Category: Church

The Supper and Sharing the Righteousness of Christ

On May 2, 2019

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.

The Gift of Healing

By James

On September 27, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church, Gifts of the Spirit

Sometimes when we talk about the extraordinary gifts that God gives the New Testament church it is helpful to separate them. What I mean by extraordinary gifts are those spiritual gifts that are not a regular part of the lives of the people of God. This is opposed to something like the fruit of the spirit, which should be evident in the church of all times and places as well as each individual in the church. Rather than grouping all the extraordinary gifts into one group, we should deal with the biblical role of each gift separately.

The gift of tongues, for example, has a different purpose than the gift of healing. The gift of tongues teaches the new church about the nature of the kingdom of God. It is one of the unique acts that is commemorated in water baptism, which include the baptism of Christ and the death and resurrection of Christ.

The gift of tongues teaches that the coming Kingdom of God is made up of every tribe, language, and nation. It is also entirely unique to the NT church. Tongues demonstrated that God now dwelt in a new people formed out of both Jews and Gentiles instead of in the temple.

In contrast, the gift of healing is not entirely unique to the NT church. Jesus exercised the gift of healing. Old Testament prophets exercised that gift. It is interesting to note that reports of the gift of healing are far more common in the history of the church than the gift of tongues. The authenticity of those healings is another matter. The gift of healing demonstrated the authenticity of a prophet. The physical restoration was a sign of spiritual restoration.

What does this mean? I believe that it means that we should not necessarily expect the gift of tongues to continue to happen throughout history. This bears itself out in history. The gift of tongues, in the sense of a sudden ability to speak in another contemporary, human language, has rarely, if ever, been reported in the history of the church.

Compare that to the gift of healing. Healings, whether real and spurious, have often been reported in the history of the church.

I want to make a couple of notes on the gift of healing in the NT and its continued use in the world today.

1. The gift of healing is only done in the power of God. It is meant to draw attention to what God is doing. Everyone who participates in a healing ministry will tell you this, but that doesn’t mean that it is not a highly important point. God does the healing. As soon as a man starts to believe that he has a special power in himself or fails to recognize God’s work in the healing, he becomes a charlatan. The gift of healing is not given for the gain of an individual man.

2. The work of healing is sacramental or has a similarity to sacraments: By this, I mean that the work of the healing is not found in the words of the person or in the form a person uses in order to heal someone. Rather the words and the touch are only powerful if accompanied by the Spirit. This is naturally derived from our first point. If healing is an act of God, we are only means for that act.

We can think of the time that God used Elijah to raise a child from the dead. Elijah spreads himself out over the child and God uses that to raise the child (1 Kings 17:17-24). Elijah’s actions are not in themselves healing. It is rather that the Holy Spirit uses Elijah’s actions for healing. Further, the gift of healing always points to Christ.

3. The gift of healing is occasional, not regular. This is somewhat technical language. We might also use the language of ordinary and extraordinary. A regular or ordinary gift is something like teaching, preaching or charity. These three are the true work of the church as she seeks to spread the kingdom of God. Ordinary gifts are essential to the kingdom of God. The gift of healing is occasional. God used it in the history of Israel as a sign to confirm true prophecy. Now that we have the final word there is less need for such a confirmation. Extraordinary gifts are not essential to the kingdom of God.

4. The gift of healing is not proof of one’s salvation. Neither is receiving healing a proof of salvation. Jesus makes the former quite clear in Matthew 7. Speaking of the day of judgment, he says, “many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works in your name.” Jesus doesn’t question that they did mighty works. Jesus questions their faithfulness to his name and to his word. In the end, the one who does mighty works before God is no different than the one who lives a quiet life. Each must trust in Jesus for his salvation.

5. Receiving healing is no proof of salvation. Healing is closely connected to the faith of the healed in the gospels, but in some stories, the connection is not so clear. In Luke 17: 11-18, Jesus heals ten lepers. One comes back, thanking him and praising God for the gift of healing. The passage is not about receiving salvation in the sense of eternal life, but the implication is clear; even when you receive healing, there is no guarantee that the one who received healing is moved by a desire for God. God may use the faith of a person in order to heal someone. God may use the faith of the healer in order to heal someone, but ultimately it is God who gives healing; sometimes that healing is affirmed by faith, sometimes not.

We can look at Jesus’ warning in Matthew 12:43-45 where he speaks of rescuing an individual from a demon. The individual, instead of filling himself with Christ instead of a demon, goes on his way empty. The demon comes back and brings seven others. Jesus’ warning is to Israel, but it applies to individuals. Jesus is talking about exorcism, which is a different thing again from healing. However, what applies to the exorcised man applies to the man who is healed. The exorcised man must look continually look to God for grace. The healed man must look to God for the continued health of both body and soul.

6. Another thing to notice (and this is particular to healing) is that healing is never forced on anyone. It is requested. We see this in the miracles of Jesus, though at times Jesus does offer first.

7. God can lead someone to look for healing or he may lead someone through a valley of suffering. God works through the suffering of Job to show his power. Paul will often appeal to God’s work in weakness as he reflects on his ministries in his letter. This is a very important point, for it through faithful suffering that we most reflect Jesus. According to Paul, he “fills our Christ’s sufferings” (Colossians 1:24) by his sufferings. The same applies to us. Healing shows Christ’s power. Our weakness and suffering do so even more.

Authority in the Old Testament; Authority in the New Testament

By James

On April 9, 2018

In Church, Libertarianism

You can find my former articles on this topic here and here.

Like my blog post on Davidic authority vs. magistral authority, I want to once again to make a distinction between two types of authority. However, I am not merely distinguishing between two types of authorities here, but rather, two different dispensations of authority. I want to argue that the Christians has a qualitatively greater degree of authority in the New Testament than the Jew of the Old Testament. There is a difference in the administration of authority after Christ has been seated at the right hand of God.

Unfortunately, I cannot explore all the practical manifestations of my case. However, I want to begin by stating that this is the case; I will argue further from that point.

Let’s begin with the administration of authority in the Old Testament. Adam and Eve take of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. By doing so they claim to the authority that God has. This authority is the ability to make a judgment between good and evil. We know that this is true because Solomon asks for the same gift in ruling over the people of Israel when he becomes king.

In the old dispensation or covenant this gift was taken or grasped by mankind and so mankind lost the ability to use it properly. Adam and Eve could have learned to exercise such authority by relying on God and his word. Instead, they took the gift before it was given. This distorted the gift.

So God took one man among the nations, Abraham, and began to train Israel so that they could learn to use the wisdom of God rather than seeking to grasp wisdom themselves. God taught Israel this through laws of holiness, through sacrifices, through a set calendar. Through the institutions of Israel God sought to reform or to restore Israel to the calling he had given to Adam and Eve.

God subjects Israel to this law. The civil leaders and the kings and the emperors that God raises up he also calls to enforce this whole law (though exclusively to the land of Israel). Israel has a limited wisdom in interpreting and applying the law to their lives. Therefore God provides Israel with priests, prophets, and kings, equipped with the Spirit in order to help Israel in applying the law.

Then God sends Israel her Saviour. The priests, prophets, and kings of the Old Testament were only shadows of this Saviour. This Saviour shared his Spirit of office with his entire congregation so that every Christian now exercises the office of prophet, priest, and king.

These Christians now have the freedom to apply the law to their own lives, they don’t need a calendar or sacrificial laws or laws of holiness. Christians exercise a greater freedom and wisdom than any of the kings of the Old Testament. The moral law still bears authority because God enfleshed that law in their Lord and Saviour. Christ replaces the rest with a different order or a different dispensation. Christians may now use the law of the Old Testament as a way to freely order their lives in him. All Christians bear a responsibility to judge between good and evil.

However, Christians still have civil leaders and they have spiritual leaders. Their power is restricted just as it was in the Old Testament. God restricts the civil leader’s power to defending life and property. God restricts the Spiritual leaders’ power. They may not exclude a Christian from the church of God on the basis of regulations that are extra to the word of God. However, they still exercise moral authority on the basis of the law of the Spirit and the law of Christ.

So what’s the real difference? even in the Old Testament, the leaders had a degree of freedom to apply the law and to obey the law. Is the only difference one of quantity?

No. Christ also brought the Christians a different degree of authority. We can see this in Galatians 4. In the Covenant at Mount Sinai, Israel functioned as a child. Israel was under a tutor. God was training his son to practice the authority he would eventually call her too. She is an ambassador (a prophet, priest and king) in training. In Christ, God’s son reached maturity. She is now an ambassador of Christ. The church is no longer under a tutor, but directly under Christ and the law of Christ.

Do I not Hate Those who Hate You

By James

On March 17, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church

In Psalm 139, David proclaims his hatred for those who hate God. May we sing that? Now that Christ has come among us and told us, “You shall love your enemies?” For those who argue for the “singing of the Psalms,” these types of psalms, known as Imprecatory Psalms, often come up. Should we sing these Psalms as well? In the Psalms, David seems to express a different spirit than the one Jesus has in the New Testament. I argue that we should sing these songs.

These songs look to God to provide vengeance.They allow the Christian to look to God’s justice for dealing with oppression and evil. We can think of the Boko Haram and ISIS. We look at them with pity and desire their salvation. At the same time, we are angry at the magnitude of their wickedness. We desire that God will rescue those who suffer under their hand.

With that in mind, here are a couple of things to keep in mind when you run across such a verse whether in your readings or when you are singing in church.

First, remember to read carefully. In Psalm 139, David specifies the types of people he hates. He hates God’s enemies. In Matthew 5, Jesus asks those who are listening to love their enemies. These are not God’s enemies. They are your enemies. David is praying in his role as a servant of God. Your enemy might not be God’s enemy.
In Matthew 23, Jesus calls down “woes” upon the Pharisees and Scribes, who have perverted God’s law. His anger at the Pharisees is coupled with a desire for their salvation. At the end of Matthew 23, he says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Remember that vengeance belongs to God. God wants us to release our desire for personal vengeance so that we “love our enemies.” We do this by relying on God for vengeance. Some Christians deal with a great amount of suffering. Men oppress and attack them in a way that Christians in the west have a hard time imagining. God gives them a way to seek vengeance in the words of this Psalm. God responds to such a prayer in two ways: by breaking them on the rock or crushing them under the rock. The rock is Christ. God saves you when he breaks you on the rock. If God crushes you under the rock, you are lost.
Finally, we need to understand David’s hate. It is possible that his hatred for the extreme violence and evil committed by his enemies exists alongside a pity for their fate before God. This fate is one that they have chosen, but it is a pitiable one.

These are meant to be helpful comments to give us confidence in singing the Psalms before God. These are prayers that God has given us in order to teach us how to pray. We should learn how to pray from them.

True Witness is through rejection of identity politics, Part 3

By James

On December 27, 2017

In Church, Witness

So how do we deal with identity politics? We speak the truth in love. To do otherwise is cruelty. This is our witness to Jesus Christ. It is to recognize that he is the one who defines truth. He is the one who defines our identity. When we play about with our identity, we play about with rejecting Jesus Christ. Ultimately, we play with idolatry. To promote identities opposed to our God-given identity is idolatry. This is because we turn ourselves into identity creators when identity is a gift of God. That is the argument of Toby Sumpter’s blog post that I referenced in my first post on this subject. In order to give some concreteness to “speaking the truth in love, I want to interact with Toby’s piece.

If you have read Toby Sumpter’s piece, I want to note one disagreement with him. He argues that using preferred gender pronouns is equivalent to an early Christian offering incense to the emperor. I agree and I disagree. I want to distinguish between two ways of compromising on this point. To do this I want to point to 1 Corinthians 10.

In 1st Corinthians 10, Paul deals with the issue of food sacrificed to idols. Paul argues that if you participate in the pagan feasts, you are idolatrous. This is because you are publicly participating in the altar of a false God. I would argue on this level, those Christians who publicly compromise on calling an individual a “zer” or a “ze” are offering their pinch of incense. This is particularly true of the gender-neutral pronouns. Those who offer their sacrifice of appeasement to the world’s understanding of identity are denying God’s gift of identity to that individual.

But Paul also argues that when you visit somebodies house you may eat the food offered without asking. It might be sacrificed to idols, but ultimately God is in control. But if the person tells you, for the sake of the gospel, do not eat any food sacrificed to idols. There is an application to identity here. Treat people as they appear. You are not bowing to the idol of identity. But if somebody asks you to call them a “ze” or a “zer” or if they tell you that they have had a gender-change surgery, do not call them by their preferred pronoun. You do this for the sake of the gospel, so that they may know God’s desire for their identity.

Witness, then through rejecting identity politics. We could go further, we could talk about all the politics around race. Here we can be more sensitive. Race is a natural thing. The sons of Adam have developed distinctive features in different areas of the world. Still, we are all sons of Adam, made in the image of God before we are black and white. Here, again we reject identity politics. Our witness is through embracing our identity in Christ and encouraging others to appropriate that identity as well.

True Witness is through Rejection of Identity Politics, Part 2

By James

On December 26, 2017

In Church, Witness

I want to point out three different ways the world plays identity politics. These three ways are through the rejection of the universal masculine, through the acceptance of nomenclature like “non-straight” Christians, and finally through acceptance of gender-neutral pronouns to refer to individuals. The first is an older issue. In the minds of many that particular cause is a lost cause. It’s beginnings were prominent in the last century. This is the movement away from the use of any type of universal masculine. To use the universal masculine is to use “man” as a placeholder for both men and women This is a legitimate use of the word “man” in the English language. In its stead, men have used gender-neutral words like “people” or “they.”

Through feminism and individualism, along with the rise of leftism in universities the universal masculine is no longer used. Feminism argued for equality of men and women in absolutely every respect. They did not exclude pronouns. Radical individualism resisted any type of collectivism even in language. The few who refuse to bend to the dominant grammar are relegated to the sidelines. This is particularly true in Bible translation. Yet God chooses to identify man, as a whole, in masculine terms. He defines man and women, as man, in Genesis 1. This is not demeaning to women, this is merely because man was created first.

Arguably, this is the beginning of identity politics; a demand for respect for the individuality of members of a group. There was no room for definition in relation to a whole, the individual, in this case, the individual woman, demands respect. The speaker must recognize her gender.

This is where the insanity began. For this reason, I choose to be regulated to the sidelines with a couple of others. I choose to join the dinosaurs. There is a chance to persuade me that God might not appreciate this stand. God wants us to relate to our own society. We speak in a different language than the Hebrews. We think in a different way than the Hebrews. It’s possible that I sin. If I do, I do so in ignorance. However, I believe that God will honor this decision. I believe that there is more continuity between Hebrew culture and our own than we like to believe.

My reason: scripture should teach me how to think about gender. It is not the main goal of scripture. The main goal of scripture is to teach me about Christ. but scripture does teach me about my identity and the identity I receive in Christ.

The second way of identity politics is a little more recent. It is the new understanding of the word “homosexual.” The word used to refer to a condition, a desire or an action, not necessarily a biological identity equivalent to our identity as a man or a woman, or possibly our identity as tall or short. Unfortunately, the evangelical world has begun to talk about “homosexual Christians” as if that is a real possibility. They have accepted the “fact” that the identity of “homosexuality” is equivalent to a gene for tallness or a predisposition to cancer.

But God offers a new identity. That is why it is particularly repugnant to call a Christian a “homosexual” Christian. We wouldn’t want to call a brother in Christ a Christian “murderer.” We don’t even need to give into the world on the old identity we have in Adam. Yes “homosexuality” can be an identity, but it is an identity in the way “miser” or “murderer” or “drunk” is an identity. It is a problem; a problem that people seriously struggle with, sometimes throughout their whole lives. But this identity is not grounded in creation. The identities we gain through the curse and through our sinful desires are no longer ours in Christ.

The final example of identity politics is the most recent. These are the gender-neutral pronouns, which Jordan Peterson is dealing with. This is also the most extreme case of identity politics. My comments on this will only repeat what I have already said. I would only add that this is the clearest and unambiguous case we have so far. The attempts to nuance this issue fail.

Witness through Rejection of Identity Politics, Part 1

By James

On December 20, 2017

In Church, Witness

What does it mean to witness to Jesus Christ? The answer is simple. It is to confess Jesus. Christians are ambassadors of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We do so by announcing that King Jesus rules and calling all men to humble themselves in repentance before him. We tell them, and we show them, how good it is to live before Christ. I argue that we cannot use identity politics to witness to Jesus Christ. Identity Politics rejects the identity that Christ gives us and celebrates the identity that people choose for themselves instead of our God-given identities.

I would add more: we witness to Jesus by confessing the truth that he has taught us. Even more: we witness to Jesus by delighting in the good law that he gave us. Finally, we witness to Jesus by rejoicing in the identity that he gave us. That final point is the important point here. If we rejoice in the identity Christ gave us. If we accept Scripture’s word on the identity Christ has given both to us and others, we must reject any type of identity politics. This identity includes both the identity that Christ gives us through our creation and through our redemption.

Yet, for evangelicals, it is never so simple. They cave into identity politics. Identity politics is any movement that demands respect for an identity that is obviously false. And to see why you need to go no further than the problem Pastor Toby Sumpter deals with here. The article he is dealing with is here. You can find another article from the gospel coalition that uses the branding “nonstraight Christians” here. Now Christians are branding themselves according to the categories of the world.

In a strange twist of providence, I believe it is the agnostic Jordan Peterson, who has forced me to deal with this issue head-on. His courageous stand against using genderfluid pronouns like “zer” and “ze,” for the sake of those who want to use those pronouns has encouraged me to be firm on this issue. If an agnostic can take a stand for truth out of compassion for the psychologically confused, how much more a Christian, who confesses that they know the mind of Christ. It is wicked and cruel to accept people in this way. You demonstrate that you accept their identity as they define it.

Of course, you do want to accept the identity men have been given. We accept all men and women as people made in the image of God. They deserve the dignity that goes with that. A re-defined identity deserves no respect. Neither we should give it any respect. Out of grace, out of mercy, we should hold to the God’s truth. Even so, one’s true identity continues to deserve respect no matter how far one has perverted one’s self.

The Best and the Worst of Tim Keller’s “Center Church.”

By James

On December 13, 2017

In Church

Tim Keller’s Magnum Opus, Center Church, is impressive. You can find it here. He has a comprehensive grasp on what is going on in the church and scholarship today. Keller is a synthesizer. He draws from many traditions in order to present us with a church that is well-balanced in relation to the city and its culture. He continually demonstrates both psychological and cultural savvy.

Keller’s Contextualization

Keller’s grasp of human psychology is the most valuable thing you will go away with. It is particularly evident in the section on contextualization. He argues that in any culture we can separate Christian beliefs into “A” and “B” categories. The “A” category are those beliefs that our culture will easily agree with. The “B” category are those beliefs which offend our culture. Different cultures will gravitate toward certain doctrines in the Christian faith. This is not only true of cultures. Persons with different backgrounds will find Jesus attractive in different ways, but they need the presentation of the whole Christ.

Quite simply, it is wise to start with agreement. You don’t begin with conflict. That will come. If your friend does not confess the truth of Jesus Christ, the question of his existence will eventually come up. Find the “A” doctrines and work to the “B” doctrines. Find out why Jesus is attractive to the people you are ministering to. Why is it possible to do this? It is because the gospel is cohesive. The teachings of scripture are united in the person of Christ. If your audience, or your friend, find some teaching of scripture compelling, work from that to the rest of the doctrines of Christ.

For example, people in Canada, find the love and sacrifice of Christ compelling. They don’t like the doctrine of hell. But if Christ is truly loving, how can he ignore those who hate and ignore his church? You might try to get them to imagine a society where crime gets no punishment. Some type of justice is necessary. In this way, you can bring the whole gospel to a person in a winsome and helpful manner.

Keller’s Movement

Keller’s comments on movement are also very helpful. He sets movement at odds with institutions. To keep it simple: movements are about growth and revival. Institutions are about stability. Keller argues that the church must always include both.

He applies this to church planting. Church planting has to be a movement. Church planting, after all, is about growth. We plant a church in order to bring the good news to a new area. Church planting itself gives the church an opportunity for how we do church. As a byproduct church planting strengthens the institutions of other churches that are already in the area.

He also warns against institutions that are so rigid that they don’t allow for movement. I think this is a helpful warning to the more conservative denominations of today. It is good for their own health. It is very easy to use one’s power to hold an unhealthy control over churches within one’s own group.

Unfortunately, he assumes denominationalism. This is helpful in so far as the church deals with the reality of denominationalism today. However, Keller’s assumption seems to be more than a reckoning with the realities of today. He is largely content with denominationalism. Perhaps he sees it as a necessary evil in that denominationalism creates competition, which forces churches to produce effective ministers. It is hard to tell, since Keller rarely deals with denominationalism directly. When he does he has a light touch.

He forgets that there are other models from the past such as the Medieval European church, the Anglican church and the state churches of Europe. All of these have been effective as institutions and at the same time have had their renewal movements. As an aside, I should add that I do not favor state churches. But neither do I accept denominationalism. I believe that the church may well take on new structures in the future that go beyond a simple dichotomy between state churches and denominational churches.

A Major Criticism: an ill-defined church

But I have a much harsher criticism of Keller’s book. I believe this criticism applies to every part of the book.

Keller has an invisible center church. His center church has faith, but it is hard to tell how exactly it is a center church. Keller fundamentally downplays the marks of the church. It may also play into how he downplays the institutional nature of the church. He downplays the sacraments. He seems to see them as merely an aid to faith, rather than ritual signs that create a fundamental boundary between the church and the world. Throughout the book, he talks about the importance of sacraments, and of different metaphors for the church, but he does not have a strong sacramental boundary between the church and the world. I believe we end up with a center church that isn’t really a center church.

Attention to the sacraments would reveal that the church is a counter-polity a counter-city to the city. The sacraments give the Christian confidence in knowing that they are citizens of heaven. Others have argued that Keller is compromising in the way he reaches out to the city. A strong emphasis on sacraments would demonstrate that the church is a holy people. It would demonstrate that the church is the truly just society. It would also keep the antithesis between the church and the world strong, while allowing the members of the church to interact freely and graciously with all men. This is because the members of the church would know their true citizenship.

One could argue that this is not the real concern of Tim Keller for he is dealing with the church relative to mission. I would argue that this is impossible. For a large part of the book, Tim Keller is talking about the sociology of the church. He is defining the church in relation to the city and to society more generally. His inattention to the role of the sacraments in defining the Christian community is inexcusable: especially for a Presbyterian minister. Yes, the essence of the church is important, the church needs to be understood as the community of believers. But sociologically, the church is a sacramental body. This does not undermine the church as a movement. The sacraments are such that they are easily done among believers wherever the Spirit moves. You ignore that at the peril of the stability of the church itself.

Conclusion

As they say, “it is what it is.” Keller is a man of his time. Our times are not times where sacraments are emphasized. This is particularly true among the evangelical establishment. In many ways, he is the best that contemporary evangelicalism has to offer. His book is a gift to the Christian community and it should not be ignored.