Here is an interview with the Right Reverend N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, England, by TIME magazine on the issue of popular notions of life after death. As usual, Bishop Wright is not only provocative, but edifying in what he says.

I have often addressed these very issues in my own pastoral ministry. As one of my seminary professors stated, “Gnosticism is alive and well in the Church today.” We do need much more of a focus on the resurrection and our eternal purpose that we find in Christ through his resurrection rather than an attempt to escape the world the way Gnostics do. To quote the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe…in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, Amen.”

In all the debate i have heard over Rev. Steve Wilkins and his accusation of teaching things contrary to the Confession of Faith, as well as the current (or soon-to-be) trial of Louisiana Presbytery for finding that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that Wilkins holds or teaches views contrary to the Confession of Faith, one document i have not seen cited at all by either side (for whatever reason) is the officially documented rationale (Word Document) of their finding. Reading through it, i find their rationale very compelling, and having read the indictment of Louisiana Presbytery, i find that many of the accusations of the presbytery’s finding being unsubstantiated are themselves unsubstantiated.

The popular notion around the internet is that Louisiana Presbytery just said “No strong presumption of guilt” and said nothing else about it—and that’s all you’d think they did if all you read was the Puritan Board or Green Baggins. However, on April 21, 2007, they officially adopted this lengthy statement that addresses not only what they view as faulty methodology of the Central Carolina Memorial, but also the actual contents of the memorial and how the presbytery as a whole views Wilkins’ theological positions (based on his written and oral responses) in light of the accusations proffered by Central Carolina Presbytery.

Whether you’re pro-FV, anti-FV, or just non-FV but somewhere in the middle (like i am), i encourage you to read the statement and allow Louisiana Presbytery to have a chance to answer in their own words why they did what they did. Most compelling to me are their quotes from John Murray. For those who may not take the time to read the whole report, here are the wise words from Dr. Murray that all Presbyterians should heed:

“The creeds of the church have been framed in a particular historical situation to meet the need of the church in that context, and have been oriented to a considerable extent in both their negative and positive declarations to the refutation of the errors confronting the church at that time.  The creeds are therefore, historically complexioned in language and content and do not reflect the particular and distinguishing needs of subsequent generations.”  (”The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” Collected Writings, IV, p. 242).

“There is the progressive understanding of the faith delivered to the saints.  There is in the church the ceaseless activity of the Holy Spirit so that the church organically and corporately increases in knowledge unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . the Westminster Confession . . . is the epitome of the most mature thought to which the church of Christ had been led up to the year 1646.  But are we to suppose that this progression ceased with that date?  To ask the question is to answer it.  An affirmative is to impugn the continued grace of which the Westminster Confession is itself an example at the time of its writing.  There is more light to break forth from the living and abiding Word of God.” (Ibid. p. 242). 

“When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation. … A theology that does not build on the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by history.  A theology that relies on the past evades the demands of the present (Ibid.  p. 248).

We may not agree with Steve Wilkins on what he says and what he advocates, but we should see him and the interaction that we should have with what he says as part of the ongoing activity of God the Holy Spirit in the Church to refine our knowledge and to bring us closer to “the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13, ESV). Constant accusations of heresy (for fear that something happening like what happened with the Liberals in the PCUS) do us no good. My own denomination, the ARP Church (it is still my home and the Church that ordained me, though i am currently a member of a PCA presbytery), combatted Liberalism successfully against great odds (e.g, an official statement by the General Synod in the mid-70s dismissing the whole notion of inerrancy outright, about which one of the leading advocates of moving toward a more liberal position said outside of the meeting, “Fundamentalism is dead in the ARP Church”), and they did it without a single heresy trial and without a church split. It’s certainly worth a try in this current controversy.

Doug Wilson’s most recent “Auburn Avenue Stuff” post is devoted to an issue brought up by David Gadbois concerning the time of administration of the sacrament and its efficacy.

Let me say this: i think that David Gadbois is arguing for an ineffectual sacrament in his argument. I believe that in trying to make what happens in adult baptism normative, he’s essentially saying that baptism is not an instrument to confer the grace it signifies at all, but only a confirmatory sign (i.e., after the reality is in place). The sacraments certainly are confirmatory signs, but they are much more than that. And, of course, Doug Wilson is trying to maintain this “much more” aspect to sacramental efficacy. The problem is the means that Wilson’s argument takes. He argues for something illogical in order to keep the sacramental efficacy.

