News
A person wants to belong to something bigger than himself. We long for genuine community, a fellowship with other people in which we are known, welcomed, and accepted. Where can we find such a community?
The Christian answer is the Church, those who are bound together by a common belief in Jesus Christ. And other religions form their own communities. But what is the secular counterpart to this kind of community, when there is no article of faith to bind people together? There really isn’t any, according to Alain de Botton, author of Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believers Guide to the Uses of Religion. In an excerpt from the book that appears in the online version of the Wall Street Journal, de Botton writes:
One of the losses that modern society feels most keenly is the loss of a sense of community. We tend to imagine that there once existed a degree of neighborliness that has been replaced by ruthless anonymity, by the pursuit of contact with one another primarily for individualistic ends: for financial gain, social advancement, or romantic love.
de Botton is an atheist who is troubled by this lack of community in modern, secular society. His proposal is that we adopt the practices and traditions of established religions, strip them of all theological content, and then use them to foster genuine community among ourselves. As an example, he suggests a secular revamping of the early Christian practice of sharing communal meals. At these agape-feasts (agape means “love”), Christians enjoyed loving communion with each other as they ate together. de Botton sketches out a secular version of the love-feast: “Agape Restaurants” where people would gather for a meal, sit with strangers, and engage in meaningful conversation with others about matters that are important – our hopes, fears, regrets, and loves. de Botton writes:
Thanks the Agape Restaurant, our fear of strangers would recede. The poor would eat with the rich, the black with the white, the orthodox with the secular, workers with managers, scientists with artists. The claustrophobic pressure to derive all of our satisfactions from our existing relationships would ease, as would our desire to climb ever higher in social status.
The Agape Restaurants would be as ritual-laden as any religious gathering, but built upon a purely secular, humanistic understanding of ourselves and the world. de Botton admires the community-building structures of religion, and so he proposes to imitate these structures for the sake of fostering genuine human fellowship. But of course, he would gut these structures of all religious content.
I appreciated de Botton’s concern about the lack of community in secular society. He is surely right about this. And his willingness, despite being an unbeliever, to see value in religious practices and institutions is a refreshing change of tone from that of many militant atheists who not only reject religion in general but feel the need ridicule it.
But there is something sad in his ideas, a wistful longing for the experience of genuine human community that the secular world with which he identifies has put just out of reach. His is the voice of the lonely modern man, surrounded by people, yet failing to connect with others in any meaningful way. Many people’s interaction with others never goes beyond the banal and superficial. I think Thoreau’s words are true today, with one twist: The mass of men lead lives of lonely, quiet desperation.
I believe de Botton’s proposal to form community through secular versions of religious rituals cannot succeed for the same reason the secular desire to retain morality apart from religious faith must fail. Both genuine morality and true community cannot long be sustained apart from belief in God. In the case of the former, without God there can be no absolute standard of right and wrong. As for the latter, at the very core of religious communities is a shared belief in some transcendent truth. Genuine fellowship as de Botton seeks can only result when people are bound to one another out of the conviction that there is something greater than either the parts or the whole of their community. A secular worldview, taken seriously, does not gives us any such conviction. de Botton’s hope to build community out of God-less humanism is no more likely to happen than making concrete without the cement.
At the heart of our struggle to find community is sin. By nature we are selfish and self-loving; but real community demands sacrifice and love for others. For this reason the only hope we have for deep, authentic, soul-nourishing community is if such a fellowship consists of people who have been redeemed from the power of sin and love of self, and who are being transformed by God’s grace into people who love others. Genuine community is a gift of God’s grace, the fruit of the saving work of Christ, and enjoyed, albeit imperfectly, by those who have been restored to a right relationship with God by faith in Christ. Where the love of Christ is present, where forgiveness and grace are extended to others, where, in short, sin’s baneful effects are being overcome by the grace of God, then there is the hope for genuine community.
