Respondeo

Freedom and Universal Healthcare

On November 2, 2021

Genesis 47: 13-30, 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, Romans 12:14-21

There is one argument that stands out to me among the pro-lockdown arguments that has truth to it. I don’t know to what degree or what was hidden because I am not an expert in these matters. This is the argument from the limits of our healthcare system; this argument had two iterations, lack of ICU beds and lack of staff. Of course, the lack of ICU beds has a lot less weight because it is something that a first-world country should be able to accommodate, especially with the amount of money that flowed from all levels of government into this problem. However, the lack of staff is a real problem, and considering that these first-line workers were likely to contract the virus themselves, the problem was only made worse. And it’s only made worse recently by vaccine mandates.

(I should add there is another problem—something I’m not planning on dealing with, but something that needs attention—the amount of regulation in our system due to legislation and unions. I do not have enough awareness of our system to give thoughtful commentary beyond the fact that this does affect our system)

Considering the wait lines have always been the first complaint about the Canadian Healthcare system, the lack of staff should be no surprise to the thinking person. Covid-19 should have been a catalyst for much needed reform rather than an opportunity to subjugate the populace to experts’ prudential concerns.

Our Media’s use of fear over breaking our system, in order to push the public into our brave new medical order, confirms old concerns about our system; Universal Healthcare is a mechanism of enslaving the Canadian public. Maybe not consciously, but considering the shape of reality that is its true end. I think here of men such as Ernest T. Manning who warned the Canadian Public about Tommy Douglas’ socialistic framework for “free” healthcare.

What is slavery? It is to limit a man or woman so that they are not able to fulfill the fullness of their calling as man or woman according to their station in society. We were not allowed to assess our own risk with regards to the Coronavirus because our health is owned by these representatives of the Canadian Public and they must preserve the integrity of universal healthcare. This is a sign of things to come.

I want to do two things here. I want to demonstrate the enslaving nature of what is going on. And further, a discussion on what the good Christian response might be.

What does enslavement look like? We often think in terms of war. And this in fact was a very common way to become a slave. One nation might finally win over another nation, and enslave its people or a portion of its people. In our own history this was a common source of slavery; internal conflict between African tribes was exploited by slavers, who sold their slaves to the new world. Similar to slavery by war is simply man-stealing in order to sell an individual into slavery. Joseph’s brothers claimed ownership over Joseph’s body and sold him into slavery.

It is the other form of enslavement that relate to our topic today. It is that of indebtedness. This was actually quite a common form of slavery in the past. What we know today as “indentured servants,” was really a form of temporary slavery, putting somebody to work for an individual until they could become free.

So behind debt, at least ordinarily, there is was always the possibility of slavery. We can be thankful for those parts of our system that keep debt from being the road to slavery it often was in the history of the world.

Debt is not necessarily evil, but it must be managed. We can think of the term loan shark or the fast cash places that have popped up all over the place with questionable business ethics. Lending out money to someone should help that person or be mutually advantageous. It should not be at the expense of the one who is borrowing.

It’s interesting that the Hebrew word for deceive and the Hebrew word for lending with usurious rates are connected to one another. The loan shark is called a loan shark because he is using his power in order to hurt, extract from, even enslave the one he is loaning to. In a similar way, Satan by deceiving the woman, also enslaved her, with her husband to sin. This is why the gospel is described as a clearing away of a debt (the debt in this case is to God (Satan indebted us to God)) and a freedom from slavery, especially slavery to sin.

This is not just a spiritual thing. Rather in this case the Spiritual affects the physical. God’s spiritual generosity ought to work itself out in man’s physical generosity. God wants the spiritual freedom he gives us to work itself out in physical freedom. Within his divine plan it is not always so, but this is the sense of the scriptures. He warns about those who take away spiritual freedom in a book like Galatians, but that spiritual freedom results in treating slaves as brothers. In that spiritual freedom, we are willing to free the slave. In 1 Corinthians he warns, “you were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.”

In our current situation it is the universality of the healthcare system that is enslaving. I have a problem with a state-funded healthcare system in general, but I realise that state-funded healthcare system does not take away our freedom in the same way. Their natural end may be the bloated corruption we see in the Medicare-insurance-pharmaceutical company racket in the USA.

I purposefully focus on the Universality of our system because that is the place where the system becomes self-re-enforcing rather than allowing for voices of reform. In the States there are various voices on the margins that push against the dominant system. They do this by creating different payment systems that circumnavigate the insurance companies and the medical bureaucracy. But that is not possible in Canada, in part because it is illegal.

In the name of fairness and equality, the Canadian people bought into the universal healthcare system, but in doing so they created a system in which their health was the immediate concern of those who also happened to have exclusive ownership of the sword as well. They lost choice; they lost viable possibilities for alternatives. Because it was a public system, the government could argue that the public had a responsibility to be healthy so that their neighbors would not have to pay for them.

And that is basically what the arguments I referenced at the beginning boil down to. We are indebted to our healthcare system. Whether we like it or not, we have to pay into it, and unlike the public school system, we have to use it. If you want health, particularly healing from something like a broken limb, or some other sickness where you need drug treatment, you will indebt yourself to this system. In the name of fairness and equality, we all need to do our share in supporting this system.

