Monthly Archives: December 2005

Weirder and weirder

It is striking that, to my knowledge, none of his confreres in either the “Reformed” Catholic or Federal revisionist camp has deemed the doctrine of penal substitution sufficiently important to mount a pubic defense…. Remember that the next time you’re tempted to look to Tim Enloe or James Jordan or Doug Wilson or Peter Leithart or Andrew Sandlin for spiritual guidance.

What? Can anyone sit under Doug Wilson’s or Peter Leithart’s preaching not call this stuff the pure lie that it is? I’ve been reading Jim Jordan’s exposition of OT and NT for years. This is complete rubbish from beginning to end. Is there any attempt to buttress this railing accusaton against Enloe and Sandlin?

Hey, as for me, I’ve been trumpeting N. T. Wright’s defense of “propitiation” in Romans 3 and of sacrificial language in Romans 8.1-3 for years.

Wikipedia is a firm foundation of truth when compared to the “Reformed” blogosphere.

Unbelievable.

LWW (w/spoilers)

Saw Narnia Saturday. Liked it over all.

The problem with Aslan:

1: Lion’s face seemed over large.

2. Lion seemed too small (someone pointed out to me that his size wasn’t consistent; and that part would be accurate. I just think he should have averaged a larger size).

3. Seemed like a servant to something ultimately impersonal. The deep magic was mentioned, but not the emperor.

Other problem with the movie:

What was the deal with the battlefield after Aslan ozzyozborned the Witch? Suddenly the monsters have all disappeared. Nothing in the book or the movie was consistent with that. It made no sense at all. Plus it was an overly realized eschatology.

What I liked that surprised me (stuff I never noticed in my readings of the book).

1. The particularity of Aslan’s redemption. Aslan died for all only by dying for Edmund the fallen king and representative of Narnia. So the story is that of Israel and Jesus in the world. Israel is sent to save the world, but Israel is of the world. Israel is under sin so that there is no hope for the world. So Jesus is sent to take Israel’s condemnation and thus bring forth salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. Edmund with his siblings is sent to save Narnia from the dominion of the White Witch, but Edmund puts himself under her dominion so that there is no hope for Narnia or himself. So Aslan is sent (again, here is the problem of the absent references to the Emperor) to save both Edmund and the world. The high king is able to save the kingly family and everyone they rule.

Of course, following Paul’s logic, there would need to be no royal distinction between royal human and non-royal Narnian creature, as everyone would simply answer to Aslan. But metaphors always break down somewhere.

2. What is all this about “the ransom theory of the atonement” in which Christ paid Satan? The redemption was obviously a Christus Victor event. Until Adam was given new life, things only got worst after he was killed. His resurrection brought the victory over the witch. Why did no one notice this? One hypothesis: because the death was obviously substitutionary (some sort of ransom or other was taking place, as admitted by all of us). Since in the rhetoric of church polemics, Christus Victor is held to be an alternative to substituionary theories, once the substitutionary nature of Aslan’s death is admitted, no one is open to other options. But the ease with which both views are plainly included in one story should teach us that these are entirely false oppositions.

I’m reminded of John Nevin’s awesome rejoinder to Charles Hodge:

Justification, to be real, must also be concrete–the force and value of Christ’s merit brought nigh to the sinner as a living fact. Strange, that there should seem to be any contradiction here, between the grace which we have by Christ’s death, and the grace that comes to us through his life. Could the sacrifice of Calvary be of any avail to take away sins, if the victim there slain had not been raised again for our justification, and were not now seated at the right hand of God our Advocate and Intercessor? Would the atonement of a dead Christ be of more worth than the blood of bulls and goats, to purge the conscience from dead works and give it free access to God? Surely it is the perennial, indissoluble life of the once-crucified Redeemer, which imparts to his broken body and shed blood all their power to abolish guilt… Abstract it [the sacrifice of Christ] from this, and it becomes in truth a mere legal fiction. The atonement, in this view [Nevin’s] is a quality or property of the glorified life of the Son of man.

Do the Reformed identify Pastors as the NT version of Priests?

John Milton thought so, and objected strongly to Presbyterianism for at least that reason.

And he was right in his analysis. Consider, for example, the Form of Presbyterial Church government from the Westminster Assembly:

THE pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church, prophesying of the time of the gospel.