Perhaps if de Botton, and other secular-minded people like him, saw genuine Christian community in action (and would that there was more of it!), they would abandon the attempt to create an empty alternative. Instead, they would come to discover the source of true community:
that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you; so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3)
Pastor Scott
February 21, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
This cover picture on the bulletin sparked some interest today (I’m not criticizing the person who prepares the bulletins – she just used the next set of blanks from the box that we ordered). Instead of the usual mountain vistas or flowered fields, today’s picture was this group of empty stadium seats. It’s an unlikely shot for a church bulletin (can I be blamed for thinking today about the upcoming baseball season?), but the accompanying verse adds some intrigue. Do the uniform seats symbolize the unity of the Spirit? There’s something vaguely unsettling about the absence of people in the seats, as though we tried to keep the unity of the Spirit and here’s what happened. Or, would a visitor think we aspire to be the next Lakewood Church of Joel Osteen fame (or better, notoriety), since it meets in the former home of the Houston Rockets? Or perhaps the Sabbatarian’s dream for Super Bowl Sunday?
In any case, what’s a picture on the bulletin, after all? What’s important is that God’s people met for worship today. At the morning service I preached from 1 Peter 4:7-11. I asked the question, “what does a church look like that glorifies God?” Peter gives us four marks of such a church. In a church that brings glory to God and Christ:
1. God’s people will watch and pray.
2. God’s people will love one another zealously and steadfastly.
3. God’s people are cheerfully hospitable to one another.
4. God’s people serve one another with the gifts God has given them.
During the service, it was a joy to have a new couple to the church profess their faith and formally unite with the congregation. He is from an OP church, and she is from a PCA church. They just married in October of last year and this is their first church to have membership in together as a couple.
In the evening, we celebrated the Lord’s Supper. We do this once a month both at the morning and evening services. When we have communion on Sunday nights, I preach from a Psalm – today’s was Psalm 125. My message centered on verses 1 and 2, both of which use wonderful imagery to depict God’s eternal love for his people. Verse 2, which resonates with us up here in many-peaked Alaska, says:
As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people, from this time forth and forevermore.
What a grand statement of God’s everlasting care for us! Next time I preach from this Psalm I’ll be sure to have a bulletin cover with mountains.
Pastor Scott
February 19, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
I confess there are times that when counseling others I feel like I’m “winging it” – not sure exactly what to say, how to say it, and unsure just how helpful my words have been (on these occasions, belief in the sovereignty of God is a particular comfort to me!). And I suspect many other ministers would say the same. To the pastor – and to every Christian – who desires to offer godly, sage, and fruitful counsel to people with problems, David Powlison offers much wisdom and encouragement in his book, Seeing with New Eyes.
This is the first work of what the author plans to be a three-book series on the topic of counseling. Though Seeing with New Eyes is a collection of various essays Powlison has previously written, and thus as a book is not a seamless whole, there is an underlying purpose throughout. And that is, to establish a thoroughly Scriptural basis for the work of counseling. As the author puts it in the Preface:
The first book… focuses on the conceptual. It unfolds Scripture’s view of people and problems. It reinterprets common counseling phenomena through God’s eyes, as revealed in Scritpure. (pg. 7)
Since the chapters were at one time separate articles, the ride through the book is a little bumpy at times. But overall, the main theme of the book is clear enough: we must counsel people in the light of Scripture. From this one essential theme of the book, there are three major points that Powlison makes again and again in the book. These “bullet points” are not Powlison’s, but mine. But, I believe they do fairly capture the essence of his message.
First, though, Powlison’s definition of counseling deserves mention: it is “intentionally helpful conversations” (pg. 1). This way of defining counseling serves us well, for it dispels the notion that Christian counseling is the unique domain of highly-trained professionals. Rather, every believer who, in love, speaks God’s truth to another is engaged in counseling (Ephesians 4:15). In line with this, Powlison writes for ordinary believers. What he says will profit any interested Christian who desires to have “intentionally helpful conversations” with others.
Here are three points that sum up the content of Seeing with New Eyes:
1. Biblical counseling is based on the belief in the utter reliability and sufficiency of Scripture to address our problems.
