Respondeo

A Church Plant Among the Mennonites

On May 31, 2019

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 18^th-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

By James

On May 13, 2019

In Reformed Theology

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

By James

On May 2, 2019

In Church, sacraments

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

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

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

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

Review of “Grace Worth Fighting For”

By James

On April 22, 2019

In Church, Reformed Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male and Female

By James

On March 7, 2019

In Uncategorized

From “Man and Woman in Christ” by Stephen B. Clark, (97, 98).

Reading “Man and Woman in Christ” has been an illuminating experience. He has a wonderful way of explaining Biblical teaching.

“The New Testament pattern of men’s and women’s roles is not primarily a matter of activities but of relationships. Women in the early Christian family would be more likely to cook the food while the men would be more likely to grow it, but their roles in this and other matters are not defined as much by the activities which end up being the province of one or the other as by the way they relate to one another. The husband does the farm work because he is the provider for his wife and children. The wife does the cooking because she serves the immediate needs of the family. For the most part, men and women perform certain activities because these activities express a fundamentally different social role, not because certain activities are intrinsically the man’s or the woman’s. For example, the wife in a hunting society might do the farming as a household task, and yet she and her husband might still fulfill the same fundamental roles in the family as would their counterparts in an agricultural society.”

“The roles of man and woman are interdependent. The man’s role depends on the woman’s role being performed and vice versa. For instance, the husband’s role is not designed so that he can live with no help from a woman. If his wife dies or is absent and there is no daughter or sister to take her place, he must perform many of his wife’s functions. The same applies to the woman if her husband is absent or dies. An analogy between head and heart can be helpful here. The head (or brain) is the center or director of the nervous system. The heart is the center or director of the circulatory system. Both are essential to the health of the body as a whole. They perform corresponding or complementary functions. The heart is subordinate to the head in its functioning, but it is not therefore less essential to the body (the head included). Likewise, the wife in the household is the “heart,” the “inside center” of the family. She directs a set of family activities essential to the functioning of the family. The husband is the “head.” He both directs a set of family functions and is over the wife’s activities, but he cannot “keep the body alive” without her.”

“The roles of husband and wife comprise a partnership, but a partnership of a particular kind. They are complementary partners, not comrades who work together on identical tasks. Each has a separate sphere of responsibility that complements the other’s. This point is especially relevant for contemporary Christian efforts to strengthen the family by strengthening the partnership between husband and wife, but in a way that obliterates the complementarity of husband and wife. These attempts often focus on “companionship.” They aim to get the husband and wife to do as much as possible together. Their goal is not to strengthen each partner in his own role and to strengthen the union of the two. To be sure, modern husbands and wives often fail to spend the time together that they should in order to have a real union. Some of these contemporary Christian attempts are designed to correct this situation so they can actually be in unity. However, many of these efforts to strengthen family life destroy the strength of family roles and thus advocate an approach to family life that differs greatly from New Testament teaching. The New Testament approach attempts to create “one person,” a husband and wife united, but with a division of labor that allows each to extend the ability of the other to function. The husband and wife become engaged in a relationship of reciprocal service and interdependence without competition. They are, in short, complementary in role.”

Head Coverings and Culture

By James

On March 7, 2019

In Uncategorized

From “Man and Woman in Christ” by Stephen B. Clark. Page 172.

I found Clark’s comments on the head-coverings from 1 Corinthians 11 illuminating. He isn’t arguing for head-coverings. Rather, his comments are helpful in discerning what cultural expressions are good to hold onto and which are not. His comments also underline the importance of cultural expression.

“The use of head covering in worship services was a cultural expression, an expression that has meaning to people within the context of their culture. In this case, the meaning of head coverings lies in its ability to express a particular social structure in the roles of men and women. The first five chapters of this book examined how the early Christian community and Israelite society structured these roles. But societies express their social structure in customs which are not intrinsically necessary to the social structure. A woman could wear a sari as a symbol of her position as well as a head covering. On the other hand, every society recognizes that some clear expression fos social structure are important. Most peoples place such a high value on such social symbols (dress, “manners,” rituals of respect, etc.) that they do not distinguish between the cultural expression and the underlying social structure. For example, among many peoples, children would never address their parents or any older person by the parents’ first names. Such informality would be viewed as highly disrespectful and possibly as serious an offense as overt disobedience.