The fact that there is no free market system on the side adds to the danger of the situation. There is no price discovery for medical goods. Whereas in the states, those who are able to sideline the insurance racket down there are able to get reasonable prices, here in Canada there is no possibility of knowing the true costs of the various procedures our healthcare system might provide. That means I have no real idea what I “owe” to the healthcare system and thus it is easy for them to claim that they “own” my health choices.

Now of course this is not how our universal healthcare was sold. It was sold in the name of fairness and equality. Unlike the Egyptians of Joseph’s day, we did not actually contractually sell ourselves into slavery, but we were sold on a different contract, that we would get free healthcare if we all pitched in monetarily. Canadians were tricked, though of course, they should have known better. If somebody, like Ernest Manning, former Premier of Alberta, and one of the strongest voices against Universal Healthcare, could see what is happening, he would probably say “I told you so.”

Peter Leithart relates something similar going on in the States in his recent blogpost “from sword to syringe.” The civil magistrate did have a control over some aspect of the political body. It had the authority to control the bodies of those who transgressed over person and property. He notes that that control has moved to the syringe. Rather than bearing the sword of vengeance, the civil magistrate now bears the syringe of health. If true in the States, all the more so in Canada.

As a side note, there are various ways to use the mask as a symbol of protest, I think a fitting one would be the words “property of Manitoba Health” stitched into the mask, because it reveals what our governing authorities our truly saying by mandating masks, and of course, now vaccines, in private businesses, privately owned churches, and not least our ownership of our own bodies.

I should also add that I am not one to say that the civil magistrate has no responsibility for public health, but I believe it is more about collating and distributing information and facilitating the work of health workers; coercive power is off the table.

But God likes freedom; freedom that is used for good, freedom unto maturity. I quote again from 1 Corinthians 7, “you were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.” Even as Egypt was selling herself into slavery, making the name “land of slavery” a fitting name for her, God was preserving his people in the land of Goshen. By God’s exaltation of Joseph, his people are preserved, even preserved from the slavery of Egypt. Of course, later the Egyptians choose to enslave the Israelites, but we are not told that story in the scriptures.

God’s ideal for the Christian is described in Romans 12, “owe no-one anything except to love one another.” Similar themes come up in 1 Corinthians 1-4 where God warns the Corinthians about Lording it over one another, reminding them, not that ultimately they are to be slaves to one another, but that “everything is yours is Christ.” So even though the slave must recognize the reality of the situation he is in, he does this as someone to whom everything belongs in Christ. The slave may wear the garb of slavery, but in reality he is a king at God’s side. And the Master who recognizes that does well.

Again in Galatians 2, people come to bring the people into a spiritual slavery, a spiritual slavery that is marked by a very real physical mark: circumcision. While Paul is happy to recognize the dignity of those who wish to be circumcised, he hates the desire to use circumcision to subject people to the ceremonies that have been abolished in Christ Jesus.

Though God likes freedom, I do think that we need to accept that we have been sold a raw bill of goods about the Canadian Healthcare system. We are, at least in part, owned by the Healthcare system. And we need to come to God in repentance and hope that he might free us from this evil. At the same time we must continue to do good. In as much as our situation is like the slave than we must follow the words of 1 Peter 2, when he calls slaves to submit to unjust masters as well as just ones.

If we do imagine that somehow the system has fully subjugated us, we can imagine that a slave might sneak out of his property against the wishes of his master to go and worship God, then come back and be discovered only to be beaten. I would hold that he is then being beaten for something good. And thus is justified. The same would hold for Christians who went to church during this time.

However, while I use the image of slavery to describe our situation in Canada, I do not believe that we have been completely enslaved. We still have a good way to go. Contractually, we are not yet in the place that the Ancient Egyptians were in the story we read from Genesis. Rather the position we are in is an enslaving one. We are on the road to serfdom. It is incredible how far they have gone in the shutdowns, the masks, but at least it was sold under the idea of emergency.

This provides us, as Christians, with the opportunity for resistance. We ought not to allow ourselves become slaves; we are bought by Jesus. I particularly want to point to finding those possibilities for reform in our healthcare system. Don’t take this to mean that this should be the task of the church, rather I would encourage individual Christians to take leadership in this area. If you know lawmakers or lobbyists, or leaders in the sphere of healthcare encourage them toward reform.

But I’m not only thinking in terms of politicians and lobbying. These are important, we could use a cutting of bureaucracies, regulations, and unions, allowing for greater flexibility, especially for something like staffing in the next public health crisis.

Perhaps too, Christians should be willing to take up the mantle of civil disobedience in this matter, finding ways to provide free-market healthcare at the margins. I believe this is justified by Paul’s words in Romans 13, “owe no-one anything but to love one another.” This could be done for profit, but if we wish to gain public support it would probably be wise to begin with a private charity model.

