Respondeo

Reflections on order

Respondeo

Devotional Insights #2

Job 38:2:  “The Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:  Who is this that darkens my counsel by words without knowledge?  Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.”

The Lord comes suddenly in the book of Job.  He comes from a whirlwind, a whirlwind we did not know about earlier.  God appears out of nowhere. 

God is answering Job’s prayer.  Again and again, Job has called upon God to come before him and even to hear his case.  Job is righteous. From the story of Abraham, we know that the servants of God are ultimately righteous through faith.  So it is not through good works that Job is right before God, but through a belief that has worked itself out in faithful obedience in his life.   We know he is upright because earlier in the text, the author tells us that he is righteous.  Job’s life pleases God.  Job knows that he does not deserve what he has received.    God strikes him, but he has not sinned. Job cries out for the justice of God. God now shows his love through addressing Job. 

Contrast the meeting between God and the suffering Job and the almighty God with a book like “The Shack.”  In that book, the protagonist, who is also in deep suffering, meets with a Trinitarian God, who predominantly demonstrates empathy. Here God’s first concern is for justice; justice for Job and justice for God’s name. Job 38 does not picture a therapy session, but a courtroom, “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.” When God comes to us, he reveals to us that he is a consuming fire. That is why God must appear to Job in a whirlwind.  The whirlwind helps keep Job from the full effect of God’s awe-full glory.

As Elihu has demonstrated earlier, Job has not rightly honored God’s name.  Job’s state is very understandable, but if we are to be challenged by this text, we must recognize that even this righteous man, who was the worst of victims, failed in honoring his creator. 

Yet we should also note the honor God shows Job here.  He, the mighty God, the one who scattered the stars throughout the heavens, has chosen to respond to the charges that Job has brought against him.  God, who is so far beyond us, has made his presence known.  The transcendent God has become immanent for the sake of his beloved servant. 

His charge is direct, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?”  Job has defended his righteousness, but he has not confessed the righteousness of God.  God’s defense is simple.  You do not understand me, and you cannot claim to discern my ways.  Like Elihu, who spoke for God, God draws Job’s attention throughout this passage to his work in creation, which is beyond Job’s mind, and much which is beyond our understanding today as well.

God is our Creator.  We are not only comforted by his love, but also by his power.  He is the God who destroys the enemies of his people.  He hates the sin that remains within us, and he hates the lies and philosophies of this world that deceive so many. Further, that so often have purchase in our minds and hearts as well.  He is the God who continues to come and shake the earth with his almighty power.

How can we face a God like that?  Job wonders about that earlier in the book. Job 9:33, “There is no arbiter between us, someone to lay a hand on us both.” Job knows that God is almighty and holy.  He is afraid, yet his desire to be declared innocent is overwhelming, so he cries out that God may come and judge him.  In Job 38, we see the grace of God in answering Job’s charge. 

We have more than Job.  We may approach God in Jesus Christ, and we can face the consuming fire of God in the flesh of Jesus Christ. Hebrews tells us, “his flesh is the veil” between God and us.  We do so with the same fear as Job, but we may do so with the highest confidence because we do have a mediator.  Jesus Christ is the answer to why God is willing to dispute with Job over God’s righteous acts. 

Devotional insights #1

(To encourage and instruct, I thought I would take the time to write down insights gained during my devotions.  I hope this can benefit you in your day to day life.)

Job 37: 14-24: “Hear this, o Job!  Stop and consider the wondrous works of God.”

It’s hard to know how to understand the character of Elihu in the book of Job.  However, I argue that we can reasonably say that he speaks for God.  He rightly desires to justify God, and he does not talk with the simplistic theology of Job’s friends.  Finally, when God himself comes and speaks to Job, he uses similar arguments.  “Consider who I am, Job!”

Elihu points out the power of God, how God is far beyond our thoughts and imaginations.  He wants to demonstrate to Job that God’s ways are far beyond the wisdom of man.  Job does not acknowledge this, particularly in his final summary defence.  Elihu’s primary concern with Job is that Job does not take the time to justify God’s actions.  Job has gone on at length, defending his righteousness. He has gone on at length, asking the question, “why?”  In themselves, this is not necessarily wrong, but Job fails to defend the goodness of God and the justice of God in his life. 