First, it belongs to his office,

To pray for and with his flock, as the mouth of the people unto God, Acts vi. 2, 3, 4, and xx. 36, where preaching and prayer are joined as several parts of the same office. The office of the elder (that is, the pastor) is to pray for the sick, even in private, to which a blessing is especially promised; much more therefore ought he to perform this in the publick execution of his office, as a part thereof.

To read the Scriptures publickly; for the proof of which,

1. That the priests and Levites in the Jewish church were trusted with the publick reading of the word is proved. [Deut. 31:9,10,11. Neh. 8:1,2,3,13]

2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old.

Which propositions prove, that therefore (the duty being of a moral nature) it followeth by just consequence, that the publick reading of the scriptures belongeth to the pastor’s office.

To feed the flock, by preaching of the word, according to which he is to teach, convince, reprove, exhort, and comfort.

To catechise, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God, or of the doctrine of Christ, and is a part of preaching.

To dispense other divine mysteries.

To administer the sacraments.

To bless the people from God, Numb. vi. 23, 24, 25, 26. Compared with Rev. i.4, 5, ( where the same blessings, and persons from whom they come, are expressly mentioned,) Isa. lxvi. 21, where, under the names of Priests and Levites to be continued under the gospel, are meant evangelical pastors, who therefore are by office to bless the people. [Deuteronomy 10.8]

To take care of the poor.

And he hath also a ruling power over the flock as a pastor.

A note about prooftexts appended to the above document: I have left out all but the OT ones that are not repetitive with the contents of the text itself. I assume that the story of the prooftexts is the same as that of those appended to the Confession and catechisms–that they were appended at the insistence of Parliament and were never the product of deliberations in the way that the text itself was produced. The prooftexts reveal to us what at least some members of the assembly were thinking, but they don’t count as requirements of the documents themselves.

However, the text itself contains reasoning from the OT to the NT with Scripture references. This was part of the original act of the Assembly. The duties and even the identity of the Pastor comes from the OT establishment of the Priests and Levites. Isaiah 66 prophesied that Priests and Levites would be chosen, so, reasoned the committee, this must refer to the New Covenant calling of pastors.

Of course, the Form of Government is not a document in use any more. Let’s turn to the document which goes into the most detail on these issues, the Westminster Larger Catechism. Most Presbyterians are surprised to discover that the Westminster Assembly agreed to take a stand against lay readers in public worship:

Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?

A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation [Deuteronomy 31.9, 11–13; see Nehemiah 8.2-3; 9.3-5], yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves,h and with their families…

The prooftext is non-binding, as I’ve pointed out. But it does reveal what some number within the Assembly, at least, must have believed, and what was considered non-controversial to publish in that context. Here are the texts of these Scripture references:

Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, “At the end of every seven years, at the set time in the year of release, at the Feast of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as you live in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess” (Deuteronomy 31.9-13)

So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law…. And they stood up in their place and read from the Book of the Law of the Lord their God for a quarter of the day; for another quarter of it they made confession and worshiped the Lord their God. On the stairs of the Levites stood Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani; and they cried with a loud voice to the Lord their God. Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, “Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting. Blessed be your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise” (Nehemiah 8.2-3; 3-5).

The catechism remains consistent with this point in its question about preaching (#158). It asks who is supposed to preach and answers that “only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.” Here the OT prooftext refers to the prophets, but one of the NT prooftexts is quite revealing: “And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was” (Hebrews 5.4). This text pops up again in question # 176 when it is asserted that both sacraments are to be “dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other.”

If I had time, it would be easy to show how this fits in with the Westminster Assemby’s view of the Church and the sacraments as both being established before Christ came in the flesh. However, I don’t. Nor do I wish to really defend the exegesis above at this point in time. Exegesis is a great thing, but who has time when one must continually point out the original boundaries of the Reformed standards in order to escape all sorts of smears from revisionist who are either ignorant or deceptive or both? There has been recently, some spirited and useful exchanges about what the Bible teaches regarding the identity of pastors. I think this is a good thing. I also think it is time for Presbyterians who claim to subscribe to these documents to face up to the need for changing them or else re-submitting to them. Lay readers are an entirely uncontrovesial element in PCA worship services. The Larger Catechism is a dead letter on this point. Why pretend otherwise? What superstition prevents people from amending it when the vast majority obviously disagree with it?

