Category: Uncategorized Page 1 of 3

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

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

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

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

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.

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.”

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.”

About a month ago, I was able to participate in a forum on Baptism with a local Reformed Baptist pastor. You can find the unedited video of the forum here. I want to open with some kindness.  I view Reformed Baptists as brothers and am willing to work shoulder to shoulder with them where possible.  That does not take away from the seriousness of their error in refraining from giving their children baptism.

Pastor Jared Hiebert argued that we should only baptize believers.  I argued that we should baptize their children as well.  We both spoke for a 1/2 hour.  Half an hour is not a long time to fill out a full defense of infant baptism, much less to point out the problems with believer’s baptism.   Reflecting on the forum resulted in a number of other thoughts on the subject.  Particularly, I noticed some deeper structures of thought that went unnoticed and some red herrings that were not addressed.

1.  Grace perfects nature:  I find it interesting that the Baptist position does not take into account the way grace interacts with nature.  They might agree with the phrase “Grace perfects nature,” but that does not work out in their vision of the church.  Now, this may not be immediately apparent in our context.  We need to begin by thinking about what the grace of Christ’s salvation is.  Salvation is restoring the community God had with man in the Garden.  Salvation results in a new creation.  This truth is evident by the number of NT references to “new creation” and “holy people.”  God is restoring creation in Jesus Christ.  All types of people, including children, are part of that new creation.  The practice of infant baptism confirms that.  Young babies also need to be brought into the new kingdom of Christ. The Baptist position, on the other hand, makes the new creation a new creation of the mature. Only the mature can have the formal relationship with God which is marked by baptism.  The church becomes a body of those who have freely chosen the kingdom of Christ, an explicitly voluntary kingdom, rather than a kingdom that includes the types of people God’s original plan in the garden would have freely welcomed as members of God’s people  Thus the grace of God undermines and changes nature, rather than confirming and perfecting it.
2. You flatten the covenant!  You break up the covenant!  A common refrain in the debates over baptism is “you flatten the covenant” from the Baptist side and “you break up the covenant” from the reformed side.  I really don’t find these accusations that useful.  Rather we need to determine the precise way in which Christ changed things.  This is not immediately evident and takes study.  Many paedo-baptists emphasize the radical changes Christ brought about without taking a single thing away from the force of the arguments for paedo-baptism.  In the same way, many Baptists may emphasize certain continuities, without contradicting their teaching of credo-baptism.   This is why the debate must stay at the level of “What changes?” rather than arguing about who properly understands covenant succession.
3. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the continuity of the covenants is the key to this debate.  The Baptist understanding does break up the picture scripture gives of the covenant.  That is not primarily because he is breaking up the covenant, but because the Baptist neither understands the teaching of scripture on covenant nor baptism.  They assume that God radically changes the way he deals with families and groups of people without showing how the cross caused that radical change.  The cross brought God closer to people according to the book of Hebrews.  Why did it remove God from a relationship with small children, who cannot fully understand?  The Reformed Baptist, in particular, tends to equate covenant and election.  It is only when he understands the nature of baptism and its relation to the covenant that he will be able to see that he improperly breaks up the covenant. On the other hand, I believe that the Classical Reformed position can fully account for what Christ did on the cross.
4. Baptism replaces circumcision:  Another contentious part of the baptism debate is the question of the relationship between circumcision and baptism.  I appreciate the words of the Belgic Confession “baptism replaces circumcision.”  In the debate, I said that I could see that baptism fulfills circumcision, but I would not defend that position any longer.  Christ fulfills circumcision.  Through his death and resurrection, Christ radically breaks from the dispensation of the law (If you don’t think so read the book of Hebrews).  Following the resurrection, everything is truly new.  But that doesn’t all of a sudden change how covenants work or, for that matter, covenant signs.  Covenant is now connected to Christ rather than the law. The signs of the covenant function in the same way.  Baptism functions like circumcision did in the OT.  It is a seal of righteousness and it marks one as a member of God’s kingdom.  The kingdom is different and the way in which they seal righteousness are different, but their function is very similar. That being said circumcision binds one to the law; baptism binds one to Christ.
5. You rely on inferences:  One common phrase I heard that evening was the argument that we baptize children based on inferences to children.  I’m not sure how this is much of an argument.  After all, the Baptist refrains from baptizing children based on inferences from scripture. Instead of accusing one another of relying on inferences, we need to work out our covenantal and baptismal theology as best we can from scripture.  The question is not one of inference, but which inference is justified.
6. Catholicity and Ecumenicity:  The classical reformed position is much more conducive to small-c catholicity.  We accept all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We recognize such people as formal members of God’s Kingdom unless they deny it by their actions or confession.  The consistent Reformed Baptist, however, must reject all baptisms that are not done upon a viable profession of faith.  Therefore, at a doctrinal level, they bring division into the church of Christ. They deny the formal membership of over half of Christendom in the kingdom of Christ. In this way, they imitate Roman Catholics who consider anybody who has not subjected himself to the Pope of Rome separated brethren, saved through the hierarchy of Rome, even if they do not fully enjoy the benefits of membership in Rome.  If they deny such a charge or in contradiction to their own teaching invite those baptized as infants as full members into their church, one wonders why they baptize at all.
7. That being said, I truly do consider Baptists as brothers in Christ. They demonstrate a desire to submit to and serve our Lord Jesus Christ. I only hope that with an open Bible before us we can truly continue to grow in the knowledge and the love of Christ.