Everything Powlison writes is grounded in the conviction that God’s Word reveals infallible truth about who God is, and who we are his creatures. Our understanding of our true needs, our true problems, the dynamics of personal relationships, and every other dimension of human nature and behavior must come from the Bible if we are to offer any helpful and genuine counsel to others.
In fact, the first part of the book is devoted entirely to applying specific Scriptures (Ephesians, Psalms 10 & 131, and Luke 12) to a whole host of struggles and problems that drive people to seek counsel: troubled relationships with others, fear, anxiety, suffering because of abuse, and so on. In this way, Powlison demonstrates how biblical counseling is not just a name for secular counseling with a Christian veneer, but is rather an approach to understanding the human condition in the full light of God’s revelation to us in the Scriptures.
2. Biblical counseling apprehends the profound depth and power of sin.
Taking the Bible seriously means taking sin seriously. This may be the most helpful aspect of Powlison’s work, because again and again he shows how secular psychological theories and practice, and more dismayingly, how much that goes on in the name of Christian counseling, either outright denies sin, or tames sin to the point of irrelevance.
In the course of the book, Powlison analyzes a whole host of common counseling terms, metaphors, and models, both secular and “Christian”, to show how they fail to do justice to the Bible’s comprehensive view of human sin (and therefore fail to address the deepest cause for human misery and need). This includes the notion that family upbringing determines future behavior (chapters 10 and 12), the morally neutral categories of “defense mechanisms” (chapter 11), the idea that unmet emotional needs are the source of human dysfunction (an “empty love tank”, chapter 14), and the growing use of drugs to treat psychological problems (chapter 15).
In their place, Powlison offers biblical concepts and terms that account for the true nature of man: pride, lust, idolatry, fear of man, and so on. Man is not a machine that can be fixed like a broken engine, but an image-bearer of God created to be in communion with God and others. But, sin has destroyed our fellowship with God and it poisons our relationships with other people. For this reason, as Powlison writes, “… the Bible never views human problems as ontological but as relational or ethical at their cores” (pg. 192). So, the goal of biblical counseling is not merely modified behavior, but repentance and turning in faith to Christ. And that leads to the third major point Powlison makes – the hope that true biblical counseling holds forth.
3. Biblical counseling presents to people the one true source for human well-being: Jesus Christ.
The aim of biblical counseling is no different from the aim of all ministry of the Word – to bring people to saving faith in Christ and establish them in that faith. Because at heart our problem is sin (no matter how our experiences have shaped us), above all we need grace, forgiveness, and salvation. Powlison always keeps this in view – he never sets up mere human happiness or improved behavior as ends in themselves. Rather, his passion in counseling, which is evident throughout the book, is to lead people to a greater knowledge of God through faith in Christ. Only Jesus can impart true and lasting peace and joy to the human heart. Therefore, only that counseling that leads people to the life-giving Savior is truly “biblical”.
In the Preface, Powlison sums up these points this way:
The biblical model is more than one more “model,” conceptual system, or personality theory among many. Truth mediates a Person, a working Redeemer. To be human is to love a Savior, Father, Master, and Lord. Instead of “psychopathology” and “syndromes,” we see “sins” against this Person, and we see sufferings that are “trials” revealing our need for a true Deliverer and refuge. Instead of proposing that some psychodynamic insight, met need, altered self-talk, or behavioral rehabituation will cure us, we receive God’s actual mercies as our salvation. Instead of defining change as an intra-psychic, psychosocial, or biological process of “healing” or “growth,” we define change and turning to a Person whom we trust, obey, and seek to please. (pg. 4)
Seeing with New Eyes is a straightforward and unabashed appeal for counseling that is comprehensively Scriptural. And so he levels some hefty (and necessary, in my view) criticism against theories of counseling that are secular or only superficially Christian. But Powlison cannot be dismissed as a fundamentalist crank who in knee-jerk fashion rejects all of which he is ignorant. He was educated and trained in psychiatry, and for four years worked in psychiatric hospitals. In the book he interacts intelligently, though critically, with mainstream secular views of counseling. So Powlison writes about counseling from a decidedly biblical perspective, but also with the personal authority and credibility of one who also has extensive experience in, and knowledge of, the wider field of counseling. One would hope this would help give him a broader reading outside of Christian circles, but I suspect that is unlikely.