I hope that this pandemic is a catalyst toward more freedom in our healthcare options; freedom from our universal system, which becomes less and less reliable. Realistically, however, there are groups who are already arguing for more intervention. For example in Ontario, people are pushing for the government to take more control over senior homes. Of course, these are already basically government entities. Let’s do our best to hold back these forces. I hope that we can use these realities to carve out a space for Christian freedom. In the meantime, continue to “live as people who are free.” It is only as when we are free in our hearts from sin, from anger, from greed, that we can give people political freedom.

Once again I don’t know exactly how to apply these truths to the road God has set before us. But I know that God does not wish a passive response to our healthcare system’s continual subjugation of all areas of life. Romans 12:21 does give us a template for how we can begin to do this “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

What we forgot

By James

On November 2, 2021

In Uncategorized

Matthew 16:13-23

As he is about to leave his disciples, Jesus says to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Then he gives them a certain authority with regards to his message, “Go therefore into all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Here is the fundamental calling of the church, a calling in which God charges the overseers of his church with his body, a body that includes literal bodies. Why is that important? While the civil magistrate is given the sword of vengeance and so has authority over bodies according to one aspect (particularly in relation to violence toward person and property (Romans 13)) the church is given the word and sacrament. God sanctions ecclesiastical authority over bodies in another aspect, different than that of the civil magistrate (particularly the administration of reconciliation).

I argue that the church failed to exercise the authority God gave her if she complied with the recent lockdowns. I speak generally; there are many factors, including the severity of the lockdowns, level of compliance, and our place in the particular ecclesiastical and social orders we happen to inhabit. These all complicate things and give a reason for caution against over-generalization.

My purpose in arguing this is not to go through the past and rehash what action was right and what was wrong, but instead to provide a firm foundation for moving forward. I believe that the church has grown lazy in her primary calling before Christ to preach the word and administer the sacraments, to labor in the work of reconciling all things to Christ.

There is a reason that God sent Covid. Through the experience, I’ve seen my movement toward a greater determination to defend and expand the kingdom of God; this Theopolitan order is itself a result of this.

I want to bring out two truths that should ground any decision concerning the worship of the church. Both realities were often undervalued or even forgotten in the decision-making process of the church. These are Christ’s gift of the keys of the kingdom to the church and Holy War. They are intricately connected; For Jesus brings them together in Matthew 16. The church has the keys in order to combat the gates of hell.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In the reformed tradition especially, these keys are interpreted as the preaching of gospel and church discipline. Although we don’t see this explicitly, it is a reasonable deduction from the words of Jesus in Matthew 16 and 18.

In Matthew 16, this work of binding and loosing is given in the context of the Peter’s confession of the Christ. Peter has just proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, the son of living God. He is the anointed one for whom the Old Testament church is hoping. It is in that proclamation, in preaching Christ, that the church opens the doors of the kingdom to the believer.

In Matthew 18, the language of binding and loosing is given in the context of removing the unrepentant sinner from the fellowship of Christ. If the sinner does not repent, the church has the authority to remove the sinner from the fellowship of Christ, which physically manifests itself in removing the body of the said person from the table of Christ.

It’s not hard to see the connection to the authority that Jesus gives to the church in Matthew 28, “Disciple the nations,” “Baptize,” and “teach.” This work that Jesus calls the apostles to is what the Apostle Paul calls the ministry of reconciliation, calling more and more men to the path of the Spirit, which leads to Christ and the Father.

Within the church, God entrusts these keys to the officers of the church. They are to see that they are faithfully carried out from day to day, from week to week, through the preaching of the word and the sacraments.

It is essential to see that this call is entirely distinct from the call to the civil magistrate. The source of the church’s authority is direct from Christ himself, even as the civil magistrate himself is direct from Christ himself. The language of spheres is somewhat unhelpful here because these points of authority certainly do overlap. And they overlap in terms of bodies as well.

This means that they are bound to come into conflict at the best of times, when the civil magistrate claims allegiance to Christ, just as the church does. They will certainly come into conflict when the civil magistrate does not recognize the church and even seeks to undermine the ministry of the church.

And when they come into conflict, we, as the church, especially if we are officers of the church, must remember our calling before God. It’s easy to point fingers at the ministry of vengeance and note their failures. Let us begin with the household of God. Just because the world is paused does not mean the ministry of reconciliation must pause. As we will see, in moments of judgment, we must all the more dedicate ourselves to the ministry of reconciliation.

Look at Jesus and Paul. They were single-minded in fulfilling their ministry. I particularly think of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4, “To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.” This is what Paul did for the sake of the gospel. What moved him was the promise that Christ was reconciling all things to himself, and Paul was a tool for the sake of that hope.

Compare that to the relatively minor inconveniences we may have experienced if we had even some of the dedication of Paul.

But why? Why do we need such a fire for the work of God? The civil magistrate isn’t explicitly targeting churches at this point? For the sake of argument, let us grant this. However, we are at war with the gates of hell. The devouring, roaring lion, Satan isn’t going to take a break during a pandemic, and neither should we. We are in a holy war against the principalities and powers of this age. This is Paul’s perspective: as he wastes away in prison, he speaks to the Ephesians, “Put on the full armor of God.” And “put it on with prayer.” To dress for the battle, we need the worship of God.

