Paul’s warnings about how the Corinthians meet with each other for worship. In 1 Corinthians 11: 20, Paul assumes that the Corinthians celebrate communion whenever they come together. If the pattern of weekly gatherings holds, they also had weekly communion.

We see weekly communion in Acts 2:42, “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and the prayers.” The breaking of bread here is a reference to the Lord’s Supper. In his article, defending more frequent communion, Paul Aasman (Clarion, March 7, 1997) argues that this is not a sound argument for weekly communion because of the regular use of the phrase “breaking of bread” for a fellowship meal. He fails to fully see how the whole story of Luke-Acts presents the development of the fellowship meal into a sacramental meal. The connection of the breaking of bread to the worship of the church in Acts 2:42 underscores that point.

This is the way things develop in Scripture. Common phrases take on new meaning in light of new events. The Lord’s Table is closely tied with and is a transformation of the fellowship meals that Christ has with his disciples in the gospel. Now the kingdom has come and the Promised Spirit, which allows the disciples to eat with Christ. What better way to do that than through the way of the breaking of bread. This breaking of bread, the pattern Christ established on the day of his death.

In verse 46 of the same chapter, we see a daily breaking of bread, which I understand again as a reference to communion. God tells us this to demonstrate the devotion of the early Christians. They are excited about the new kingdom that God has established and wish to celebrate it daily. We can also gather from this that the Lord’s Supper is certainly not limited to Sunday celebration.

As time went on for the New Testament church, it seems that communion was more closely tied to the first day of the week. In Acts 20:7, we see this beginning to take shape: “On the first day of the week, we came together to break bread.” We see an implication that the practice of gathering together had become a weekly practice. There was a natural connection between coming together and breaking bread.

Like the practice of infant baptism, the frequency of communion is implied rather than directly commanded. We infer infant baptism from the continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It is the same with weekly communion. This is not surprising when we consider Old Testament worship. Eating was part of one’s worship before God in the temple. We can particularly think of something like the peace offering, where worshippers would partake of the animal that they had offered to God. To worship God was to participate in the festival of God.

To early believers, the gathering of believers is temple worship. We can think of Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. Christ says that a day is coming where all men will worship in Spirit and Truth. Through the Holy Spirit, God now permits sacramental worship wherever one lives. We see this in Hebrews 11, where the people of God approach Mt. Zion to hear the word of Christ. In Deuteronomy 16:16, Moses tells the Israelites that when they come to worship God in the temple, they should not come empty-handed. Neither should we. Now that churches can have temple worship wherever they worship God, eating becomes a part of that worship. Weekly communion naturally flows from the new order that Christ has established.

Now we may respond by noting that we do not have a direct command in the New Testament to practice communion weekly. We only have the phrase “as often as you do it.” We need to be careful with such an argument. As we know well from our Baptist brothers, there is no direct command to baptize babies either. We imply that.

We can also note that the New Testament does not directly command the weekly preaching of the word. It does not give commands regarding the frequency of either the Lord’s Supper or the Preaching of the Word, other than the call do it regularly. Strictly speaking, even the call to meet together in Hebrews 10 is not a warning against neglect of preaching and the Lord’s Supper, but the neglect of meeting together. I do not agree with this interpretation. I merely note that we should be consistent in the way we follow God’s teaching for worship.

In terms of worship, the church has always worked from the assumption that the pattern laid down in Scripture is there for our benefit. We should have an excellent reason to depart from that pattern. And there are exceptions to every rule. The recent lockdown is a good example. It kept the church from gathering together to worship God, which is never ideal. Apart from these exceptions, there is no good reason to depart from the pattern of weekly communion.

Besides, these are the means of grace. These are the primary ways in which our Lord has ordained to show his love to us, to comfort us, and to assure us in our faith. When we, in our pride, make excuse after excuse, and so allow ourselves to depart from the pattern laid down for us, we are undermining God’s self-revelation to us.

In the matter of proclaiming the gospel, we rightly follow the example that the Spirit laid down for us in the New Testament. We are suspicious of those who try to minimize the importance of this example. Whether they argue for one service a week, sermons that do not find their primary source in Scripture, or those who promote the ten-minute sermon.

Why do we question the presented patterns of communion? If we bring this kind of suspicion to the text of Scripture, we may lose the strength of the argument for a weekly half-hour sermon, much less two half-hour sermons. To argue that the frequency of communion is an example we can take or leave is a self-defeating argument. We should approach the scriptures with a desire for maximal obedience, not minimal obedience.

Keeping it Simple – A Simple Order

By James

On March 26, 2020

In Church, sacraments, Worship

The Bible not only gives us the basic liturgical elements for worship, but the Bible also gives us a pattern for worship. To see my discussion on the basic liturgical elements for worship take a look here and here. Just as there are basic elements to worship are very simple, so the basic order of worship is simple.