Jesus meets with Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration.  Why those two?  It may have to do with the circumstances of their deaths. If you listen to enough reformed sermons this comes out.  God buries Moses.  God marks Elijah’s death by coming in a spiritual chariot to take him home.  I think there is more going on.  Moses and Elijah are unique in that God used their prophetic ministries to bring Israel through a death and ressurection.

Moses initiates God’s covenant on Mt. Sinai.  He gives Israel God’s law.  Scripture tells us that Israel was baptized into Moses (1 Corinthians 10).  This baptism is a death and resurrection that brings Israel into a new world; the promised land. He initiates a new world; a new stage in the history of God’s people.

Elijah also comes to a mountain in the wilderness (1 Kings 19).  God gives him the authority to initiate a new world. Elijah begins a new prophetic community with Elisha. He initiates a new stage of the northern kingdom with the anointing of Jehu.   Finally, God anoints Hazael as king of Syria through Elijah (the anointing is actually accomplished by Elijah’s successor Elisha).  Through Elijah, God brings judgement upon the world but preserves 7,000 faithful Israelites to come into the new world, which is formed through the judgement of Israel.  He rules this new world through empires rather than kings.

One major initiator is missing:  Samuel.  Samuel brought in the Davidic Kingdom.  He’s missing because the fulfilment of that Davidic kingdom is here; Christ.  This Christ combines both David and Samuel as king and prophet, who will not only bring a new world into being through his death and resurrection but will also rule it as a true heir of David.

One of the ways we function in reality is through appropriating archetypes.  This is the claim of men like C.G. Jung and Jordan Peterson.  According to them, we need to read literature seeking moral improvement through understanding and possibly imitating the archetypes that are presented. Jordan Peterson sees Jesus as the archetypical perfect man. I should mention that I definitely don’t agree with everything he says here. The Logos seems to be something that human consciousness has somehow materialized in the story of scripture.  I fully disagree with Jordan Peterson’s origin story, but psychologically he is right on.

This is something the church forgets.  Preaching should centre around the application of our true archetype, the true logos Jesus Christ to our lives.  This is why the church calendar is so important.  We live the life of Jesus every year. The Christian year begins with advent: a waiting for Christ’s birth.  We remember his death and resurrection.  We remember the promise of ascension and the promise of our own resurrection.  For exactly the same reason, the New Testament focusses on Unity with Christ.  We share in his body and Blood.  Paul tells us that everything we do is “In Christ.” The church forgets that the person of Christ is before all things and by him, all things hold together.

Instead, the church often reduces preaching to either doctrine or morals. Preaching should have those two elements. We have to know what Christ did and who he was.  That is how we receive certainty and comfort.  We have to know what to do. But if we desire transformation, we need to be called to live out the wellspring of the logos, take up our cross, and imitate Christ.

Of course, the Bible tells us about many more characters than Christ.   The New Testament teaches us that we are to read these stories in light of Jesus Christ. The church loses her past when she fails to read the Old Testament in light of Christ when she fails to see the types that are fulfilled in Christ.   She fails to understand how Christ becomes the archetype whom, we can apply to ourselves.  Even more, how Christ is the illumination that shows how the Father and Spirit give us more archetypes.

Jesus is the fulfilment of almost every archetype of the Old Testament.  He is the archetypical priest, prophet, king, son, and groom.  Christ, the archetypical son, shows the way to the archetypical father, God.  He sends out the spirit, who preserves, defends, clothes, and indwells the archetypical mother and bride, which is the church.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot live in the abstract.  The abstract must take form in a story, in the concrete history of Christ and his bride, the church.  Only then can we begin to understand how we are to embody the teaching of God.