The righteous man shall live by faith. It is particularly in the moment of crisis, in the moment of judgment that the people of God must gather to recommit themselves to him.

Worship is warfare. It is the shouting of the people of God in worship that brings down the walls of Jericho. It is the singing of the people of God that strengthens the people of God to bring down the foreign armies that attack Jehoshaphat. The corporate worship of God strengthens them against their demons, and for us, God strengthens us against the lies and ideologies that have a hold on our age.

Worship is the weapon God has given us; through prayer, through scripture, through the sacrament, we dress for battle so that we might willingly sacrifice ourselves for the sake of God and one another.

It is worship that is the center of this holy war. It isn’t court battles or protests. It begins with coming together to confess what Peter confessed. “On this rock,” which I understand as Peter’s confession,” I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The church is tasked with attacking these gates of hell, and they cannot ultimately stand.

Unless of course, the world convinces them to put aside their weapons. That’s what Peter was doing by calling Jesus from his task of going to the cross, “Put aside your weapon of making yourself a sacrifice of praise, instead use worldly means to promote the kingdom.” In communion, the church participates in that sacrifice. Satan would like nothing better than for us to put that weapon aside.

I don’t think it is just happenstance the passage of Bill C-6 and Bill C-7 happened alongside the closure of the churches. Perhaps it would have happened anyway because we are not faithful in fighting holy war in our worship. Maybe God shut down the churches to show how useless our worship is. Perhaps the more conservative-minded were pushing to worship out of pride and self-righteousness and not out of the honor of God and love of neighbor. Perhaps this was necessary for the church. In each case, we find the strength to stand against this, again, in corporate worship. The answer in all these scenarios is the same, “repent and worship God calls you too.”

There was an interesting article that went around Facebook from a fellow named Jonathan Von Maren. He was arguing that the church should prioritize the obvious attacks on family and gender, not the Covid-19 Lockdowns, which were not directed against the church. He missed this very important point. The civil magistrate was calling the church to lay down her worship warfare at the very moment she was most under attack. Political realities cannot take precedence over the call of the church to the work of reconciliation with God.

The truth that we have the command to administer the work of reconciliation straight from our Lord Jesus Christ and the truth that we are involved in a holy war for the sake of the kingdom of our Lord does allow for a variety of responses on the part of the church. I am not one of those who says we may never shut down church for a week or two. I don’t pretend to have figured out the best answer myself. Personally, I don’t trust our legal process, so while I am happy that churches have used that, I don’t put a lot of hope in that struggle. Personally, I don’t believe that direct resistance is wise as in the cases of James Coates and Aaron Rock, yet I do not condemn it. But neither should the church simply comply with the lockdown. I know there are many different situations and vulnerabilities, but I encourage you, as much as possible, to find a way to worship corporately.

We must resist, not through violence and cursing, but through the good work of worshipping God.

Review of the Maker vs. the Takers: What Jesus really said about Social Justice and Economics.

By James

On May 17, 2021

In economics, History

The Maker vs. the Takers really stands out among the books I read this year as one of the most interesting with a profoundly compelling thesis. The book is short and written in a simple style, but it contains much to ponder on in the face of the various ideologies that compete for space in our public square.

Theologians tend to ignore economic commentary on the gospel. Unfortunately, that leaves that field wide open. It ends up dominated by the socialist version of Jesus. And Jesus’ words often seem to support the socialist agenda. What we, too often, ignore is the context of the gospels. Jerry Bowyer seeks to fill that hole by writing an economic history of Jesus.

Jerry Bowyer seeks to prove that Jesus’ primary critique of wealth is in the context of those who take wealth. While in Galilee, Jesus tends not to focus on the problem of wealth in the same way. However, as he comes closer to Jerusalem, Jesus’ emphasizes the abuses of the wealthy.

Bowyer argues that this is because of the way the different areas are organized politically. The centralized, highly-taxed Judea is a place where the poor are ground into the dust. The wealthy are wealthy through taking from others. The decentralized entrepreneurial Galilee is where there is a burgeoning middle class. The wealthy are wealthy through producing goods for the market. Galileans have their own sins, but they are not accused of robbing widow’s houses as the Judeans are.

Bowyer seeks to prove this through a careful reading of the gospels themselves. He constantly notes where Jesus is speaking when he condemns wealth. One of his primary examples is Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in Matthew vs. the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. These sermons, he argues, are probably two different versions of the stock material that Jesus used to teach people during his life. Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount in Galilee. Here he has much less to say about wealth than the Sermon on the Plain, which he gives in Judea.

He backs this up with research in archeology and history. Archeology presents a compelling case that Galilee was surprisingly well off in the first century A.D. It was home to a great deal of entrepreneurship and industry that made it what we would call middle class. Jesus himself probably grew up in that context. The carpentry of his father Joseph was likely in great demand because of a building boom in a town close to Nazareth. The entrepreneurial and productive Galilee is in contrast to Jerusalem, which though much more wealthy than Galilee, also exhibited far more significant disparity between wealth and poverty.