I will argue that we are called to first call upon God, follow that with the preaching of the word, and finally, celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. This is an order which almost all churches have gravitated to overtime. Really, this is the traditional order of the church. However, various cultural biases keep churches today from fully realizing even the simple order that God has given.

The New Testament has very little to say on the order or pattern of worship. This is likely because there was an established order that was used in the synagogues and in temple life, which was integrated into the worship of the church. The New Testament churches probably combined the order of worship, which was already there, God’s teaching on temple worship in the Old Testament, and the teaching of the apostles’ about Christ’s Sacrifice. Ultimately, New Testament worshippers had to examine everything they did in worship in light of what God had done in Christ.

We might use the Hermeneutic that is found in 1 John 2 concerning the commandment to love one another. At once, John admits this is an old commandment and at the same time he says, this is a new commandment. It is new because Christ has shown what love means in a new way. Using this rubric we might say that all parts of the Old Covenant are fulfilled in the cross of Christ and through the cross of Christ are applied to us in a new way.

This means that we can look to the Old Testament for instruction on worship as well, as long as we understand that that particular Christ has abolished the ceremonial elements (such as the temple and the sacrifices) of that administration.

One of the places where we find a great deal of instruction on worship is in the book of Leviticus. Now, the great part of this instruction deals with the activity of bringing sacrifices before God. We are explicitly told in the New Testament that that institution is done away with in Christ, for he is the final and the only effective sacrifice. However, we are also often told that we are to be living sacrifices in Christ. We can think of Romans 12 and 1 Peter 2, both of which refer to the Christian as a living sacrifice. That would mean that there is something in the nature of the sacrifice that can teach us about reasonable worship.

This is a surprisingly productive turn, particularly, in terms of the amount of materiel we may reflect on. If we are to find a basic order to draw through the various sacrifices, we would see five basic parts to the order. Peter Leithart puts it catchily in his Theopolitan Liturgy.

“Lay the hands

Slay the beast

Spread the blood

Burn the flesh

Eat the meal”

These elements can be brought out in five separate elements in the service. For the sake of simplicity, we will simplify these into three elements. First, the laying on of hands. Second the slaughter of the animal and the burning of the animal. Finally, (for many sacrifices) we partake of the animal in a meal.

These three elements correlate to three different sacrifices. The purification offering emphasizes the laying on of hands. Here we have an emphasis on our need to be purified before God. The ascension offering (commonly called the burnt offering) focusses on the burning of the animal. The worshipper burned the entire animal in that offering. Finally, the peace offering focusses on the meal, for that sacrifice focussed on the worshippers eating the offered animal.

So how does that apply to the service of God? The laying on of hands implies a claiming and a transfer. If we are living sacrifices that means the service ought to begin with an acknowledgment that God lays his hands on us and claims us for his own. In responding, we also lay our hands on Jesus as the only effective sacrifice in our place. This involves a recognition that God calls us and a recognition of our sin and the need to deal with that in order to properly approach God.

Then God divides the sacrifice and burns all of it or part of it. Hebrews 4 speaks of the word accomplishing that in the service. The word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword, dividing joints from marrow. In doing so, God the Spirit raises our hearts to the right hand of God in Christ. Figuratively speaking we go up in sweet-smelling smoke before God.

Finally, we have a meal in the sacrifices. The meal symbolizes the peace we may have with God. So we see that the Lord’s Supper, the new covenant meal follows after the preaching of the word.

Jesus follows a similar order in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. He lays his hands on the bread or wine and names it (his body or blood) (the laying on of hands), he breaks the bread or pours the wine (dividing the offering), and then passes them out so that his followers may eat (the meal).

Now two elements that we discussed in our previous blog posts on the elements of worship do not automatically find their place here (find those blog posts here and here). But if we think about what these elements represent we can find their place in the worship service.

The first is the prayers. The prayers will be interspersed through the worship service. A prayer of repentance is appropriate near the beginning of the service. Here we take hold of Christ as our righteousness. A prayer for the Spirit’s work is appropriate before the sermon and a prayer of thankfulness is appropriate in response to the sermon. Of course, it is also quite appropriate to put songs in various parts of the worship service. We might sing an opening song praising God, a song praising God for choosing and calling us, and a song following the Lord’s Supper.

The other element we missed was the collection. We do have a precursor for that in the Old Testament as well: the wave offering. In the wave offering, people brought their gifts of grain and poured our wine before the Lord. God used these offerings to provide food for his priests. This suggests that the fitting place for the collection, the sign of our devotion to the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is immediately before the supper we share with Christ. For the Lord’s Supper signifies, not only what Christ gives to us, but also how we sacrifice ourselves for one another. We give of ourselves to one another under the forgiveness of sins given by Jesus Christ.