Go on over and take a look; my comments there are pretty clear (i think).

As our Hobbit friend, David, shows us, there is a difference between the “strict Calvinist” position on the atonement and the balanced Calvinist position. It all comes down to the nature of imputation: whether the whole world’s sin was imputed to Christ and whether the sins of only the elect were imputed to Christ. Both believe in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for all men (hypothetically in the case of the latter, but still), and both believe that only the elect will be saved, but only one can be the true and consistent basis for an offer of salvation for all men. The question is, in reality, one of logic much more than Scripture (and if you’ve ever embraced Calvinism because of “Owen’s Dilemma,” you probably already know that; Owen held to the latter schema).

I find it interesting that Dabney was so keen to show that Arminian objections to Calvinism were well-founded and that biblical Calvinists could and should be moved by the arguments that our Arminian brothers offer to us from Scripture. He certainly wasn’t from the Owen School of Calvinism, which sought, by hook or by crook, to rebuff the Arminian argument with decretalist rejoinders. Dabney, like Hodge, Edwards, Shedd, and many others, didn’t default to God’s decrees to explain everything about Christ’s sacrifice, the free offer, and what Scripture so plainly states. We need to recapture that balance as Reformed Christians, because, if we don’t, we’ll quickly become obsolete in the whole realm of Christendom.

Mark Horne reminds us of the good points of the Auburn Avenue 2002 Pastor’s Conference, regardless of the more controversial aspects.

It is interesting that he would choose to quote that portion of that sermon, because it was that last paragraph he quoted that was the lynchpin of my thinking. When i heard those words, it was like—pardon the dramatic allusion to the Holy Apostle Paul—scales fell off of my eyes, and i could see real Covenant Theology for the first time. Before that, i thought i held to Covenant Theology; you know, the kind where the Covenant God made with Adam is what we’re all in, and then, the elect are excused from that Covenant and come under the Covenant that the Lord Jesus Christ sealed with his own blood. But Pastor Steve’s words there made me think of something more earthy, more biblical, and less systematized than High Federal theology (which, i have come to find out, is what the thing i called “Covenant Theology” before is actually called). It was a theology that took the Old Covenant Scriptures just as seriously and applicably as the New Covenant Scriptures.

The truth is, though, that when i began listening to the AAPC 2002 lectures, i was a committed credobaptist Calvinist, but when i finished that sermon, the Lord had shown me the Scriptural truth of his Covenant promises to his people and all of their descendants after them. Of course, at that time, i didn’t have any children, so it didn’t mean all that much to me, but now that i do, it means all the more. God has not committed himself to me and left my children to fend for themselves; he has committed himself to me in his grace and he has promised that very same grace to my children as well—not hypothetically, not academically, not contingently, but truly and sincerely so that he will be our God and that we and our children after us will be his people.

The funny thing about this, in retrospect, is that the only reason that i happened upon those recordings to begin with was because a fellow Baptist friend of mine had brought Steve Schlissel’s preaching to my attention, especially his sermons on the Jewish holidays and their meaning and place to us in a Christian context. I really enjoyed them, and so i explored the whole database of sermons that were, at that time, posted on SermonAudio, and found the lectures from the AAPC. Even more funny, though, is that that fellow Baptist friend is now a committed Covenantalist as well, and i have it on good authority that he reads this blog from time to time (thanks, Al).

No, i don’t agree with every aspect of the Federal Vision, but i must say that some of the things that they teach are the only things that make sense. I don’t know how to be a Covenantalist and give the Covenant sign to my children with the full meaning it brings to bear while retaining doubt in my mind about whether Jehovah is truly my children’s God. If i were to delve into the world of decretalism to the Nth degree (i.e., God only is ever in Covenant with the elect/regenerate; baptism is only truly baptism for the elect/regenerate; God only desires the salvation of the elect/regenerate; &c.), the only logical place for me to be is as a credobaptist. However, if i am to live by what God has revealed, and not by the secret things that belong only to him, then a robust, Scriptural, and grace-filled Covenant Theology is the only thing i can hold.