Bowyer also pays attention to the history books, pointing out how the Judean elite used certain systemic practices in temple worship to plunder a population in Judea that was already highly taxed. Perhaps most interesting is how he demonstrates the economic aspect of the crucifixion of Christ. He points out that there was a financial crash that probably happened shortly before Christ’s crucifixion. A friend of Pontius Pilate’s was held responsible for that economic crash. Therefore the Jews are able to convince the usually anti-Semitic Pilate to do their dirty work of killing Jesus.

The book is well-researched and full of information. Although it would be nice to see more footnotes, just for the sake of digging into the various sources that Jerry Bowyer is using. However, Bowyer does aim the book at a popular audience. Some could question a couple of claims and I’ve seen certain claims challenged in other sources, but the book’s effect is cumulative. Bowyer is able to bring a wide swathe of evidence from the gospels to support the picture he paints of Jesus.

I highly recommend “The Makers vs. the Takers.” It is a book for everybody. As a Pastor, I enjoy how it brings a fresh and concrete reality to the gospels. Jesus is not just concerned about the next world, but he is very concerned about the abuse of power and the treatment of his children in this world.

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.”

A Review of “Aiming to Please” by Rev. Wes Bredenhof

By James

On January 21, 2021

In Reformed Theology, Worship

It is good to see another book on the worship of the church. When we consider the importance the scriptures place on worship, it is an area in which we ought to examine ourselves continually. Over time we can pick up attitudes toward worship or certain elements of worship that we are not even aware of. We use the light of the word to uncover our biases in our worship of God continually.

In “Aiming to Please,” Rev. Bredenhof argues that we ought to take into account both the elements that God calls us to observe in his word, and the order God demonstrates in his word with regard to those elements. Arguably, in our history, the conversation about worship has narrowly focussed on the elements at the expense of thinking about order. Rev. Bredenhof rightly emphasizes both. After all, as reformed, we confess that worship is dialogical, and even the most basic dialogue has a recognizable order to it.

Another critical point for Dr. Bredenhof is the Regulative Principle of Worship; basically, we ought to worship according to the Word of God. He spends a fair bit of time defending it and arguing that it is foundational for Reformed worship. I’m not exactly sure why he puts such emphasis on this principle. Those whom he singles out for not emphasizing the Regulative Principle of Worship, would have few problems with the remaining content, of the book. In fact, they end up arguing for services, which are very close to his proposal. Regardless, he views a conscientious confession of the Regulative Principle of Worship as foundational to his work.

There is a lot to appreciate in his work. I especially note his work on the confession and absolution in the worship service, his work on the psalms, and his attention to detail.

Unfortunately, the confession and absolution was largely lost in the Dutch tradition, so I am happy to see Rev. Bredenhof bring back a heavy emphasis on it. While the denomination I grew up in, the United Reformed Churches, have largely regained the practice, the Canadian Reformed churches still have many churches that do not make this a regular part of their worship. If we are going to grow in our understanding of God’s holiness and the real challenge of our remaining sinfulness, we need a regular confession and absolution. The practice also helps anchor our identity in Christ, as we weekly deny ourselves, crucify the old man, and find full righteousness in our true identity.

Rev. Bredenhof’s work on the Psalms is fantastic. He didn’t fall into the trap of exclusive psalm-singing, which in my opinion is grounded in a juvenile hermeneutic of scripture. At the same time, he fully lays out the case for why the psalms are so essential to the Christian life. He calls for ministers to set up a system for singing the psalms so that they can be regularly sung through every year. It is too bad he is somewhat dismissive of the church calendar later on, for the Anglican and Lutheran liturgical years have resources that would give us a good place to start for such a project.

Finally, I appreciated his attention to detail. The scriptures give us a bounty of worship details and teaching for worship. Therefore it is good to ponder the details of worship. This does make me wonder why he fails to urge a greater frequency in communion. For we certainly have far more precedent for communion, at least weekly, than for many of the smaller details that he commends with high certainty. Nevertheless, the detail is appreciated and is often thought-provoking.

That brings me to a couple of negative criticisms. I did find the book overly reliant on abstractions, especially in its fundamentals. The simplest definition of the RPW is “the Bible forms our worship.” Or if you like, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image… you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” In this sense, every church will claim that they are following the RPW.

In fact, I would argue that historical Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican worship are all faithful to the RPW to varying degrees. A case could be made that worship service in a Conservative Lutheran Church is more faithful to the RPW than our own services. I am particularly thinking here of the structure of their service as found in the “Lutheran Service Book” of the LCMS. Ultimately the RPW is an abstraction and doesn’t really prove anything until you actually examine concrete “orders of the service” through the lens of scripture.

Another example of this is how he uses the rubric of “guilt, grace, and gratitude.” He argues that this order is foundational to the order of the service. Again this is another abstraction. It is helpful because it helps us see a common pattern. But it doesn’t really find a concrete reality until it finds a form in a sacrifice or the Lord’s Supper. On its own the pattern does nothing because it could merely be applied to a sermon structure. The entire liturgy could be the minister talking. That is actually where Rev. Bredenhof goes for that rubric, the “sermon” of Romans.