So we have a simple order for worship: A call upon God with repentant hearts, the preaching of the word, and the Lord’s Supper. Further, we intersperse this order with prayers, psalms, thanksgivings, and collections for our brothers in distress.

Worship Wars: Keeping it Simple

By James

On January 7, 2020

In Church, Worship

At its most basic worship is meeting with God. The flesh does not know how to do this anymore. It is only the Holy Spirit, on the foundation of Christ’s sacrifice, and the word that God has given which provides a way to the Father. The Scriptures, the word that God gives us, also gives us the elements that should be part of this worship. Worship is simple; It is teaching, prayer, eating bread, and drinking wine.

We read of these elements in Acts 2:42, immediately after Christ has sent out his Holy Spirit, the initial formation of his church. “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The purpose of this passage is to show the dedication of the new Christians to the newly formed church of Jesus Christ. God did not give this passage as an outline for worship.

But this passage does help us identify what acts are most important in the worship of the church. We see a simple summary of what goes on in the worship of the early church: “teaching, breaking of bread, and prayers.” We have a fourth concept here too, “the fellowship.” The fellowship is not so much an element of worship but designates the fact that the new converts were continually coming together to spend time together in community with both God and one another. It is that “meeting with God,” which we have already mentioned.

For our purpose, though, we will focus on the elements of worship. We assume that you want to come to worship God regularly.

Scripture distinguishes these elements of worship. However, they cannot be separated. Properly, our devotion is manifested as a configuration of all of these elements. To say it with greater simplicity: the elements come as one package. They form a single sacrifice of praise before the Lord. This reality suggests that element may not even be the best word to describe these things; the word “elements” suggest the possibility of isolating parts from the whole. However, for our purposes, the concept is useful.

The first element in our passage is the Apostles’ teaching. The Apostles were sharing and reflecting upon Christ’s words and works before the first Christian congregation. They would later write down this teaching in the gospels. God calls us to continue to reflect on the Apostles’ witness to Christ. Christ did not physically write any part of the Bible. It was the Apostles who wrote down the events of Christ’s life and further reflection upon those events. We continue to teach and apply that teaching without adding anything to God’s revelation, for Christ is the final word. This is the first and most important part of worship; the preaching of the Word.

We devote ourselves to the Apostles’ teaching by seeking to understand the whole Bible in light of what God is doing in Christ. Notice the word “devote” in Acts 2:42. As a church, we are called to devote ourselves, mind, heart, and soul to the teachings of the Word of God.

We next see a reference to the breaking of bread. In light of how this “breaking of bread” is often connected with the church’s worship, we can guess that this a reference to the Lord’s Supper. It could merely refer to eating together, but this is highly unlikely. For this guess is strengthened by the observation that the church would not have automatically used titles like “Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.” The phrase “breaking of bread” fits very well with the language used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It would have been an easy shorthand for Luke to use and expressive of the broader fellowship it signified among the body of Christ as well. When we consider these things and the importance placed on the practice of the Lord’s Supper right from the beginning of the church, we are justified in seeing this as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Finally, we see a reference to the prayers. The definite article “the,” as in “the prayers,” suggests that these are more than just prayer generally speaking. Most likely, this refers to the Psalms, the book of prayers. The Psalms were a regular part of Jewish worship and would become a regular part of Christian worship. “The prayers” would also include other written prayers that were a regular part of Jewish worship, as well is unwritten prayers. The practice of praying closely connects to the practice of singing. We know that the Jewish people sang the Psalms. They sang their prayers. There were choirs among the Levites and they sang the Psalms as part of worship. We know from Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 that singing was a vital part of worship as well. What is more likely than that these early Christians were singing the Psalms?

We promised to keep it simple. Here’s the simple part. How do we worship God? We take the opportunity to read his word and to explain it. This practice should not be complicated. In many churches throughout history, this was done through the pastor sitting or standing in front of the congregation and going through a portion of scripture verse by verse. The Lord’s Supper is also part of worship. Everybody sit down. Pray over the bread. Pass it out. Pray over the wine. Pass it out. Use the words of institution that Christ gave in scripture. Finally, pray. Pray with written and unwritten prayers. Use speech and song. Use the Psalms. They are God’s prayer book. Allow that to form your selection of hymns; and your hymn-writing.

(I would add that there is an underlying order to worship that God calls us to observe as well, but that is an argument for another blog-post)

Now, I will be the first to admit the importance of many other questions. About what type of music might be better, what might be the better way of preaching, how we ought to order our prayers, and to what degree tradition should affect these choices. Fundamentally, if a church has these identifiable elements in its worship and does not seek to hide them or cover them up, I willingly accept that church as a legitimate church. It is a church that I spiritually worship with at Mt. Zion. It doesn’t matter if they choose to have electric guitars, rap elements, preachers that tell a lot of jokes, whether they look more or less disorganized, whether they have choirs on top of congregational singing, whether they are highly traditional and formal or highly contemporary and informal, and whether they have dancing and hand-raising or they “do church” mostly seated. I argue that some of these practices are better than others, but if we can begin with the regular explanation of the word, the regular practice of the Lord’s Supper, the singing of psalms and hymns, and the constant use of prayer. We can grow from that point.