Job is a righteous man.  He does not deserve what is happening to him.  Job rightly asks, “Why is God doing this to me?”  How can God treat a righteous servant in this way?  But in asking that question, Job must recognize that the ways of God are far beyond him.  We can compare Job’s words to the words of the Psalms, where the Psalmist does ask why and speaks of his great misery, but, at the same time, recognizes the character of God is beyond human understanding. 

We can point to Psalm 13, where David wonders at how God forgets him.  David is in deep distress, and he wonders how God will get him out of that.  But at the same time, David recognizes that God is a God of steadfast love.  God has not stopped being God at this moment. 

Job’s friends made the mistake of thinking that they could understand the ways of God.  They could understand how God works.  If God strikes Job, he must have sinned against God.  Unfortunately, Job makes a similar mistake.  He argues for his case, he justifies himself, but he does not seek to justify God to his friends. 

We certainly may bring our weaknesses to God.  We may wonder what he is doing in our lives.  Christians experience deep suffering, and it’s not always clear why.  In doing that, we must all remember who God is.  In our situation today, with self-isolation, Covid-19, and a sick economy, we are anxious. We are rightly troubled.  We wonder what God is doing.  What happens to our plans now?  But we must remember God is good God is loving, and God is powerful.  We can never grasp the fullness of God.  He is utterly transcendent. 

To demonstrate this, Elihu appeals to the wonders of God’s creation. We don’t know why lightning is bright.  God created that within his perfect order.  We can’t find a better way to balance the clouds that the way God has done it.  We cannot spread the skies.  God did that when he created the world.  If God’s work in nature is far beyond our ability and our understanding, so is God’s work in our lives.  Perhaps we begin to understand the ways of God, but even in that, we know there is always more to learn, a greater maturity to achieve. 

Elihu points to the works of God in creation as proof of the supreme wisdom and power of God.  And if God keeps in mind the good of his creation.  The doctrine of God’s providence comes out here.  God is both all-powerful and completely good.  Those who trust in him believe that he always has a purpose in what he does.   He will also keep those who love him in his mind as well—even, and especially, in our most profound suffering. We trust in the Lord, the creator of heaven and earth. 

Keeping it Simple – A Simple Order

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.

Keeping it Simple – an addendum

In the recent article I wrote on worship, I identified three simple elements that we find in the worship of any church which claims Christ as Lord.  These elements may take many different forms, and though these forms are not entirely indifferent, the question of form is not as important as the fact that these three elements shine through. 

However, I missed one element in discussing the passage.  At the very least, the passage implies this fourth element.  That element is “the collection” or a formal act of giving.  Acts 2:42 lists four different things that the early church devoted itself too.  I connected the Apostles’ teaching to teaching or preaching, I connected the breaking of bread to the Lord’s Supper, and I connected the Prayers to Psalms and perhaps a collection of traditional prayers among the Jews.  The passage also mentions the fellowship.  I took that very generally… as kind of a pre-condition for all the other elements.  If the members were to come together, they also took in an interest and enjoyment in one another.  I did not attach it to a component in the service.  I believe I was wrong because the other elements listed imply that this is a fourth. . 

As I have said, this element is “the collection” or making provision for the poor.  Of course the word “fellowship” denotes a lot more than just the collection, but it is in the formal moment of collecting in the assembly that we express our devotion to the fellowship.  Giving then is another essential part of the act of worship.  

It is easy to forget the significance of the collection as an expression of fellowship, especially in the affluent Western World.  I offer myself as an example here, having missed this element in this crucial passage here.  Too often the church has warped the act of giving,  as churches misuse the money that is entrusted to them for the sake of their own gain. In some ways, it is the misdirection of the collection away from the needy that makes God really angry in scripture. 

Worship Wars: Keeping it Simple

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

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.