Another negative comment is regarding the lack of scripture. I was hoping for a robust Bible Study that allowed me to see how scripture forms our worship. I was somewhat disappointed. Like my comment about abstractions, this judgment is more of a comment on emphasis than a statement about the entire book. While Rev. Bredenhof does a good job of pointing to scripture, it ends up feeling somewhat piecemeal. He gives little insight into how our whole liturgical practice is an organic outgrowing from the whole of scripture.

That being said, I found value in the book. We live in a time, where, with regard to worship, every man does what is right in his own eyes. The commands of scripture and the witness of the church stand such an approach. The scriptures ought to form our worship. “Aiming to Please” is a good reminder of the importance and necessity of true biblical worship. A reminder, in a time when that is often questioned.

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.

At Least Weekly: Part 7 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

We have come to our penultimate installment on the frequency of communion. Here, I argue that communion is deeply embedded in the call of the gospel. This argument demonstrates how this argument is not just about growing in union with Christ and one another; this is about correctly presenting the gospel to those who are outside the church. Weekly communion is missional in the best sense of that word.

An argument from the call of the gospel

We have already alluded to this in our argument from the week. But the fact of the matter is that God’s invitation to the sinner is not only an invitation to receive forgiveness of sins, but it is an invitation to a feast. You can already see this in the Exodus where Moses’ original request to Pharaoh is that Israel goes into the desert for a feast unto God. Likewise, Scripture pictures the holy land as a place of food and feasting.

Look at Jesus’ invitation in John 6, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger; and whoever believes in me shall not thirst.” This episode is after he was miraculously provided food to the five thousand. Again in John 4, He offers the Samaritan woman living water. Now Jesus is speaking of spiritual food and drink. However, the physical food and drink of the Lord’s Supper are what he gave as a reminder that we need to find our spiritual food in Christ.

In Matthew, we see this again. We have the call in Matthew 11, “Come to me you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” In Isaiah, where that quote comes from, the rest comes via food and water. We can think of Matthew 22, where the kingdom of heaven is compared to a wedding feast. Of course, there are many other examples of this comparison. This also nicely ties in with Revelation 19, where we see the wedding feast of the lamb. The Lord’s Supper is that wedding and is a promise of that wedding.

Commentators comment on the book of Luke, noting that Jesus always seems to be having a meal in the book of Luke. This is the table of the kingdom of God. Jesus says so in Luke 14. He is encouraging his disciples to invite all to the banquet of God, the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. When one who is eating with Jesus hears this he says, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” Jesus goes on to emphasize the high importance of coming to that banquet. God is inviting Israel to a new banquet in Christ.

We tend to isolate the table from Jesus’ ministry. But Jesus gives us a table that is at the center of his ministry. The Lord’s Supper only continues the festal reality that our Lord is with us. Jesus has come to announce the kingdom of God; he has come to announce rest. He comes eating and drinking for the bridegroom is here. Jesus asks the disciples of John who ask about the disciples lack of fasting, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” When we worship God, we have a promise that the bridegroom is here with us too. Why don’t we eat with him now? At least when we gather to hear him every week?

The Lord’s Supper is a gospel event. We taste and see that the Lord is good. The Lord is so good that he has given us a new beginning in Jesus Christ. Every week he continues to give us that new beginning.

The penultimate words of Scripture are an invitation to a feast. Verse 14, “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life.” Verse 17, “Let the Spirit and the Bride say, “Come… let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” We say these words, but we do not show people these words through the sacrament God has ordained. The rest of the gospel is found in eating and drinking the spiritual food that Christ provides. As Christ says, “my food is to do the work of my Father.” God promises the word for that end, but particularly he has chosen the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to nourish us in our spiritual life. Why do we devalue the importance of that gift?

The way we focus on the Lord’s Supper in our churches suggests that it is meant to strengthen us in our bonds with each other internally. The Lord’s Supper is about our unity with one another. This is true. However, the way Christ and the New Testament give the call of the gospel should make us question the assumption that this is only about the internal life of the church.

The Lord’s Supper is an invitation for the nations to join in and receive healing from the Tree of Life. It is a reminder to the congregation that they have received the goodness of God. Further, in their transformation into the image of Christ, they also become rivers of living water. Our failure to regularly celebrate the Lord’s Supper undermines our message to the nations about the goodness of our God.

At Least Weekly: Part 6 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

We now add a sixth argument to our series. God has established enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We participate in a spiritual, holy war. God prepares us a table to strengthen us in waging that war.

An argument from holy war

David says, “you have prepared me a table before my enemies.” I have argued that in the Lord’s Supper, we experience the rest of the Lord Jesus. Yet, according to Hebrews 4, “a rest remains for the people of God. We are a people in the midst of a war for the universe. This war is a cosmic war between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

We need the spiritual sustenance our Lord Jesus gives because we are going out to war. We are fighting against our three enemies, sin, the world, and the Devil. As participants in the mission of God, we go out seeking to take every thought captive to Jesus Christ. We need the assurance of the holy armor of God as we go out to this war. In the Lord’s Table, the Lord promises his peace and his rest as we walk in the valley of the shadow of death.