Too many churches lose God’s word in trying to be relevant or cool. Maybe they are bored with scripture. Too many churches lose the Lord’s Supper because they arbitrarily make it challenging to practice every Sunday. Possibly, they don’t think it’s important or they make it too important. Too many churches lose God’s prayerbook. They lose the Psalms and so their other prayers lose the pattern of worship given by God.

We will make everything a lot more complicated. Scripture has a lot to say about worship. And there is a lot of materials to work through and apply to our worship service. But at its heart, when we gather together to worship God, we want these three things: most importantly, the word of God, secondly, God’s holy supper, and finally prayer.

Worship Wars

By James

On October 12, 2019

In Church, Worship

When we are reflecting on worship, we naturally begin with our own traditions. We grow within a certain order of worship. The way we worship educates us on who God is and who we are. If our tradition teaches us something in the order of worship that leaves us with a twisted or a diminished view of God it should be changed. If our tradition leaves us with a twisted or false view of ourselves it must be changed.

This really encapsulates why worship is so important to the Christian. Here is the reason why so many fights within the church today are over worship. In the traditional understanding, worship is where we meet with God. The way we worship and the things we do in worship affect our understanding of God.

In the last fifty years, we have seen a major reset in the liturgy of the church. People will talk about the worship wars and these probably peaked in the 80s and 90 and they continue to be a part of the dialogue in some of the more traditional churches. While liturgical change is happening all the time, the last major re-set of the liturgy was in the 16th century during the protestant reformation. Roger Olson details our contemporary changes in an article that you can find here.

There were a number of causes for these changes. Already before the changes, there was a growing apathy in some churches. There were doctrinal shifts. There were shifts in worship itself and in understanding worship. We can talk about preaching. The Psalms lost their place in worship. We can talk about growing liberalism. Major shifts like the one we are currently observing are not mono-causal. There is a complexity behind a historical change.

Now, I am on the side of the traditionalists. I am on the losing side. I believe that contemporary liturgies have eviscerated the worship service of its proper content. However, too many traditionalists have simply dug in their heels without examining their own liturgical tradition or the tradition of the church. Little do we realize that part of our contemporary problem arises from developments in traditional liturgies. I hope to explore this more in future posts. The church has not spent the necessary time to create a liturgical culture that is equally robust to the American contemporary liturgy. We need to develop our liturgical tradition so that is deeply and unavoidably biblical.

The service on the Lord’s Day is, after all, a gift to man, a gift to encourage him in continuing to seek after God, so that he grows in mortifying his sin, desiring Christ, and doing good deeds for the sake of his Lord.

I’ve already hinted that I find many traditional churches lacking in this matter. I am a pastor in the Canadian Reformed Churches. We have a very traditional liturgy. There is no doubt that we worship God in Spirit and truth, and we do see and experience God in our worship. There is a lot of God in our tradition, but there is also room to grow. The worship wars and our own struggles, especially over the question of music, give us the opportunity to examine ourselves. I hope to offer some reflection on both the good and the bad over the coming months.

As a bit of a postscript, I do not believe I have the last word on this subject. Liturgical concerns are controverted and they always will be. I merely hope to shed some light on the subject. Ideally, I also hope to encourage those who truly do desire to worship God in the beauty of holiness.

The Supper and Sharing the Righteousness of Christ

By James

On May 2, 2019

In Church, sacraments

We know that the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance. We often narrow it down to the cross of Christ. We should be focussed on union with Christ. I like how J. Todd Billings puts it in his recent book, “Remembrance, Communion, and Hope: Rediscovering the Gospel at the Lord’s Table.” You’ll notice he uses the language of “drama.” This can be used well or not so well. If we understand by this that we are called to apply the lessons of Biblical history to our lives and so continue to apply the work of the Cross of Christ in the World, we are on a good path and that is where Billings is leading us. The person he got this from, N.T. Wright, doesn’t always use the idea of drama so well. He ends up using it in a way that undermines the truth of scripture. Billings, however, is careful to use what is useful in Wright’s understanding of the drama of scripture. Here is the quote.:

“If our identity is to be transformed in the triune drama of salvation [Billings means by this that we desire to move from the family of Satan to the family of God, which is accomplished with ever greater union with the church of history and the God of history, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], then we need a robust and multifaceted remembrance of God’s promises. This will be inseparably connected with a present communion with our Lord Jesus Christ mediated by the Spirit. This will also involve a hope for the return of the same Christ, and the final consummation of creation giving way to the promised kingdom. Though all this, dwelling upon and receiving God’s word in Scripture, we are given words of life to direct our path, reveal our script in the drama, and show us the identity to which the Spirit is conforming us in Christ.