Western society is increasingly losing an appreciative sensitivity to cultural expressions such as these. To be sure, not all cultural expressions are automatically good. In fact, the New Testament views some as expressions of sin. For instance, the New Testament looks unfavorably on such expressions when they express distinctions among Christians based on social class or wealth (see Jas 2:1-7). On the other hand, the early Christians encouraged such expressions when they expressed differences of age and sex. Younger people honored older people and the community paid honor to men because they were men and women because they were women. Something is undoubtedly lost when people lose the capacity to value and understand such cultural expressions. When Pual linked head coverings to the basic order of the Christian community, he was manifesting a concern that many human societies will instinctively share, but one which modern Western society does not find readily comprehensible.”

Paul and Sexual Immorality

By James

On January 5, 2019

In Holiness

Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us this in the context of a warning against sexual immorality. As Christians, the Spirit joins us to Christ, body and soul, as the Catechism so often tells us. That means Christ cares for and protects both body and soul. What we do with our body in this life is just as important as what is done for our soul. Though distinct our soul and our body are not truly separate from each other. What we do with our body affects our soul. I want to tease out a number of implications here of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. I am a bit all over the place, but I hope it is helpful.

Holiness and sexual immorality have a lot to do with each other. It is interesting where murder, and stealing and lying are dealt with in the five books of Moses vs. sexual immorality. It is the book of Leviticus that deal with sexual immorality, especially chapter 18, the book that emphasizes the holiness of God. Sexual activity is tied to uncleanness. Reproduction is tied to uncleanness. Certain sexual practices are abominations. They defile the land of Israel. Now uncleanness is not the same as sin, but certain sins create uncleanness in a different way than others. This is highly suggestive. Our bodies are to reflect the holiness of God.
This is all the more true, when our bodies become home to the Spirit of God. We corrupt our relationship with God when we become one with a prostitute because we cannot be one with both God and a prostitute.
Eating and sexual immorality have a lot to do with one another. It is interesting that the Westminster Catechism connects, drunkenness, idleness, and gluttony with sins against the 7th commandment. Both the desire for sex and food stem from the lower parts of our bodies. This means that the warnings over drug use using “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” are not entirely unjustified. You are connected to Christ and your body is to be used to his glory.
Paul has a really interesting line in 1 Corinthians 6: 18, “Flee sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” Sexual immorality is a sin against God. It is a sin against others, but first and foremost you are sinning against your own body. In committing this sin, you are corrupting your own body. For fallen man this continues to be true. He hurts himself when he participates in sexual immorality. For the Christian this is even worse for he sins against the dwelling place of the Spirit of God. Rather than be one flesh with the prostitute you are to be one spirit with the Lord.
This is not just because God does not want you to have fun. The fact that God wants your body to be holy, is suggestive for the future of your body. God has a specific purpose for your body as well as your soul. God knows your body better than you do and God wants what is best for it. As we’ve already noted sexual immorality is a sin against the body. It corrupts and destroys the body. When you participate in sexual immorality you might not immediately know why and if everybody participates in sexual immorality it is even harder to know how that works. We need to depend on God’s word about our bodies.
One thing to note is the nobility of chastity. Chastity, even if the world does not honor it, is honorable and glorious before God. We can think of Revelation 14 where God pictures faithfulness to him as virginity. When we think about this it becomes clear, for chastity both in and outside of marriage reflects the holiness and the faithfulness of God.
None of this undermines the goodness of marriage and sex. Chastity is both in and outside of marriage. Marriage reflects God’s holiness and faithfulness just as much as singleness does. It is true that a person’s body belongs to their spouse in marriage, but this does not take away from the fact that they may truly be one with the Lord. Ultimately, marriage is not a sin against the body, while fornication and other forms of sexual immorality are. This is because marriage fulfills the exclusive connection with another being that our bodies need.

I think the most important thing to remember here is that we want to reflect the holiness of God in recognizing holy boundaries. The Heidelburg Catechism refers to Marriage as holy marriage and this reflects the truth that it is the true boundary for intimacy. It reflects the exclusivity of marriage. We need to be faithful within out individual holy boundaries whether that is boundary of singleness or marriage.

Deep Literalism

By James

On December 11, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, typology

I was not excited when I opened up the video of Dr. Iain Provan’s recent lecture defending a Protestant hermeneutic of the letter. I expected another speech the privileged grammatical-historical exegesis and only allowed for an anemic use of typology. Nevertheless, I wanted to give it a listen in the hope that I might grow in my understanding of hermeneutics. I was not disappointed.