I don’t have much criticism to offer, but a couple of questions came to mind as I read Seeing with New Eyes. The first has to do with Powlison’s treatment of Scripture in chapter 1, “Counsel Ephesians.” His concern is that we see Scripture as fundamentally applicable and practical, not as abstract doctrine. He writes:
Ephesians is not just about practical theology, it is practical theology. The distinction between “biblical truth” and “practical application” is artificial. In the Bible, truth arrives in action. (pg. 18)
Insofar as Powlison wants to stress the “living and active” nature of God’s Word (Hebrews 4:12), as opposed to dry, esoteric information, I agree with him. But I wonder if someone might get the idea that any formal instruction in theology (for example, catechism training), that is given apart from immediate application is unhelpful and unnecessary for Christians? I don’t think Powlison believes this, but as he emphasizes so strongly the practical nature of Scripture, a person could come away with this impression.
The second question that came to mind concerns the context in which biblical counseling takes place. If the Bible provides the truth with which we understand people and give them counsel, it also gives us the context in which we as Christians are to grow in our faith. And that context is the church with its life and ministry: preaching, teaching, the sacraments, prayer, and fellowship. Actually, Powlison addresses this question in the Preface where he writes that the second book of this series will speak of the institutional structures in which biblical counseling takes place. But without bringing the life of the church to the fore at this point, one might get a truncated view of biblical counseling – that like secular models, it’s all about what takes place between the counselor and person counseled. But the biblical model of growth in grace involves so much more – it involves the entire ministry of the church and the whole Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:1-16) . Again, Powlison wouldn’t deny this, but the all-important context of biblical counseling is mostly left out in this volume.
Pastor Scott
February 15, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
It’s 10 o’clock at night and I’m beat. Sundays are always full days, and if you’ve ever preached you know how exhausting that is. But, here goes another “Sunday night recap.”
One of our two elders who usually leads the adult Sunday School taught today on our responsibility as Christians to share with others in need, especially the needy among God’s people (Galatians 6:10). This is such an important but difficult topic. How do we show the compassion of Christ to those with material need in ways that address the underlying issues that so often result in the very need? One book that I found very helpful in this regard states the problem well with its title: When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor… and Yourself. Our deacon and I have tried to build our church’s approach to diaconal aid (aid to the needy) with this book in mind. It’s a fantastic treatment of this matter and every deacon would do well to read it thoughtfully.
For the children’s Sunday School, our daughter Meredith wrote a skit last week based on Esther that she and the other children performed for their teachers. This was entirely her idea! I can easily imagine her putting together a play someday – the role of director comes naturally to her.
I preached from 1 Peter 4:1-6 at the morning service. The imperative in these verses is “arm yourselves with the same way of thinking” (v.1) – that is, with the way of thinking of Christ himself, who “suffered in the flesh” (v.1, i.e., died for sinners). To put it very simply, the message was that Christians must be prepared to suffer for the sake of obedience to God’s will.
When I prepared for the message last week, I was torn between two different interpretation of the phrase “for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin” (v.1). I won’t go into details here, but one interpretation would have been easier to preach. For that reason it was attractive. But the other interpretation seemed exegetically sounder. I went with the latter, though I would have preferred to preach the first. Though this understanding of the verse took more explaining because it was less readily grasped, I do think it was the more accurate interpretation. And though it made the sermon more difficult, I hope that at least people saw that I was trying to be careful with the words of Scripture.