A Church Plant Among the Mennonites

Introduction

About a year and a half ago, Redeemer Canadian Reformed Church called a missionary to Niverville, Manitoba.  Niverville is in South-Eastern Manitoba, about a half hour south of Winnipeg.  It is a Mennonite community, although that demographic is quickly changing.   The leadership in Redeemer grew interested in planting a church in this area because of some contacts it had with individuals and families in the South-East of Manitoba.  Originally they planned to send their man to Steinbach.  However, a homegrown Reformed Baptist church had started there. They did not want to start competing with that local church.  Therefore, they did some more research and settled on the town of Niverville.

Here, I want to tell the story of how I came to take that call, what has happened since we have settled in Niverville, and offer some reflections on the nature of our ministry in Niverville.

The story of Niverville

The Canadian Pacific Railway company named Niverville after an 18th-century explorer and fur trader. Originally, some English and Scottish settlers settled in the area, but Lord Hespeler ultimately included it into the land given to the first group of Mennonite settlers to Manitoba.  A small United Church in town represents something of the contribution of the English and Scottish settlers to the life of the town. The majority of the town is Mennonite. The other six churches in town represent the Mennonite population, even though three of the six churches are not Mennonite by name. 

The town is still largely a Christian town.  When you enter the town, you are welcomed by a sign that says “The churches of Niverville welcome you.”  The mayor of the town attends one of the churches in town.  This state is quickly changing.  The town has doubled in size over the last number of years and most of the newcomers are not Mennonite.  If they go to church, they often go to church in Winnipeg. The churches in town do not grow but slowly shrink.  Besides that, liberalism grows in the hearts of the churches.  They begin to deny the truths of Genesis 1 and the God-given order of sexuality and gender. The Christianity of Niverville is weakening.

As I have already mentioned, the Christianity of Niverville is Mennonite. The older Mennonites in town carry a lot of their father’s biases for free will, pacifism, and otherworldliness, but the younger generation grows more and more indistinguishable from the member of our local first Baptist, Peoples, or even Pentecostal church.  They share in the generic evangelical culture of modern Christianity. Occasionally, there is still a vague belief in some of the older Mennonite distinctives. Even the older generation drank deeply of the evangelical milieu of the mid-twentieth century.  One example of this is that many Mennonites rejected all consumption of alcohol, which is not a historical Mennonite position. Like the other Mennonite distinctives, that teetotalling attitude is also disappearing.  Unfortunately, the younger Mennonites have also left behind their parents’ knowledge of Scripture and church attendance.

The story of Zekvelds in Niverville

We first came to Niverville in the summer of 2017.  I had just finished seminary that spring.  We came at the request of the Redeemer church and their calling committee.  What we saw was a unique opportunity.  We had an opportunity not only to plant a church and provide a light to the lost, but we had an opportunity to reach out to fellow churches and strengthen the church as a whole; to live out the vision that Paul calls the church to, “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”  We wanted to engage fellow churches in conversations about Scripture and doctrine and, hopefully, share some the strengths of the Reformed’s catholic tradition. It was also an opportunity to grow in reformed catholicity ourselves.  When we received the call, we joyfully accepted a couple of weeks later.

After my ordination exam, we came out to Niverville in October.  We quickly settled in the southeast corner of the town.  From there we began to get to know the town.  We were able to connect with people at various events in town and in the southeast of Manitoba.  I was able to connect to the Ministerial in town.  I was able to start a games night in a local coffee shop.  Throughout the last year, I have been able to connect to local pastors and other local leaders, both being encouraged by them and hopefully encouraging them as well.

We have put on a couple of events for the town.  We offer a conversations evening, where locals can come and freely ask whatever questions come to mind about Scripture.  Unfortunately, this evening has not borne a lot of fruit yet. We also invited a member of Creation Ministries International to give a presentation.   One of our most successful events, which you may have heard of, was a discussion between myself and a local Reformed Baptist pastor from Steinbach.  We spoke on the question, “does God want us to baptize children of believers as well as their parents?” This is the type of discussion is something I hope to do more of in the coming years. We’ve also started up a yearly Christmas concert and yearly caroling as well.