Why is this threefold approach necessary? N.T. Wright claims that the story of Jesus is incomplete without the story of Israel in the past, and also without the story of God’s future, which frames the church in the present. In parallel to this, Wright speaks about the Lord’s Supper as a place where “past and present come together. Events from long ago are fused with the meal we are sharing here and now.” Moreover, if the bread-breaking is one of the key moments when the thin partition between heaven and earth becomes transparent, it is also one of the key moments when God’s future comes rushing into the present.” For “Jesus—the real Jesus, the living Jesus, the Jesus who dwells in heaven and rules over the earth as well, the Jesus who has brought God’s future in the present—wants no just to influence us, but to rescue us; not just to inform us, but to heal us; not just to give us something to think about, but to feed us, and to feed us himself. That’s what this meal is all about.” The Supper—like the gospel itself—involves a convergence of God’s mighty acts and promises in the past, the in-breaking and anticipation of God’s future, and nourishment upon Christ in the present. Anything less is a reduction, something other than living before the face of the triune God.”

One more thing should be explained. What does Wright mean about bringing the future into the present? He is talking about justification. God takes something that he would give us at the end of time, and by the righteousness of Christ allows us to share in his justification. Because Christ lived a righteous life, we too may share in that righteousness. Wright has some suspect thoughts on justification, but on this he is absolutely right.

Review of “Grace Worth Fighting For”

By James

On April 22, 2019

In Church, Reformed Theology

A review of “Grace Worth Fighting For” by Daniel R. Hyde. Find the book here.

On the 400^th anniversary of Dort, Rev. Daniel Hyde wants to remind us again of the importance of Dort to the whole church. So what makes Rev. Hyde’s book special among all the literature on Dort? Rev. Hyde wants to demonstrate the catholicity of Dort. He desires to prove Dort’s continuity with the 1500 years of Christian doctrine before it. This catholicity not only affirms the historic doctrine of the church of Christ but also seeks a consensus on the various ways in which the Reformed had interpreted that tradition up to this point. The men of Dort wanted to be guided by scripture and so were careful not to condemn theological systems that sought to affirm the primacy of the grace of God in his electing purpose. Rev. Hyde has written this book so his contemporaries can recover the catholic vision exemplified in the Canons.

Rev. Hyde wants to do this in an accessible way so that the regular pastor and layman can have better access to the theology of the Synod. He succeeds. The book is easy to read and well laid out. He explains the significant points of the Canons well along with historical awareness. Somebody who wants to begin studies in the Canons of Dort would have a hard time finding a better resource for understanding the theology that produced the language of the Canons.

Hyde frames his work within recent scholarship recovering the depth and breadth of Reformed theology in the 16^th and 17^th century. Particularly, Muller’s work on the Reformed Scholastics. Muller has rehabilitated the theology of the Reformed Scholastics, demonstrating their continuity with the first reformers; Luther, Calvin, Bucer, and others. He has also reminded us once again of the diversity of thought among the reformed. It is wonderful to see these insights integrated into an accessible explanation of the Canons. They flesh out the picture of what was going on at Dort for us.

The recent scholarship of Michael Lynch on the British Delegation to Dort also brings a unique perspective to the book. There is sometimes a tendency to devalue or ignore the contributions of the British Delegation. Though some of their views were in the minority, they had an important voice in shaping the canons and in providing a moderating voice between different factions. Notably, The wisdom and erudition of the British delegate John Davenant played a role. There was also politics involved. James I was an essential ally against the Netherland’s primary enemy at the time: Spain.

Rev. Hyde is at his best when he brings out the importance of the catholicity of this synod. He argues that the way the Remonstrants framed the doctrine of predestination completely undermined the historic doctrines concerning Christ and his works. As Turretin likes to note, it was the Remonstrants who were the innovators, meaning that it was the Remonstrants were departing from and undermining the historic doctrines of the church. Hyde draws parallels between the work of the Synod of Dort and the Councils of Orange and Carthage, along with numerous references to the Church Fathers and Medievals. This historical background is part of the catholicity of the synod. It desired to preserve what had always been taught by the church of Christ.

There was another aspect to this catholicity. The synod’s catholicy was revealed in their attempts to affirm the theologies of the various reformed traditions so long as they attempted to grapple with the truth of an election based on God’s good pleasure. Even though there were deep tensions in the synod, the synod ended with a document that could be affirmed by the diverse group of delegates. Hyde’s attitude channels the final fraternal Spirit of the Synod, even if the process may not have been so “catholic.” We can see this in his generosity to the Lutherans in his discussion on the Perseverance of the Saints.