But when Reformed Ministers are accused of abandoning the Reformed faith for nothing more than agreeing with the hermeneutic of the ministerial office exemplified above it needs to be pointed out that these flaming accusations can only lodge in the accusers. Three or more centuries of American Evangelicalism have rendered Westminsterian Christendom rather anemic. And now, anyone with a healthy red-cell count is considered a crypto-papist.

I may blog about some pastoral concerns I have in all of this later. For now, those who are interested in my personal views might find this essay worth reading. I wrote it as my theology paper for the Pacific NW Presbytery. It was done to meet the Presbytery’s requirements so that I could be ordained as a Minister of the Gospel.

Oh the weather outside is frightful…

And so is the typical conversation about Christmas in the Anglo-American conservative Reformed world.

But for needed corrective and even a chuckle, check out Jim Jordan on the menace of Chinese food.

It’s delightful.

–Originally posted 10:21 pm – December 14, 2005

ADDENDUM:

I just realized I must quote this:

There is still more. Few modern Christians have studied the classic exposé of Chinese food by Alexander Slipshod: The Four Babylons. Slipshod in his masterful work demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that Chinese food originated at the Tower of Babel. Nimrod and three of his cousins, descendants of the four sons of Ham and known as the “gang of four,” developed Chinese food as a subtle means of undermining the true faith. People would become addicted to Chinese food, they believed, and as they ingested the food, they would absorb the monistic philosophy. For instance, if they ate sweet and sour pork, they would become committed to the philosophy of yin and yang. This has surely proved to be the case! We must beware of eating demons hiding in Chinese food! (Slipshod’s book has, I am aware, not been well treated by reviewers. Its arguments, however, are obviously correct. Let the reader obtain a copy and find out for himself. The reviewers, obviously, are Chinese food addicts.)

Wright’s letter to his pastors

This was just pointed out to me:

It is no doubt possible to devise a service which isn’t, technically and legally, a ‘service of blessing’, but which is so in all but name, and which the wider world will see straightforwardly as a ‘gay wedding’. I am bound to say that I regard the creation of such services as exhibiting a serious lack of integrity. Equally, though the Bishops do not wish to legislate for what happens in private pastoral situations, the intent of the Guidelines (to avoid any appearance of sanctioning ‘gay weddings’) should not be flouted in spirit any more than in letter. I shall be very sorry if members of the clergy, by holding ‘services of blessing’ or near equivalent, force me to make disciplinary enquiries….

Like most bishops, I have not up to now thought it my business to ask such questions of the clergy in my care. But if clergy decide to enter a Civil Partnership they are thereby putting me in a new situation in which my own integrity as diocesan bishop, and my collegial position within the House of Bishops, strongly suggest that I should follow the process thus recommended. This would not (as is sometimes suggested) be ‘intrusive’ or ‘invasive’, but the proper exercise of pastoral oversight. I fully understand that some people feel bound in conscience to disobey the clear and official teaching of the Church on these matters. I trust that the Diocese will respect my own conscience as its bishop, acting as its chief pastor and teacher of the faith (and as someone who has had to exercise international responsibilities in related matters), if with reluctance I am forced, by those who decide to go this route, to change my practice to meet the new situation.

Thinking about what is ahead for the Bishop, I can’t help but wonder if we aren’t going to see a sudden reduction of his writings as he gets embroiled in some major battles in Anglican politics. I almost wonder if this explains why he was elevated (a pure speculation based on nothing but my conspiratorial imagination).

And it pains me to realize that, if Wright’s convictions turn his life into such a battlefield that nothing more gets written, that not only will all the Liberal skeptics be rejoicing, but so will a pack of ignorant reactionary Evangelicals.

Truly sad.

Stories are not necessarily fairy tales

The “story-nature” of Biblical revelation is not only an incredible find for understanding God’s word better, it also greatly enhances our ability to preach. Stories resonate with people in ways that other communications can’t touch.

But it really bothers me that I am perceiving (or think I am perceiving: maybe I’m wrong) a decrease in respect for the veracity of the Bible’s history in Evangelical circles. You would think that importance of the story to the Bible would force people to re-think whether or not the chronologies can be relegated to the periphery of our reading.

The Bible’s stories are true.

Icons again

If a husband sleeps with an artifical replica of his wife when she is away is this a sign of his devoted love for her? Am I guilty of denying the “embodiedness” of marital love by calling such a practice a perversion?

Can you imagine a such a husband, when confronted, claiming his accuser must have a low view of the family?