When David wrote, “you have prepared for me a table before my enemies,” he may well have been thinking back to the beginnings of the conquest of Canaan. The people of God enter the land. They have not obeyed God’s command to circumcise themselves while in the desert and so they get to work circumcising the people so that they may roll away their reproach before God. This cleansing is followed by a celebration of the Passover. They ate this Passover not far from Jericho. God set them a table in front of their enemies.

Christ has conquered the Devil, the flesh, and the world on the cross. The people of God work out the salvation that Christ accomplished. The people of God are involved in the mopping-up operation. We eat of Christ himself because we have been brought into the rest of the New Creation. We also eat because we need strength as we continue to assault the gates of hell. In the Lord’s Supper, we see the promise that Christ has already won. We also find strength in continuing to apply that finished work to the mission of God

Maybe you think that faithful churches today are insular. I tend to think so. Why does cultural engagement so often lead to cultural appropriation of the wicked works of this world? Why is the church enervated by secularism? The lack of communion is not the only reason for this. But it certainly provides a part of the explanation. We can say that the Catholic Church has the same problems, but we should recognize that the Catholic Church has so twisted communion through their theology and only until recently, through their practice, that it is no longer recognizable as true communion. The church fails to use the tools God has given her for cultural engagement.

Let us take in Christ so that we may have the courage to take up his armor. The Lord promised a helper to us, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit promises to use communion to strengthen us for the war. We all have demons to fight, our sin, bad situations in our lives, the mockery of colleagues, and the temptations to compromise and join forces with the children of evil. Why do we fail to grasp for that inner strength the Lord promises as we go out to the valley of the shadow of death?

The reformers emphasized that this meal is for assurance. How can we prepare a people to wage war against the works of the Devil if we do not give them this assurance?

At Least Weekly: Part 5 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

We have now looked at how the Scripture provides a precedent for weekly communion, we have seen the way in which the theology that underlies the Supper supports a frequent use, we have seen how a theology of presence is foundational to frequent communion, and we have seen how the pattern of word and sign or word and sacrament, provides a model for our weekly worship as well. Now we turn to an argument from the week.

An argument from the week

On the 7^th day, God rested from the work he had done. God has day by day, taken delight in his work. “He saw what he had made, and he declared it good.” We can extrapolate from what has come before that God continues to delight in his work on the 7^th day. He is no longer evaluating his creation though. Rather, he is enjoying the work that he has done.

God’s pattern is our pattern. We work, and then we enjoy the fruit of our labours. As Christ says, God did not make man for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. On the Sabbath, Israel finished all her work and was able to enjoy the fruit of her labours with her Father and Creator. That rest was an opportunity for festival and communion with her Creator. And what is communion with our Creator other than the worship of God?

But now Christ has fulfilled the Sabbath and has been raised on the first day of the week. He does so as the New Creation, in whom we are also a New Creation. As a new creation, he is a source of sustenance to our spiritual bodies, just as the old creation is a source of sustenance to our physical bodies. Baptism marks our entrance into that rest of this New Creation. The Lord’s Supper confirms to our hearts our continual participation in that rest.

The Lord’s Supper allows us to eat of the fruit of Christ’s labors and so have the freedom to exercise our good works in the week ahead. Again that rest is found in communion with God. That communion is worship. That is why we worship on the day of rest. From the beginning, the church has joined together on the first day of the week to enjoy the fruit of Christ’s labors.

The week is re-worked through the cross of Christ. The cross of Christ is a dividing line of history. Christ accomplished what Adam could not. Adam sinned so that man is no longer able to produce truly good things. He could not produce the good fruit God called him to produce. Everything is affected by sin. Christ did the six days of work that Adam was unable to do and so brought about a new pattern.

We begin by enjoying the fruit of Christ’s labors, rather than end the week by taking delight in our labours. That doesn’t mean that the labours of Israel didn’t come from grace in the Old Testament. All our work is a gift from God. That labour, however, was never able to fulfill the law. Christ fulfilled the law and brought in a new era, which came with a new week. A week where we begin in the work of Christ.

We participate in Christ; we enjoy the fruit of Christ’s labors so that we begin the week in the rest of Christ. In this way, the Lord’s Supper is about the pattern of work and rest that God has worked into the world. In the new covenant, we begin the week with the knowledge that we have been given rest through Christ’s work, so that we, as the Heidelberg Catechism says in Lord’s Day 38, may rest from our evil works. When we celebrate infrequently, we lose something of that constant reminder.

The Lord’s Supper communicates the work of Christ to us. Christ is the seed that dies. We take in that seed. Through that participation, we produce good works. We can’t do good works apart from Christ. The law couldn’t save it could only condemn. But because we begin the week in Christ, we can do good works. Again, we see the importance of the Lord’s Supper in the process of sanctification.

Perhaps our modern world doesn’t understand rest, because the church has not adequately understood the rest that God gives in communion. Rest isn’t merely ceasing to work. Rest is the festival, as exemplified in the Lord’s Supper, it is coming together in communion with God. And on Sunday, we come together and enjoy the fruits of Christ’s labors. Ultimately that is the gospel. If we had weekly communion, we might appreciate the fullness of that gospel.