This past Sunday (1st Advent), the Psalm reading from the Revised Common Lectionary was Psalm 122; it was our call to worship. There, the psalmist there exhorts the people of God to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, both for the sake of our brothers and companions, and also for the sake of the House of God. Well, Paul and Peter both tell us that we, the Church, are indeed that House, and we know that the Church is the Heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Mother of us all. So, i continue to pray for the peace of Jerusaelm and trust that God has a good purpose in all this seeming nonsense. May he be justified when he speaks and prevail when he judges. May his judgment come quickly to bring peace and guidance to these confused sheep.

In my time in the Southern Baptist Convention, i remember folks who held to the view that the words of Jesus (in the older Bibles, these words are printed in red to set them off from the other words) were more important, represented a higher teaching, and were more fundamental to Christianity than the words elsewhere. They usually represented a more liberal strain of Christianity. In the fight over Scripture’s inspiration among Southern Baptists, those who stood against the folks who advocated verbal plenary inspiration always had a kind of interpretive grid. In fact, in the Baptist Faith and Message, the closest thing to a creed/confession that Southern Baptists officially have, in the 1963 version, there was one particular line in Article I, speaking of the Scriptures, which said: “The criterion by which the Bible is
to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Well, the self-proclaimed “moderates” (really, those who wanted to dismiss the whole idea of inerrancy and infallibility) always would take hold of that phrase (as anti-creedal as they always claimed to be) and would drive it home that we must interpret the Bible through Jesus and his words.

Well, apparently, Tony Campollo is one of those guys. I guess i shouldn’t be all that surprised at the fact. He’s not Southern Baptist (he’s American Baptist), but he still fits that same bill. These folks are called, not surprisingly, “Red Letter Christians,” and Campollo really puts this whole way of looking at the Bible forward in his book Letters to a Young Evangelical.

The way this came up was by reading a kind of “rebuttal” of sorts that Stan Guthrie wrote about the whole concept and the political ideas that come across from that kind of thinking (invariably left-leaning, politically), and he takes Campollo to task personally about it. It’s actually a very balanced and gentle critique that makes excellent points not only about that hermeneutic, but it’s own blindness to see that those ideas are politically ideological, and really politically motivated before they are religiously informed, even if they claim otherwise. Campollo gives an answer to Guthrie’s critique (and gives away the farm, if you ask me). It’s a really interesting read.

Really the point of contention between politically left-leaning Christians and politically right-leaning Christians is not whether you’re for protecting the environment, seeing equality and social justice, stopping the slaughter of infant children in the protection of the womb, or even wanting to feed and clothe the destitute. The real point is whether it is the job of the government to accomplish those things. This is where even a good healthy dose of political separation of Church and State is proper, and it is also the place where a healthy view of the truth of all Scripture equally would help people realize that Scripture itself has a bunch to say about the limitation of the powers of the government to enforcing the most basic moral principles to keep society in proper order. That’s their delegated task from God—not to control the Church, not to co-opt the Church, and not to leave off doing its own job by trying to tell the Church what to do and how.  Apparently, though, politically liberal Christians seem to think that it is the job of the government to do that. And that means that, ironically enough, all the Christians who talk about the government enforcing equal rights, government feeding the poor and providing them with healthcare, government doing anything other than enforcing common morality and maintaining order in society, they are the ones who advocate a defacto combining of Church and State.

The real clincher for me in this discussion, especially where RLCs are concerned, is the marked lack of anything from the mouth of Jesus that tells us that it is the job of government to enforce his teaching or that the Christian purpose should be so to influence the government as to do the job of the Church. It’s just funny to me that people who put so much stock in the words of Jesus (to be clear, Jesus’ words are absolutely important, but just as important as all other words of Scripture) above all else would ignore the silence of Jesus in directing that the government be as closely involved in what they seek to see done. It simply strikes me as a kind of laziness: wanting something done, but wanting someone to do it for you—that’s really an indemic problem in the Church today, anyway.

In Numbers 13, we read that Moses sent twelve men into the land of Canaan to search out the land that God had promised to give their forefathers. They were to bring back a report of the land, the people in it, what condition it was in, and what kind of fortifications that the people in their cities had.