Providentially, God had already been working in the southeast through his servants there.  Through a family south of us we were able to meet a young single mother, who was looking for help and community.  This is a friendship that has grown over the last year.  She continues to grow in the gospel, especially through our bi-weekly Bible study on the Catechism. We were also able to meet a young Iranian man, who had attended a Bible College, which is to the south of Niverville.  He had befriended a young man from the Canadian Reformed Churches and through that friendship God connected him with our ministry.  This young Iranian man has only recently been baptized and has joined Ambassador Church.

As we began our ministry, we sought further understanding of both our community and of church planting.  During the winter of 2018, my wife and I both attended the University of Winnipeg to study a variety of Mennonites around the globe and their relation to the earth.  Our professor was very knowledgeable about the history of Mennonites around the world.  We were happy to take the class.  We also had the opportunity to learn from URCNA Pastor, Rev. Spencer Aalsburg from Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  We visited him for a week in February.  It was a wonderful experience.  Rev. Aalsburg had a lot of wisdom from his years of experience. 

With spring came the work of finalizing who would be part of our core group and selecting a place and a time to worship.  For a month we worshipped at a gym.  The Lord, however soon granted us another place to worship, a church that was empty.  By his grace, the Lord also raised the question of purchasing the church to the Redeemer Congregation and the Redeemer Consistory this past October.  We are grateful to the Lord that he has now given Ambassador a permanent home in the Niverville community.

If you come and visit Ambassador, you’ll notice some differences from many Canadian Reformed Churches, although nothing is outside of the Canadian Reformed experience.  We have more response in our services; particularly, we respond to God’s law with a prayer of confession.  We do this, first because we believe it is a deeply scriptural practice, but also to demonstrate to visitors what confession of sin is. And also as a practical presentation of the doctrine of justification.  After the morning service, we eat lunch together, living the communion that God calls his saints to live out. 

We also do our afternoons a bit differently.  Already before I had come, the consistory of Redeemer and the Mission Committee had decided that Ambassador’s afternoon service would look more like a study.  I have to admit that although I saw the logic in their decision, I was personally hesitant about the afternoon. I am happy to say that I am no longer so.  The opportunity to make the study of the catechism into a study has greatly blessed all of us in Ambassador.  We still have the warnings and exhortations to faith and good works in the morning, and that is supplemented by digging a bit deeper into the historic doctrines of the church in the afternoon. I don’t think of all this as merely being missional. Rather, I see our practice as maturity in existing as a church. As we grow in being a church, we will be more missional.

Some first-year thoughts on my role in Niverville

Having been here in Niverville for a year now has given me the opportunity to put some thought into my particular situation.  The Niverville project is unique.  I am church planting in a town where a lot of people still go to church. This is a churched area. A lot of this Christianity is not very deep.  Some vague Christian mysticism seems to be the predominant expression of Christian piety in the town of Niverville. But it is recognizable as Christianity.  I am sure that there are still faithful Christians, and faithful churches as well, in our town.  They struggle with whatever version they have of Jezebel and the Nicolaitans of Revelation 2.  They struggle to retain worship infused by scripture.  Their angels must be encouraged in obedience to the gospel.

My role then is variegated.  First of all, I do have a role in reaching out as the church going population diminishes.  But I also have a role in relation to the other churches in town.  There are threatening clouds on the horizon for the churches in North America both within and outside the church.  The church needs to be strengthened in her knowledge of the salvation of  God and needs to be encouraged to stand strong even on those things that don’t seem all that central to the faith: things like women in office and the interpretation of Genesis one.  We need to encourage our brothers and sisters in other churches to stand firm in the scriptures.  And we need them as well. I only need to look to 1 Corinthians 12 to prove that. 

I should add, that I truly desire that all would hold to the doctrines we consider so central to the understanding of Scripture, justification by faith alone, the inclusion of infants in the covenant of grace, and the sovereignty of God in all of life.  These find their clearest expression in Reformed teaching.  These are the truths that give the Reformed church its backbone, and I would desire that all churches would participate in this backbone. 

This means that I do not fit into our generic understanding of a missionary.  We tend to think of a missionary as one who goes to those who have never heard. Our vision of a missionary is one who comes into a jungle town and announces the gospel to those who have never heard of the term Jew or Gentile, Israel or David, Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or Trinity.  I do meet those who have strayed and those who have very little knowledge. In Niverville, even those who do not confess Christ, generally have some knowledge of the church. Most of my interactions are with those who confess Christ.  All this means that I work with a somewhat expanded definition of a missionary. 