Dr. Provan’s Challenge

The first hints that Dr. Provan was not defending the literal readings of the academy was when he came to a discussion of typology. He said quite simply, “typology is literal reading.” He explained the classic distinction between typology and allegory. Allegory brought in outside reading and outside philosophy. Allegory lost the original text and left you with a spiritual reading that had little to do with the original meaning of the text. But his definition of typology was quite broad. Typology described all the various inter-connections in the text, including inter-connections between the various books of the two testaments. With this in mind, he noted that Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4 was a fully literal reading of scripture. Dr. Provan’s sensus literalis was fully literary and recognized the unity of scripture.

The end of his speech carried even more promise. He argued that we needed to go beyond the reformers in our literary interaction with scripture.

The latter point was filled out by his dialogue with Alastair Roberts. Alastair asked him whether the Reformers had not become overly suspicious of typological readings because of the allegorical readings that had come before. He also noted the way academia had moved toward an increasingly anemic reading of scripture, that separated the parts from the whole and he wondered how Dr. Provan responded to that. To my delight Dr. Provan, while defending the usefulness of academia, was fully on board with Alastair’s comments. He agreed that the reformers lacked in working out the typologies of scripture. He also agreed that though academia had been helpful in understanding the literal nature of scripture, it had done the church and itself a disservice in its suspicion of typologies.

A False Dichotomy

The speech gave me both correction and encouragement. I had looked at the way the apostles interpreted scripture. I knew that they were doing more in interpreting the Old Testament than merely looking at the grammatical-historical understanding. They were looking deeper. They looked at the literary structure of the Old Testament and in bringing that out they saw that Christ truly was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. I saw the necessity of doing more with typology than the minimalism allowed in academia today.

However, during my time at seminary, I was working within a false framework. Either I held to a pure literal understanding of the scripture or in following the apostles I was also free to develop a sensus plenior of the scriptures. I was allowing allegory into my framework in order to preserve apostolic reading. It was a false dichotomy.

I am grateful that I always sought to ground what I imagined to be a sensus plenior in the literal sense of scripture. This helped me avoid fanciful exegesis. This is where Dr. Provan’s speech became so encouraging. Rather than hanging on the thin reed of spiritual exegesis, I could boldly hold to the fact that typological exegesis is literal exegesis. Dr. Provan even claimed what I have always held: if any reading of scripture is not based in the literal sense of scripture, it should be rejected. There was no need to defend a spiritual exegesis in order to read scripture like the apostles.

Moving Forward

I should have known better. Some of my deepest influences had always claimed the high ground here. James Jordan had always claimed the hermeneutic of Calvin. Peter Leithart had always claimed a “Hermeneutics of the Letter.” However, I was influenced more than I understood by my other hermeneutics textbooks. I should have completely ignored them and worked from the framework that Leithart and Jordan had given me.

As it turns out the problem at my seminary was not that they emphasized the literal sense too much, but that they did not emphasize it enough. They ignored the layers of typology in scripture.

This has not been completely ignored in the history of Protestantism. Although the reformers of the 16th and 17th century were nervous about typologies, theologians of the 18th and 19th centuries developed highly typological readings of scripture. Particularly, in my own tradition, that of the Dutch Reformed Churches. Unfortunately, it is somewhat forgotten in our own day.

All this suggests that theologians have a task before them. We must seek to imitate the Apostles in their reading of scripture so that we too pay attention to the types, the motifs, and the symbolism of scripture. So far we have been poor literalists. We must embrace deep literalism.

I respond that I may be changed

By James

On December 3, 2018

In eschatology, Witness, Worship

The title of this website is respondeo etsi mutabor, that is, I respond so that I may be changed. This is a basic philosophical outlook on life: we respond to our parents, to our teachers and so we are formed. Most importantly we respond to God in faith, hope, and love. He commands and we obey, directed ourselves toward his righteousness.

What about when we don’t know how to respond? What if all options for action are not options? According to Romans 8, we groan. We groan already because we long for the redemption of our bodies. However, we groan all the more when we lose the way forward. Further, the Spirit groans with us. Reason fails. We are like Hamlet stuck between action and inaction. So we groan before our God, seeking his wisdom.

Perhaps he changes the situation so that we may move forward in good conscience. Perhaps he gives new wisdom. Regardless he changes us. I groan so that I might be changed.

A short defense against one of the critics of “Deep Exegesis”

By James

On November 23, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics

Recently, an article came to my attention that seeks to challenge one of the arguments in my favorite book on hermeneutics “Deep Exegesis.” The author did a good job of taking Peter Leithart to task on some important hermeneutical points. However, I believe that he ignored Leithart’s context. First, he ignored the immediate context of what he was actually citing. Further, he did not demonstrate awareness of the perspective through which Leithart was writing. Ultimately, the author over-estimated the category mistakes that Leithart had supposedly made. In this way, his points did not actually land.