In this desire to emphasize catholicity perhaps he does miss a couple of things. One is the role of the civil government in pushing these men to a consensus. It is a real question whether the synod would have held together without the push from James I and Prince Maurice. What is the significance of the interference of the civil government to the catholicity of the synod? Another discussion that is missed is the reception of the Canons in the countries from which the delegates came. Hyde does mention that the Dutch and the French received it as a standard, meaning that they bound their ministers to this standard. I was left wondering about the reception in Germany, Switzerland, and England and how that affects the enduring catholicity of the document. These are not major critiques, but some interaction with these realities would have added an important perspective.

The book left me wanting more (something that a good book does). I was curious to learn more about the particular theologies of the German delegates. How did the French church and the Swiss church interact with the Canons? What were the particular differences between the delegates on the perseverance of the saints? What about church order? Were their conversations on that? What other peripheral issues were discussed? Of course, a popular treatment will not deal with all these questions, but I hope that this work will prompt others to dig into this synod that is unique in the history of the reformed churches.

I have high praise for this book. It challenges both pastor and laymen to stand firm against those who militate against the doctrines of grace. It should incite in all Christians a doxology to the “depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” This is the God who saves. At the same time, it should give the pastor and laymen humility as the church seeks to find the best way to express the mysteries of God’s grace.

The Gift of Healing

By James

On September 27, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church, Gifts of the Spirit

Sometimes when we talk about the extraordinary gifts that God gives the New Testament church it is helpful to separate them. What I mean by extraordinary gifts are those spiritual gifts that are not a regular part of the lives of the people of God. This is opposed to something like the fruit of the spirit, which should be evident in the church of all times and places as well as each individual in the church. Rather than grouping all the extraordinary gifts into one group, we should deal with the biblical role of each gift separately.

The gift of tongues, for example, has a different purpose than the gift of healing. The gift of tongues teaches the new church about the nature of the kingdom of God. It is one of the unique acts that is commemorated in water baptism, which include the baptism of Christ and the death and resurrection of Christ.

The gift of tongues teaches that the coming Kingdom of God is made up of every tribe, language, and nation. It is also entirely unique to the NT church. Tongues demonstrated that God now dwelt in a new people formed out of both Jews and Gentiles instead of in the temple.

In contrast, the gift of healing is not entirely unique to the NT church. Jesus exercised the gift of healing. Old Testament prophets exercised that gift. It is interesting to note that reports of the gift of healing are far more common in the history of the church than the gift of tongues. The authenticity of those healings is another matter. The gift of healing demonstrated the authenticity of a prophet. The physical restoration was a sign of spiritual restoration.

What does this mean? I believe that it means that we should not necessarily expect the gift of tongues to continue to happen throughout history. This bears itself out in history. The gift of tongues, in the sense of a sudden ability to speak in another contemporary, human language, has rarely, if ever, been reported in the history of the church.

Compare that to the gift of healing. Healings, whether real and spurious, have often been reported in the history of the church.

I want to make a couple of notes on the gift of healing in the NT and its continued use in the world today.

1. The gift of healing is only done in the power of God. It is meant to draw attention to what God is doing. Everyone who participates in a healing ministry will tell you this, but that doesn’t mean that it is not a highly important point. God does the healing. As soon as a man starts to believe that he has a special power in himself or fails to recognize God’s work in the healing, he becomes a charlatan. The gift of healing is not given for the gain of an individual man.

2. The work of healing is sacramental or has a similarity to sacraments: By this, I mean that the work of the healing is not found in the words of the person or in the form a person uses in order to heal someone. Rather the words and the touch are only powerful if accompanied by the Spirit. This is naturally derived from our first point. If healing is an act of God, we are only means for that act.

We can think of the time that God used Elijah to raise a child from the dead. Elijah spreads himself out over the child and God uses that to raise the child (1 Kings 17:17-24). Elijah’s actions are not in themselves healing. It is rather that the Holy Spirit uses Elijah’s actions for healing. Further, the gift of healing always points to Christ.

3. The gift of healing is occasional, not regular. This is somewhat technical language. We might also use the language of ordinary and extraordinary. A regular or ordinary gift is something like teaching, preaching or charity. These three are the true work of the church as she seeks to spread the kingdom of God. Ordinary gifts are essential to the kingdom of God. The gift of healing is occasional. God used it in the history of Israel as a sign to confirm true prophecy. Now that we have the final word there is less need for such a confirmation. Extraordinary gifts are not essential to the kingdom of God.

4. The gift of healing is not proof of one’s salvation. Neither is receiving healing a proof of salvation. Jesus makes the former quite clear in Matthew 7. Speaking of the day of judgment, he says, “many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works in your name.” Jesus doesn’t question that they did mighty works. Jesus questions their faithfulness to his name and to his word. In the end, the one who does mighty works before God is no different than the one who lives a quiet life. Each must trust in Jesus for his salvation.