As I have settled myself into this community, I see my role as having three functions. For one I am a missionary because I am seeking to find ways to reach out to those who have never heard or those who have left the church.  I seek to build a relationship with my neighbors for example, who are lapsed Christians.  I hope that through the games night we have started in our town we might find a way to find others who are lost and need a savior.

I also function as a pastor.  The consistory of Redeemer in Winnipeg decided that they would support the church plant in Niverville by encouraging a number of its members to join the fledgling church.  We started with seven families meant to function as a core group, who would provide a welcoming atmosphere for those who were interested in joining Ambassador.  Among these families, I function as a pastor.  As the man who is called to bring them the word every week, I am also called to encourage and exhort them in remaining faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ.  This pastoral work is an organic working out of my weekly presence in Ambassador.  

Finally, I function as an ecumenicist or you might say an ecumenical missionary. This last function is probably the most significant part of my ministry in light of the Lord’s leading right now.  I seek to understand the varieties of traditions and beliefs that are in the town of Niverville and particularly in the Mennonite and Evangelical Community.  I seek to distinguish to those who still hold to the Articles of the Christian Faith and who seek to obey their Lord and those who have moved beyond that to other things.  I approach my brothers and sisters with an open Bible, seeking to both understand how they understand things and seeking to challenge that framework.

At the same time, I retain an attitude of openness.  Perhaps we have missed something.  Perhaps they have reached some understanding that the Spirit working in the community of Christ has not fully illuminated yet.  I know that I can grow in seeking to clarify and communicate the dogma of historic and catholic Christianity. Ultimately, I seek to retain an attitude of humility toward the Word of God, the final conscience-binder in all my interactions with fellow Christians. 

I don’t pretend that I will excel at every one of these functions.  It is even truer that I cannot divide my energies equally between these three functions.  I have to divert my energy in those places that the Lord leads.  “Man makes a plan, but God directs his way.”  I trust that God will give me the strength to do as he sees fit. Neither do I claim to have the understanding of how to function in our contemporary world.  Rather, I seek to use the wisdom that God has given me to apply what has been handed down in the Reformed Catholic tradition of the church under the foundational and final authority found in the word of God.

Some first-year thoughts on the role of a Reformed church in Niverville

Of course, I am not the only Reformed witness to the gospel in the Niverville.  Ambassador Church also plays a role in bearing witness to the authority of Scripture and the Reformed Catholic tradition.  Ambassador is not just another flavor of church.  Neither is Ambassador a type of non-denominational church, representing a faint parody of Reformed catholicity.  We bind ourselves to the Canadian Reformed churches to preserve our catholicity; to preserve ourselves from sectarian doctrine. Rather, Ambassador represents a challenge to the contemporary believer. Ambassador offers a different way to move toward unity in Christ.   We provide a way of catholic unity based in the ecumenical creeds and confessions of the church and grounded in active submission to the living Word of God.  It is only through digging deep into Scripture and digging deep into the history of the church, the breadth and the depth of the teaching of the universal church that we will find a way to abolish the walls of division that we raise between one another in the modern world.

I believe that the way the Reformed can truly represent themselves as distinctive is by pursuing the way of Reformed Catholicity. That means we both affirm an individual’s confession of the evangelical center of Christianity, Christ’s death and resurrection and the Trinity. We also seek to dig deep into Scripture so that we know the truth and obey every breath that comes from the mouth of God.

Other traditions fail in this catholicity.  Baptists want to keep children from membership in the church. Among the Baptists, there are those who reject the formal membership of any who have been baptized as an infant. Pentecostals want to form a group of elite members who have the second blessing of the Spirit.  Catholics have their own have special status as members of the church because they submit to the Pope.  If you don’t like Vatican II you might say there is no salvation outside of submission to the Pope; at least that is what Unam Sanctum seems to say. If you like Vatican II, Protestants are separated brethren, saved by association with the sacramental work of the Catholic priesthood. Unless these denominations rid themselves of these sectarian doctrines, ecumenical efforts will fail or dissolve into the vapid expressions of unity we see among churches today.