At Least Weekly: Part 4 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

We continue our series on the question of frequency of communion. We have seen how the New Testament laid down a pattern of weekly communion. In our last article, we saw how frequent communion fits with the theological meaning of communion. This week I lay out an argument from order. Basically, I desire to show how the Preaching of the Word and the Lord’s Supper work together as two means that God uses to regenerate his people. The basic structure of those two means is, first, preaching, and second, confirmation of God’s word in the Lord’s Supper.

An argument from order

We emphasize the importance of the word in our tradition. We are right to do so. The practice of the Lord’s Supper without the word is worse than useless. It is a horrible misuse of God’s gift. The Lord’s Supper is treated as a magical pill for spiritual life, rather than lifting the heart of the recipient beyond the symbols of bread and wine to the true source of sustenance at the right hand of God.

How do you get the word inside of you? Through taking in the bread and the wine. The word and sacrament belong together. Weekly preaching without the Supper should seem as inconceivable to us as a weekly celebration of the Supper with monthly preaching.

Although not as bad, the reverse is also deeply defective. Throughout the scriptures, the Lord often confirms his great works to his people with signs. God demonstrated his love for Noah with a rainbow. God established the Passover upon the exodus of Israel. Following his ten words on Mt. Sinai, God gave his people the entire temple system to train them in his word. Sacrifice too, was a type of sacrament a sacrament, which happened in the temple daily. Sacrifice was a sign to the people of God, of God’s favor. It is not surprising to find the same pattern of word and sign in the New Testament. The scriptural pattern is the declaration of God’s covenant, followed by confirmation with signs. God calls us to repentance. God teaches. And God confirms that teaching through a sign. There is a wholeness in confirming the word with the sign.

We are creatures with bodies. God speaks to us and assures us of the truth of his word to us through the rituals of baptism and communion. Baptism is once, just as Christ’s death covers sin once and for all. We only need one sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Communion is the continual feeding upon the spiritual sustenance of Christ. Just as we need daily bread to live, so we need spiritual food and drink for our spiritual life. Because our hearts so easily stray, we need the confirmation of that spiritual reality often.

The bread in the Lord’s Supper is significant. We are many grains crushed and beaten and then baked into the one loaf of Jesus Christ. We can gather this from a passage like 1 Corinthians 10:14-16. The sword of the word is the instrument God uses to make this harvest, and the Lord’s Supper confirms our unity with Christ and with one another.

The wine confirms that our sins are forgiven. This is the cup of the new covenant, wherein God declares his favor through Jesus Christ’s work. The cup connects to the cup of judgment. Since kings judge, it is a kingly cup. In the wine, God declares that we are righteous, and by letting us drink the wine, he declares that we participate in his rule. This is why Paul can say that “saints will judge angels.”

We can also think of the words from Revelation 20: 4; God gives his saints judgment. The word is purposefully ambiguous in the Greek, suggesting that in receiving the judgment of favor from God, they also receive the right to judge with Christ. Even if you disagree with the particular interpretation of that verse, we can see in Scripture that the saints are judged favorably and being judged favorably they will judge with Christ (2 Timothy 2: 11-13). The wine is a foretaste of that reality. It confirms the promise of forgiveness of sins that we have heard. Further, we may now use that word to call the world to hear Christ’s judgment.

Hebrews 4 provides another supporting image. The word pierces, and the word divides. We might think of the high priest killing and dividing the sacrificial animal. Here we are the sacrifice, the living sacrifice that is being offered through the word to God. This is followed by the feast in which we are restored to the communion Adam had with God. However, we do that today in a fuller sense: for the Spirit of God is transforming us into the image of new Adam. The Spirit is making us into emblems of Jesus Christ to the world around us. We see in these word pictures that Scripture declares a deep connection between the word and the Lord’s Supper.

They are separate means of grace. The western church has always had a liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the sacrament. The preaching does not do what communion does. Communion does not do what preaching does, even though their purposes overlap. They do not provide exactly the same thing; that is why we need both. God gives both to strengthen us in Christ. What the one declares, the other confirms.

We might make one more analogy; that of the head and the heart. The word speaks to the head, specifically to the ears. We are to hear the word and comprehend it through our minds. But it can’t just go in one ear and out the other. Through our minds, it reaches our hearts. The sacrament confirms the Holy Word to our hearts. The Lord’s Supper helps me to understand how the factual and historical death and resurrection of Christ are working themselves out in the spiritual death and resurrection, the regeneration that is going on in my heart right now.

Why does it work this way? It is because the sacrament works upon my body. God knows that I am a being with a body. That is why he gives sacraments and why the sacraments are so appropriate and so needed. We can think of Article 33 of the Belgic Confession: God gives sacrament for the sake of my insensitivity and weakness. I need the sacraments because I am a created being. So the center of my being, the heart, is strengthened in assurance toward God.

For some reason, in the west, we have a lot of talk about the head and the heart the pits the two against one another. But if we confirm the words directed to the head within the heart through the Lord’s Supper, we break through that false dichotomy.

Let us not separate what God has brought together.