5. Receiving healing is no proof of salvation. Healing is closely connected to the faith of the healed in the gospels, but in some stories, the connection is not so clear. In Luke 17: 11-18, Jesus heals ten lepers. One comes back, thanking him and praising God for the gift of healing. The passage is not about receiving salvation in the sense of eternal life, but the implication is clear; even when you receive healing, there is no guarantee that the one who received healing is moved by a desire for God. God may use the faith of a person in order to heal someone. God may use the faith of the healer in order to heal someone, but ultimately it is God who gives healing; sometimes that healing is affirmed by faith, sometimes not.

We can look at Jesus’ warning in Matthew 12:43-45 where he speaks of rescuing an individual from a demon. The individual, instead of filling himself with Christ instead of a demon, goes on his way empty. The demon comes back and brings seven others. Jesus’ warning is to Israel, but it applies to individuals. Jesus is talking about exorcism, which is a different thing again from healing. However, what applies to the exorcised man applies to the man who is healed. The exorcised man must look continually look to God for grace. The healed man must look to God for the continued health of both body and soul.

6. Another thing to notice (and this is particular to healing) is that healing is never forced on anyone. It is requested. We see this in the miracles of Jesus, though at times Jesus does offer first.

7. God can lead someone to look for healing or he may lead someone through a valley of suffering. God works through the suffering of Job to show his power. Paul will often appeal to God’s work in weakness as he reflects on his ministries in his letter. This is a very important point, for it through faithful suffering that we most reflect Jesus. According to Paul, he “fills our Christ’s sufferings” (Colossians 1:24) by his sufferings. The same applies to us. Healing shows Christ’s power. Our weakness and suffering do so even more.

Authority in the Old Testament; Authority in the New Testament

By James

On April 9, 2018

In Church, Libertarianism

You can find my former articles on this topic here and here.

Like my blog post on Davidic authority vs. magistral authority, I want to once again to make a distinction between two types of authority. However, I am not merely distinguishing between two types of authorities here, but rather, two different dispensations of authority. I want to argue that the Christians has a qualitatively greater degree of authority in the New Testament than the Jew of the Old Testament. There is a difference in the administration of authority after Christ has been seated at the right hand of God.

Unfortunately, I cannot explore all the practical manifestations of my case. However, I want to begin by stating that this is the case; I will argue further from that point.

Let’s begin with the administration of authority in the Old Testament. Adam and Eve take of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. By doing so they claim to the authority that God has. This authority is the ability to make a judgment between good and evil. We know that this is true because Solomon asks for the same gift in ruling over the people of Israel when he becomes king.

In the old dispensation or covenant this gift was taken or grasped by mankind and so mankind lost the ability to use it properly. Adam and Eve could have learned to exercise such authority by relying on God and his word. Instead, they took the gift before it was given. This distorted the gift.

So God took one man among the nations, Abraham, and began to train Israel so that they could learn to use the wisdom of God rather than seeking to grasp wisdom themselves. God taught Israel this through laws of holiness, through sacrifices, through a set calendar. Through the institutions of Israel God sought to reform or to restore Israel to the calling he had given to Adam and Eve.

God subjects Israel to this law. The civil leaders and the kings and the emperors that God raises up he also calls to enforce this whole law (though exclusively to the land of Israel). Israel has a limited wisdom in interpreting and applying the law to their lives. Therefore God provides Israel with priests, prophets, and kings, equipped with the Spirit in order to help Israel in applying the law.

Then God sends Israel her Saviour. The priests, prophets, and kings of the Old Testament were only shadows of this Saviour. This Saviour shared his Spirit of office with his entire congregation so that every Christian now exercises the office of prophet, priest, and king.

These Christians now have the freedom to apply the law to their own lives, they don’t need a calendar or sacrificial laws or laws of holiness. Christians exercise a greater freedom and wisdom than any of the kings of the Old Testament. The moral law still bears authority because God enfleshed that law in their Lord and Saviour. Christ replaces the rest with a different order or a different dispensation. Christians may now use the law of the Old Testament as a way to freely order their lives in him. All Christians bear a responsibility to judge between good and evil.

However, Christians still have civil leaders and they have spiritual leaders. Their power is restricted just as it was in the Old Testament. God restricts the civil leader’s power to defending life and property. God restricts the Spiritual leaders’ power. They may not exclude a Christian from the church of God on the basis of regulations that are extra to the word of God. However, they still exercise moral authority on the basis of the law of the Spirit and the law of Christ.

So what’s the real difference? even in the Old Testament, the leaders had a degree of freedom to apply the law and to obey the law. Is the only difference one of quantity?