What stands out about the Reformed church is its catholicity, that is, its desire to hold to the great tradition of the Christian church, its absolute humility before the Word of God, and, finally, its affirmation of justification and therefore the high value of all who truly confess Christ as Lord.  It can sustain deep discussion of theology and polity and is at the same time able to affirm the simple faith of all those who hold to the gospel.   We accept the mature and the immature as equal before God.  Male, female, Jew and Gentile are all freely accepted by God through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no elite group of the faithful whether they identify as the circumcised or those of the second blessing.  The gift of salvation belongs to the theologian as much as it belongs to the infant.  More often than not God chooses the praise of the infant to establish strength rather than the high thoughts of the theologian.  This is the catholic way of the Reformed church.  This makes the Reformed church the best place for any person who desires to learn Christ.

We desire that Ambassador be a living demonstration of such catholicity.   And as such, we hope that we will truly be a witness in our community as well, both as an encouragement to our brothers and sisters in other churches and as a light to those who do not yet know Jesus. I am sure we fail in many ways to live out the vision I have described.  Few churches do. Like our Father Jacob, we walk with a limp.  What I do know is that this is the church that Christ has washed, sanctified and justified.  It is the church that he wishes to present as a spotless bride to his father in heaven.

Grotius and Natural Law

It was interesting to find this quote in Ruben Alvarado’s book, “The Debate that changed the West: Grotius vs. Althusius.” I found it very telling. When men like Cornelius Van Til inveighed against natural law, it was this interpretation of natural law that they fought against. I find this reason enough to give Van Tillians some charity when they fight against the new natural law.

“Another fundamental change takes place in Grotius’ definition of natural law. Recall that in the De Jure Praedae Grotius equated the natural law simply with the will of God. In the De Jure Belli et Pacis, however, he makes the natural law totally independent of God’s will; in fact, God’s will becomes a subset of law, which cannot contradict he natural law. He specifically states that his ideas about natural justice and law would not be different even if God did not exist, which he however hurriedly affirms is an idea which involves the gravest sin in entertaining. Now this expression, one of the most famous in the whole work, is not new to him but was often repeated by natural law philosophers and theologians to emphasize the immutability of natural law. However, because Grotius infuses the natural law with an entirely different content, this kind of affirmation makes his teaching revolutionary: natural law becomes totally divorced from the will of God.

Instead, God’s will is another only secondary source of law, distinct from the natural law. Grotius adds some further qualifications concerning the relation of the will fo god to natural law. Reason teaches us to obey it unconditionally; the natural law can be considered the creation of god in the sense that God willed that it be planted in our hearts; in divine law God makes the properties of natural law better visible and more easily executable. Biblical history also confirms the doctrine of the inborn desire for community, by showing that we all spring form the same forefathers, and that parents are to be upheld with special honor and given special (non-absolute) obedience.”

Among the reformed there has been a resurgence of support for natural law theory. This is good. I believe it provides another pillar to strengthen our overall understanding of the world around us. It also provides a useful polemic against those who seek to champion a twisting and warping of nature through homosexuality and other perversities. But I have some qualifications to my support. What I don’t see is the careful work developing a theological language around that tradition that guards us against past failures of the natural law tradition.

Natural Law is a wide-ranging phrase that suggests all sorts of traditions and meanings. It can be a bit of a wax nose in the hands of a theologian who wants to defend his beliefs according to natural law. It’s easy to point out the historical failings of the Van Tillian tradition. He read a form of Grotius’ natural law into the natural law tradition of the reformed. He rejected natural law as Grotius’ natural law. Let’s clarify what he was fighting against. Van Til made errors in his reading of history, but he was no fool. Let us carefully distinguish Christian natural law from other forms of natural law. That likely means that we can’t take the natural law structures of the 16th-century reformers verbatim. We have work to do.

The Supper and Sharing the Righteousness of Christ

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”

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

On the 400th 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 16th and 17th 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.

Page 5 of 13

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén