You would be hard-pressed to find something Herman Bavinck has written that is not rich in insight, cogent, and bursting with theological significance. Of course, this is an exaggeration (and a clear indication that I have not read everything Bavinck has written), but I find that almost every time I open one of his books and start to read him, my soul is fed.

One of the areas of theology that captures my interest most is ecclesiology. Bavinck makes much of the Church, as any good theologian should, given that it is in the Church that God joins His covenant people together, having called them to Himself and redeemed them. A couple of years ago, I remember coming across this passage on pages 280-281 in volume four of his Reformed Dogmatics, in which he gives wonderful expression to the organic unity of the Church.

All [local] churches are conceived of as one ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) and described as the body, the bride, or the fullness (πλήρωμα, plērōma) of Christ.

This oneness of all the churches does not come into being a posteriori by the establishment of a creed, a church order, and a synodical system. Neither is the church an association of individual persons who first became believers apart from the church and subsequently united themselves. But it is an organism in which the whole exists prior to the parts; its unity precedes the plurality of local churches and rests in Christ. It is he who, continuing his mediatorial work in the state of exaltation, joins his churches together and builds them up from within himself as the head (Eph. 1:23; 4:16; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19), gathers and governs it (John 10:16; 11:52; 17:20-21; Acts 2:33, 47; 9:3ff.), always remains with it (Matt. 18:20), is most intimately connected with it (John 15:1ff.; 17:21, 23; 1 Cor. 6:15; 12:12-27; Gal. 2:20), and dwells in it by his Spirit (Rom. 6:5; 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 6:15ff.; Eph. 3:17). The assertion that the universal ἐκκλησία precedes the local churches is correct in the sense that while it is not historically prior it is logically so. Every local church is the people of God, the body of Christ, built upon the foundation of Christ (1 Cor. 3:11, 16; 12:27), because in that location it is the same as what the church is in its entirety, and Christ is for that local church what he is for the universal church.

In the various local gatherings of believers, it is the one church of Christ that comes to expression. Its essence, both as it concerns the church as a whole and each of its parts in particular, is grounded in that it is the people of God (Rom. 9:25; 2 Cor. 6:16, 18; Titus 2:14; Heb. 8:10; 13:12; 1 Pet. 2:9-10), consisting of people who have committed themselves to the Lord and have turned to him (Acts 5:14; 14:15), who bear the name of disciples, brothers and sisters, chosen ones, called ones, saints, believers (Acts 1:15; 6:1; 9:1, 32; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2). In its broadest sense ἐκκλησία is the gathering of all the people of God, not only on earth but also in heaven (Heb. 12:23), not only in the past and present but also in the future (John 10:16; 17:20).

Bavinck is clearly talking here about the organic unity that lies at the very heart of the nature of the Church, speaking of the Church as God intended her to be. But I think there is a great deal of work to be done building on this foundation, both to understand what this unity would look like in reality and to begin to bring that unity to fruition. I have remarked before that the division and brokenness of Christ's Church grieves me so deeply that there are times I almost feel the effects of it physically. Although I recognize that we will never see this unity come to full expression before Christ returns, we are left with no excuse, on the one hand, to remain content in our division; neither, on the other hand, is it an excuse to force unity where there is none. There must be some way to make this organic unity more of a reality among the churches on earth.

To that end, I am thinking more and more that I should like to devote my life (or at least several years, initially) to begin the work of figuring this out. (On a side note, if someone over at Oxford, Edinburgh, the Free University of Amsterdam, or any other school is willing to pay me to do so, that would be even better).

Loading mentions Retweet

The doctrine of sola Scriptura has long been contentious, for any number of reasons. In the early American period, with a Christianity greatly influenced by populism and democratic ideals, it served as a license for people to interpret the Bible free of any traditional authorities such as ordained clergy and confessional standards. To put it bluntly, it gave them a license to do whatever they wanted. Nathan O. Hatch, in The Democratization of American Christianity, observes this:

Any number of denominations, sects, movements, and individuals between 1780 and 1830 claimed to be restoring a pristine biblical Christianity free from all human devices. 'In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master,' noted the Universalist spokesman A. B. Grosh, 'and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed-book.' 'I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me,' claimed Alexander Campbell, 'and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterrday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.'

Protestants from Luther to Wesley had been forced to define carefully what they meant by sola Scriptura. They found it an effective banner to unfurl when attacking Catholics but always a bit troublesome when common people began to take the teaching seriously. For the Reformers, popular translations of the Bible did not imply that people were to understand the Scriptures apart from ministerial guidance. Thus when dealing with a scholar such as Erasmus, Luther could champion boldly the perspicuity of Scripture, its clarity for all: 'Who will maintain that the public fountain does not stand in the light, because some people in a back alley cannot see it, when everybody in the market place can see it quite plainly?' Yet when confronted with headstrong sectarians, he withdrew such democratic interpretations and admitted the danger of proving anything by Scripture: 'Now I learn that it suffices to throw many passages together helterskelter whether they fit or not. If this is the way to do it, I certainly shall prove with Scripture that Rastrum beer is better than Malmsey wine' (179-180).

Abraham Kuyper once wrote, in his Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, that it would be foolish for someone to attempt to hike through the mountains of Switzerland without the help of a guide or a map. That is analogous, of course, to saying neither is it wise for someone to take up the Bible and attempt to interpret it apart from the wisdom of the Church throughout the ages. "In its rich and many-sided life, extending across so many ages," Kuyper wrote,

the Church tells you at once what fallible interpretations you need no longer try, and what interpretation on the other hand offers you the best chances for success. On this ground the claim must be put, that the investigator of the Holy Scriptures shall take account of what history and the life of the Church teaches concerning the general points of view, from which to start his investigation, and which paths it is useless to further reconnoitre.

Kuyper's sentiments are entirely antithetical to most of American Christianity, both past and present. As much as democratic ideals have done good things for America as a political entity, insofar as people have allowed those ideals to shape the Church in America, they have done a great disservice. Like I said in my last post, God grants authority to the Church, not the individual. He gives Scripture to His covenant people that it may reveal their Lord and shape and govern their life according to His will. To be sure, the individual must appropriate Scripture for himself (Deut. 6:4-9; Psalm 119; 2 Tim. 3:16-17, etc.), but never in a vacuum.

Our identity as Christians is not primarily that we are individuals saved by Christ. This is true, but it is not primary. What is first is that God has called a people to Himself, has redeemed them and brought them into a covenant relationship with them. Individual believers consitute that people, but not atomistically; their corporate identity as the body of Christ is at the fore. It follows here, then, that our reading of Scripture is to be done in this covenant community and not apart from it. This is not to say individuals should not read their Bibles on their own, of course, but that when they do so they should read it through what Kuyper calls the "consciousness of the Church." The Bible is, after all, God's covenant document with the Church.

When I was in college, Albert Wolters once said something like, "Don't worry, you can't come up with any new heresies. They've all been tried already." I'm not sure if that was intended to comfort us, but the point was that if we set ourselves some theological boundaries and recognize that the Church throughout history has already tried a myriad of interpretations, approving some and disapproving others, we have ourselves a pretty reliable guide as we travel today.

History matters, tradition matters, and the Church matters. They are gifts. Lean on them.

Loading mentions Retweet

John Williamson Nevin, the German Reformed theologian, wrote this in an article for the first edition of the Mercersburg Review in 1849:

The liberty of the sect consists at last, in thinking its particular notions, shouting its shibboleths and passwords, dancing its religious hornpipes, and reading the Bible only through its theological goggles. These restrictions, at same time, are so many wires, that lead back at last into the hands of a few leading spirits, enabling them to wield a true hierarchical despotism over all who are thus brought within their power.

The Holy Spirit grants authority to the Church, not to the individual.

Loading mentions Retweet

There is a reason that the festschrift recently published in honour of John Frame is titled Speaking the Truth in Love—it is because there are few who deal with the thought of others in such a gracious and humble manner, even when they fundamentally disagree. The reference comes from Ephesians 4:15, where Paul is encouraging the Christians in Ephesus to seek the unity of the Church. It has been an incredible blessing to be able to study under Dr. Frame in my time here at Reformed Theological Seminary and to follow him for these last few years as he works tirelessly to bring that unity to fruition, especially through his writings. Without a doubt his thinking constitutes one of the most formative influences in my own thought.

I have been taking the course on Pastoral and Social Ethics that Frame teaches over the past few months, and I finished working through the lectures this afternoon. Toward the very end of his lecture on the ninth commandment of the Decalogue, Frame had a few things to say about how we interact with the thought of others, especially in the internet age. The ability of anyone to publish anything online these days with little to no accountability makes it easy for people to slander and malign others, and to misrepresent and distort their thought so as to make them appear heretical. Frame has frequently been the victim of this sort of thing and he makes a plea to those who have blogs to interact with others in love and seek to build each other up. Here is a short clip from the lecture:

I thought it was amusing that Frame used the label "Reformed Controversialists." He's referring to that disproportionately vocal and hyper-critical group of Reformed bloggers who do nothing but tear down those they disagree with. You would know right away when you've landed on one of their sites and for the sake of your health, it's best just to hit the back button.

Our responsibility as Christians is to build each other up and seek unity. If our interaction lacks either of these characteristics, then we need to step back and examine ourselves. For without these, we do great harm to the body of Christ.

Loading mentions Retweet

Rob Moll wrote an article for Christianity Today last year called "Scrooge Lives!", a rightly judgmental and provocative piece demonstrating that Christians don't just hold on tight to their purse strings—they lock them away in impenetrable safes. Because of this, the Church's mission is seriously hindered.

That American Christians don't give is nothing new, but some of the statistics he presented were staggering and downright depressing. Be sure to read the article for yourself. Below, I've posted some of the most mind-blowing figures.

• American Christians—[defined as] those who say their faith is very important to them and those who attend church at least twice a month—earn more than $2.5 trillion dollars every year.
• If these Christians gave away 10 percent of their after-tax earnings, they would add another $46 billion to ministry around the world.
• American Christians could realistically increase their giving by $85.5 billion each year.
• The median annual giving for an American Christian is actually $200, just over half a percent of after-tax income.
• In absolute terms, the poorest Christians give away more dollars than all but the wealthiest Christians.
• $10 billion would sponsor 20 million children for a year, and just $330 million would sponsor 150,000 indigenous missionaries in countries closed to religious workers.
• $2.2 billion would triple the current funding of Bible translation, printing, and distribution. $600 million would be enough to start eight Christian colleges in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.

So, dear Christian who just spent $80,000 on a new Cadillac Escalade (justifying your purchase by sticking a Jesus fish to the back door so that you can "witness" as you drive around), did you know that that same $80,000 would put 36 indigenous missionaries in countries closed to religious workers? Should we even mention what could have been done with the money spent on that 5,000 sq. ft. house in the suburbs? Of course, Paul said not to muzzle our individual rights (1 Cor. 9:3-12)...didn't he? And that it doesn't matter what we give so long as our conscience is satisfied (2 Cor. 9:6-15)? What about James, who said we should look after ourselves (James 1:27)? Or Jesus, who said we can carry on as before and follow him (Matt. 16:24-28)?

The Reformer, Martin Luther, said, "There are three conversions necessary—the conversion of the heart, of the mind, and of the purse." It seems that last one might just be the hardest.

Let's take a cue from Tim Keller and be honest here. We're talking about nothing less than idolatry.

Loading mentions Retweet

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I had the privilege of studying under Mike Goheen when I did my undergraduate studies at Redeemer University College. It is not an exaggeration to say that he played one of the significant rolls in the formation of my thought on the Church and mission. Here he neatly sums up the story of redemptive history and talks about how the Church often sees this story in fragmented bits instead of holistically.

Loading mentions Retweet

If you know me personally, you might have sensed the urgency in the last post. For those of you who don't, and who did not pick up on it previously, I should note that I wrestle with how to think through and work toward the unity of the Church so much that I almost feel the effects of the struggle physically. It wears me out mentally, and I feel the tension in the pit of my stomach.

But then again, the pain I feel on account of the brokenness of the Church far outweighs the tension I feel, making it seem relatively tame and bearable.

And so I'll continue to struggle with it.

Loading mentions Retweet

It is not uncommon in the circles I travel in to see very rigid boundaries marked out as to what constitutes orthodoxy, those outside of the walls being excluded from fellowship with those inside. This sort of exclusivity that forces everyone else to think within your predetermined categories is not only absurd, it is sinful. Bavinck, from the fourth volume of his Reformed Dogmatics:

It [cannot] be denied that the endless divisions of the confessors of Christ offer the world an occasion for pleasure and scorn and give it reason for its nonbelief in the One sent by the Father, inasmuch as it does not see the unity of believers (John 17:21). As Christians we cannot humble ourselves deeply enough over the schisms and discord that have existed all through the centuries in the church of Christ. It is a sin against God, in conflict with Christ's [high-priestly] prayer [for unity], and caused by the darkness of our minds and the lovelessness of our hearts.

Given this, he writes, it is understandable that many Christians would make fervent attempts to unite the Church. However, this is then usually accomplished through violent means, or by some sort of syncretism and fusion. Ultimately, the power to bring the Church together as one does not reside with us.

The failure of all those attempts has something to teach us. History, like nature, is a work of God; it does not take shape apart from his providence. Christ, by his resurrection and ascension, became king at the right hand of God and will remain king until he has put all his enemies under his feet [1 Cor. 15:25]. He reigns also over the divisions and schisms of his church on earth. And his prayer for unity was not born of unfamiliarity with its history nor from his inability to govern it. In and through the discord and dissension, that prayer is daily heard and is led to its complete fulfillment. The profound spiritual sense in which the unity of his disciples was understood by Jesus necessarily excludes all violent and artificial attempts to introduce it. Christ, who prayed for it, is also the One—and he alone—who can bring it about. His prayer is the guarantee that it already exists in him and that in due time, accomplished by him, it will also be manifest in believers.

But while we know this to be true, it certainly does not give us an excuse to neglect seeking unity now. Our task is not to erect barriers, but to tear them down. Faithfulness to Christ requires it.

Loading mentions Retweet

If you have wondered at all why I love Herman Bavinck so much, read this small portion from The Certainty of Faith:

[W]e must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a Protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride. Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.

Enough said.
(HT: David Koyzis)

Loading mentions Retweet

We attended a local Anglican church today. The church we usually attend does not typically observe the liturgical calender, with the exception of the major holidays, so it kind of slipped my mind that today was All Saints' Day (although last night being Halloween should have tipped me off). We heard the beautiful words of this collect from the Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of Your Son, Christ our Lord: Give us grace so to follow Your blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys that thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

And, of course, the words of Hebrews 12:1-2 are fitting for this day as well.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

We can't forget that although the saints have come to that "ineffable joy" the collect speaks of—indeed, how could the being in the presence of God be described in any other way—that joy is not yet complete. Only when Christ returns in glory will that joy be fully complete, where we will enjoy, in the deepest sense of the word, the glory of His consummated Kingdom and the new creation. Indeed, that is the goal of this race which we run.

Loading mentions Retweet