There are two primary points that Don Collett makes: Leithart does not make a distinction between historical events and cognitive acts. Further, Leithart loses the providence of God by arguing that historical acts become prophetic acts.

Cognitive Acts vs. Historical Acts

Collett’s first point is actually the poorer. In his book, Leithart argued that events change over time. An event happens such as a shooting. That evening the victim of the shooting dies and the event becomes an assassination. Collett argues that Leithart has not drawn a careful distinction between a cognitive event and a historical event. The historical event is what happened. The cognitive event is how it was conceived. The historical event cannot be changed, while the cognitive event can be changed. He argues that logically Leithart would have to hold that a shooting could become a healing if the victim of a shooting were healed.

However, Leithart does make a distinction. It is not Collet’s distinction. My guess is that Leithart would not hold to Collet’s distinction because historical events are inevitably cognitive. Leithart likely conceives of history as an art rather than a bare recitation of facts. Leithart makes a distinction between skeletal events and thick events (Deep Exegesis, 219, note 12).

There is something real about the skeletal event, One man pulled a trigger on a gun, a bullet came out, and entered another man’s body. The skeletal event is fixed. In fact, Leithart later tells us “texts are fixed” (Deep Exegesis, 44). Since his chapter is titled texts are events, we can easily see that Leithart conceives the “skeletal events” as fixed well. Events more regularly conceived of are not fixed. As soon as you call that “skeletal event” a shooting, it has become cognitive. You are interpreting the skeletal event and giving it meaning. The skeletal event itself does not have inherent meaning until it finds its place as an event in a story. Behind Leithart’s thought, there seems to be a distinction between fact and event. Facts are external. Events are inherently cognitive.

I would argue that Collet is better off arguing that his distinction is better than Leithart’s rather than arguing that Leithart is not careful in distinguishing things. There may, for example, be more clarity to Collet’s distinction.

A prophetic Old Testament?

Collett goes on to target Leithart’s understanding of the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. He argues that Leithart’s understanding that events are changed per se or ontologically by future events, undermines an understanding of the Old Testament as prophecy. Originally the Old Testament was not prophecy (at least the parts that are not explicitly prophetic) and later, in Christ, the works and words of the Old Testament characters became prophetic.

Here Collett makes a category mistake of his own. He doesn’t distinguish between the time-bound and the timeless. God, of course, ordered the events of the Old Testament so that they prophesied of Christ. God, who knows all things and decrees all things, caused them to be written in Holy Scripture as a witness to Christ.

In time things become. In a certain sense, my two-year-old self was a prophecy of my twenty-nine-year-old self. I also became my 29-year old self. This is because I experience becoming, whereas God has access to all parts of my life. He can see and ordain the order so that the pattern of my life makes logical sense. I can only see (or realistically my parents can only see) what was prophetic in my two-year-old self now that I am 29. Through time God taught his people to see his entire word as prophetic so that when Christ did come, they would see that it had already been foretold.

Collett does not recognize the perspective through which Leithart is working. He is not seeking to resolve the question of whether there is a spiritual sense in Old Testament scriptures in this chapter. Leithart is working to understanding history, times, events, and texts. He is trying to understand how mankind interacts with these things; how meaning works. Ultimately, he is working out a theory of how all events and texts work, not just biblical texts; then he applies it to scripture. Leithart is doing sociology. Collett is applying a debate to Leithart’s work that Leithart was not writing for. Leithart is not seeking to answer Collett’s set of questions.

Of course from God’s perspective, the Old Testament always was a prophecy of Christ. It takes time to become so in history. Through the scriptures that were given, Jews did figure out that there was something more coming. The time of Christ was a time of expectation. They knew a Messiah was coming. But the disciples didn’t know that scripture spoke of Christ specifically until the saw the specific works of Christ. They understood that the Old Testament was prophetic. It didn’t become prophecy of Christ until Christ had done on the cross; even though it was already prophetic of that specific moment because of God’s decree.

God’s knowledge is full and whatever he says, he knows the full meaning long before that is realized. Our knowledge is partial. Leithart is focussing on our conception of meaning in time. He doesn’t imagine that he has access to God’s conception of events, except as far as God has revealed it in his word.

Ultimately, I don’t know if represented Collett or Leithart perfectly in this little blog piece. I have tried to be fair. However, as I have mulled over Collett’s piece, I do believe he misses the mark. He is working with a different framework than Leithart. Once he recognizes that, he will strengthen his interactions with Leithart’s work. As I mentioned at the beginning, I find Leithart’s account very compelling and so far I find very little to complain about it.