Of course, we know that when those spies came back, ten of them did everything that they possibly could to dissuade the people from going in to the land to take it, and only two of the men (Caleb and Hoshea, called Joshua) counseled the people to go into the land to fight and conquer it. Of course, those ten spread such an ill word among the whole camp that it turned all of public opinion against going into the land, and they would spend the next forty years (one year for every day that the spies were in the land) wandering in the desert because of their sin.

But here’s the question: God had promised Israel that land; what did the people have to do in order to receive what God had promised? Well, the answer, of course, is to trust God’s promise. But is it possible that it could have been an uninvolved, arms-folded, camped-outside-the-land, lives-not-at-risk kind of trust? In other words, was it possible for Israel to receive by faith what God had promised wholly apart from any kind of works or effort on their part? Obviously not.

However, even if they had gone into the land and conquered all of its inhabitants right then—even if they had all the best and grandest works that they could have had—would Israel have earned the land that the Lord had promised them? Would they have merited it by their works? I think the answer to that is obviously no. Even when we must work and obey God to receive what he has promised, we are still receiving his promises by faith.

I say all this because it seems to me that the ten spies had some kind of false notions about God promising to give them the land. What did they really think would happen if they simply didn’t go in and try to fight all of these people? Did they think they’d just go back to Egypt? Did they think they’d just go somewhere else? Or did they, as i suspect, think that God would give it to them in spite of the fact that they didn’t actually go in, risk their lives, fight, and possess it for God’s glory? Was their attitude one that we see very often today, that no matter what i do, God will still give me everything he has promised, just as long as i still believe in him? That’s what i suspect.

So which of these two groups more exemplifies the faith that Scripture commends us to have: Joshua and Caleb, the two men who wanted to put their works together with their faith; or the ten spies (and ultimately the whole nation of people) who wanted simply to believe, no works going along with their “faith” at all? Any thoughts?

Garrett Craw from The Craw offered some friendly criticism about what he called “the Southern thang” and how it was “just way too emotional.” I understand completely how this looks to people outside of the South, and i fully bow to God’s sovereign will in keeping the United States an intact nation—so far. :-/  I’m sure, though, that as an Asian American, Garrett can understand what it is like to be pigeonholed about one’s culture and also what it is like to identify with it and be zealous to keep its rich heritage and traditions (the good ones!) alive. That’s certainly what i seek to do as a Southron, but please do understand that, other than the fact that i currently serve in the PCA, i have no allegiance to the Southern Presbyterian Church in any wise.

I must say, though, that i agree with Garrett totally about the inconsistency of the Southern Presbyterianism. It is a sad fact that they did not live up to the Covenantal principles of Presbyterianism by baptizing and teaching all of those who were either born or purchased into their household, as God’s command was to Abraham. This was, no doubt, due to a terrible inconsistency in Southern Presbyterians about even how to treat their own children (Thornwell was, himself, a perpetrator of what we commonly call today “vipers in Covenant diapers” view).

Beyond even Southern Presbyterianism, i can say without qualification that there was very much lacking in Southern treatment of slaves in general (even if there were many Christians who sought to treat their slaves well and disciple them, which there were). There was much abuse, degradation, and inherent subjugation. Indeed, blacks weren’t viewed even as a subjugated social class within the society at large; they were, by and large, viewed as beasts and property with as many rights. As i said, i believe this had much more to do with a woeful and horrendous view of blacks as a race (i.e., whites viewed them as inherently inferior and inhuman), and not with anything to do with the inherent evil of slavery (i’m not a strict Theonomist, but i agree with R.J. Rushdoony on the issue of slavery, though not necessarily his view of Negro slavery).

But even in spite of all the bad we could dredge up about American slavery (we need to remind ourselves that not only Southrons owned slaves), we can find a few bright spots. I always think of the happy exception that produced the first black elders of the Southern Presbyterian Church (seven of them) in 1869; he was, i believe, the bright spots of the Old School Southern Church: John Girardeau. He pastored a mixed (predominantly black, but with white members) congregation in Charleston (incidentally, in Zion Presbyterian Church, the whites were the ones typically who sat in the balcony, though, it was very common to have whites and blacks integrated in the church).