No. Christ also brought the Christians a different degree of authority. We can see this in Galatians 4. In the Covenant at Mount Sinai, Israel functioned as a child. Israel was under a tutor. God was training his son to practice the authority he would eventually call her too. She is an ambassador (a prophet, priest and king) in training. In Christ, God’s son reached maturity. She is now an ambassador of Christ. The church is no longer under a tutor, but directly under Christ and the law of Christ.

Do I not Hate Those who Hate You

By James

On March 17, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church

In Psalm 139, David proclaims his hatred for those who hate God. May we sing that? Now that Christ has come among us and told us, “You shall love your enemies?” For those who argue for the “singing of the Psalms,” these types of psalms, known as Imprecatory Psalms, often come up. Should we sing these Psalms as well? In the Psalms, David seems to express a different spirit than the one Jesus has in the New Testament. I argue that we should sing these songs.

These songs look to God to provide vengeance.They allow the Christian to look to God’s justice for dealing with oppression and evil. We can think of the Boko Haram and ISIS. We look at them with pity and desire their salvation. At the same time, we are angry at the magnitude of their wickedness. We desire that God will rescue those who suffer under their hand.

With that in mind, here are a couple of things to keep in mind when you run across such a verse whether in your readings or when you are singing in church.

First, remember to read carefully. In Psalm 139, David specifies the types of people he hates. He hates God’s enemies. In Matthew 5, Jesus asks those who are listening to love their enemies. These are not God’s enemies. They are your enemies. David is praying in his role as a servant of God. Your enemy might not be God’s enemy.
In Matthew 23, Jesus calls down “woes” upon the Pharisees and Scribes, who have perverted God’s law. His anger at the Pharisees is coupled with a desire for their salvation. At the end of Matthew 23, he says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Remember that vengeance belongs to God. God wants us to release our desire for personal vengeance so that we “love our enemies.” We do this by relying on God for vengeance. Some Christians deal with a great amount of suffering. Men oppress and attack them in a way that Christians in the west have a hard time imagining. God gives them a way to seek vengeance in the words of this Psalm. God responds to such a prayer in two ways: by breaking them on the rock or crushing them under the rock. The rock is Christ. God saves you when he breaks you on the rock. If God crushes you under the rock, you are lost.
Finally, we need to understand David’s hate. It is possible that his hatred for the extreme violence and evil committed by his enemies exists alongside a pity for their fate before God. This fate is one that they have chosen, but it is a pitiable one.

These are meant to be helpful comments to give us confidence in singing the Psalms before God. These are prayers that God has given us in order to teach us how to pray. We should learn how to pray from them.

True Witness is through rejection of identity politics, Part 3

By James

On December 27, 2017

In Church, Witness

So how do we deal with identity politics? We speak the truth in love. To do otherwise is cruelty. This is our witness to Jesus Christ. It is to recognize that he is the one who defines truth. He is the one who defines our identity. When we play about with our identity, we play about with rejecting Jesus Christ. Ultimately, we play with idolatry. To promote identities opposed to our God-given identity is idolatry. This is because we turn ourselves into identity creators when identity is a gift of God. That is the argument of Toby Sumpter’s blog post that I referenced in my first post on this subject. In order to give some concreteness to “speaking the truth in love, I want to interact with Toby’s piece.

If you have read Toby Sumpter’s piece, I want to note one disagreement with him. He argues that using preferred gender pronouns is equivalent to an early Christian offering incense to the emperor. I agree and I disagree. I want to distinguish between two ways of compromising on this point. To do this I want to point to 1 Corinthians 10.

In 1st Corinthians 10, Paul deals with the issue of food sacrificed to idols. Paul argues that if you participate in the pagan feasts, you are idolatrous. This is because you are publicly participating in the altar of a false God. I would argue on this level, those Christians who publicly compromise on calling an individual a “zer” or a “ze” are offering their pinch of incense. This is particularly true of the gender-neutral pronouns. Those who offer their sacrifice of appeasement to the world’s understanding of identity are denying God’s gift of identity to that individual.

But Paul also argues that when you visit somebodies house you may eat the food offered without asking. It might be sacrificed to idols, but ultimately God is in control. But if the person tells you, for the sake of the gospel, do not eat any food sacrificed to idols. There is an application to identity here. Treat people as they appear. You are not bowing to the idol of identity. But if somebody asks you to call them a “ze” or a “zer” or if they tell you that they have had a gender-change surgery, do not call them by their preferred pronoun. You do this for the sake of the gospel, so that they may know God’s desire for their identity.

Witness, then through rejecting identity politics. We could go further, we could talk about all the politics around race. Here we can be more sensitive. Race is a natural thing. The sons of Adam have developed distinctive features in different areas of the world. Still, we are all sons of Adam, made in the image of God before we are black and white. Here, again we reject identity politics. Our witness is through embracing our identity in Christ and encouraging others to appropriate that identity as well.