I love the passion of such a man to make blacks and whites equal in the Kingdom of God–and he was a student of Thornwell! It is said that he had a certain preaching style: extemporaneous; preaching directly from the Greek/Hebrew text; and with his own emotional style, mimicking the Gullah style of story-telling and speech he had grown up around, (he believed it helped the slaves and freed blacks to understand his messages when he gave not only a verbal but also an emotive message in his sermons). Here’s what the PCA historical summary of him (linked above) says about his ministry in Charleston:

In 1858/59 the Anson Street Mission experienced a marvelous revival and in April 1859 they moved into a new building at the prestigious and prime intersection of Meeting and Calhoun Streets. The black membership was given the privilege of naming their church (which was particularized in 1858) and they chose “Zion.” Zion Presbyterian Church became famous for Girardeau’s preaching—he was called “the Spurgeon of America”—, but it was also noteworthy for its diaconal ministry in the community, catechetical training of hundreds in the city, sewing clubs for the women, and missionary activity. The outreach and influence of Zion was of such public notoriety that Girardeau and the session were often criticized and sometimes physically threatened. For example, the catechetical training and teaching of hymns and psalms was so effective that some Charlestonians believed Girardeau was teaching the slaves to read for themselves (which was contrary to state law).  

Girardeau was a strong advocate for Puritan-style worship (i.e., stark liturgy, no accompaniment, psalms only), so i can’t say that i agree with him on everything. I’m sure he wasn’t far away from Thornwell when it came to ecclesiology either. However, he was worlds away from Thornwell and Dabney on the place of blacks in American society and especially in the Church, and he made a big deal about it all over the place. Was he opposed to slavery? Not at all, apparently—not even of race-based slavery, which i believe to be reprehensible. And yet, he was a Christian man who lived out the Gospel principles as they applied to social conventions about race in the face of many even of his own Church who had little, if any, understanding about how King Jesus has changed the world in which we live, and we need to live in light of that Kingdom, and not of the dying city of man all around us. It is that kind of Southron that i want to be.

It is not, fundamentally, a revision of history to note the oft-overlooked issues surrounding the War of Northern Aggression (in case you’re wondering, we really do call it that in normal, everyday conversation). More importantly, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with my remembering and touting my culture for what it was, warts and all. We can and must move forward into the future, but i don’t want to forget the past, and i won’t, as far as i have anything to do with it, let anyone else do their own version of revisionist history with the Southern cause. But as i move forward, i want to live out the kind of exceptional life that Girardeau did, even while remaining close friends with the likes of Dabney and Thornwell.

In Christianity Today this past week, there was a great article on the New Perspective on Paul. It gave a very balanced and helpful summary of what NPP actually is, and it also gave some very helpful critiques of the NPP.

As i have indicated in various contexts (not least of which was to my presbytery before being admitted), i believe the NPP isn’t all bad and that it has a lot to offer NT studies. However, i don’t follow it wholesale, and i fully and completely embrace the “Old Perspective.” This article is great because it shows that the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive without overlooking some of the more glaring problems in the NPP.

The author, Simon Gathercole, was a professor at Aberdeen University and recently took up lecturing at Cambridge.

Update:
(HT: Mark Horne)
Andrew Sandlin critiques Gathercole’s weakest point in the article. Gathercole was otherwise keen to point out that decrying “works of the law” is not the same thing as decrying the Law of God itself, which is good and righteous and holy. However, he commits a very Dispensationalistic mistake by pitting Deuteronomy 6:25 against Gospel justification. Even in my original reading of Gathercole’s article, this was the weakest point he made and the point to which i took most exception—though, otherwise, it was a very balanced and insightful argument. Sandlin, though, takes Gathercole to task on his, shall we say, crypto-Lutheranism (perhaps not in the most charitable way, but still, it is a deserved critique of the original critique).

Over at Christianity Today, one of their editors, Mark Galli, has written an article poo-pooing the idea that Christians are called to work toward cultural transformation as part of our calling. He goes to great lengths to show that that’s not the mission of Christians as servants of God in his Kingdom.

Is this really the assessment you’d give to our calling? What sort of calling do we have? And if it includes cultural transformation, what sort of means are we called to use to reach that goal?

On the up side, in the poll that the set up going along with the article, Mr. Galli’s premise has been soundly rejected, with some 54% (at current count) saying that, yes, it is our job to transform culture, but that it is God who transform the culture through us.