At the evening service, I spoke from Isaiah 48:1-11. Here, there is bad news and good news. The bad news is our sin – truly we are rebels against God “from before birth” (v.8). The good news is that God has determined to save his people despite our sin, and he does so for his own name’s sake (v.9). In our salvation, our sin magnifies God’s grace, which in turn magnifies God’s glory. I ended with this quote from Geerhardus Vos, which is a good word to end this Sunday night recap:
(the) all embracing slogan of the Reformed faith is this: the work of grace in the sinner as a mirror for the glory of God.
Pastor Scott
February 12, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
I am not naturally talkative. This may be a surprise to those who’ve only seen me on Sundays. On that day, I am a word machine – teaching, preaching, socializing, chatting. But the fact is by nature I am introverted. I am thankful for whatever gifts God has given me, but “gab” is not one of them. My wife is far more extroverted than me. Her perfect vacation is going somewhere to spend as much time possible with as many people possible – conversing and catching up with friends and family (like an intense facebook session, but with real people). My ideal getaway is to hide somewhere and spend quality time with a good book.
But I’m a pastor, and talking comes with the territory. I really do enjoy being with people, but as with all introverts time spent conversing with others tends to be more draining than energizing. If you are a Christian with an inward bent like me, given to quiet reflection and solitude, perhaps in your involvement in the church you’ve felt at times a bit out of step. The truth is, the evangelical church can be tough on introverts.
American Christianity prizes the qualities of the extrovert. From the ideal pastor – a chatty, garrulous fellow, to the bare-your-soul ethos of small groups, to the casual, chummy atmosphere of church services, to the idea that you should not only have a personal relationship with Jesus, but should talk incessantly about it with others, it’s easy to get the message that the most faithful Christians are the most vocal ones. The notions of silent reverence and quiet contemplation have been lost. “Quiet time” used to mean praying and reading your Bible. Now it means that four-second pause you take to have another sip of your latte while chattering on with friends at the church’s coffee bar.
A book review on the Wall Street Journal’s website prompted these thoughts of mine. The book is by Susan Cain, and is called Quiet – The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. According to the review, the author argues that America has gone from a “culture of character” to a “culture of personality” (you could trace a parallel development in conservative Christianity). Cain chooses to visit “three nerve centers of the Extrovert Ideal”, the first two being a Tony Robbins seminar and the Harvard Business School. What was the third hotbed of extroversion? A megachurch, of course!
Others have written on this aspect of contemporary evangelicalism. In Introverts in the Church, Adam S. McHugh notes:
As a pastor who has participated in both independent and denominationally affiliated churches, it is my experience that evangelical churches can difficult places for introverts to thrive, both for theological and cultural reasons… A subtle but insidious message can permeate these communities, a message that says God is most pleased with extroversion. (pg. 13)
The way I see it, though, introverts are heroes of the faith born out of time. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the ideal Christians were not the effusive pastors of megachurches or the celebrity speakers at Bible conferences. They were the strong and silent type, monastics who withdrew from society to devote themselves to self-denial, prayer, and contemplation. At that time, Christians thought extreme introversion was the highest form of piety!
Or consider Moses, the great man of God who led Israel out of Egypt. He was “slow of speech” (Exodus 4:10) and “meek” (Numbers 12:3). And it’s possible that Timothy was reticent and retiring, given Paul’s words to him in 2 Timothy 1:7: “… God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.”
In the history of the church, God has worked mightily through some who were non-extroverts. John Calvin was an imposing public figure and dominant force in the Reformation, but could be shy and awkward in private. He said of himself that he was “of a disposition somewhat unpolished and bashful, which led me always to love the shade and retirement…” Jonathan Edwards spent countless hours in solitary study and meditation. According to an early biographer, those who met him for the first time found him “stiff and unsociable”. Not exactly the profile for a “dynamic” church leader!
As another example to show that the verbally prolific weren’t always given deference, consider “Talkative” in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. His religion was all talk, and he failed to reach the Celestial City.
Now, I thank God for extroverted Christians. I admire, even with some envy, the knack some believers have for engaging others in conversation and speaking of their faith in an easy and natural way. And I’m not in favor of returning to the days of the monastics, making silence and withdrawal the pinnacle of Christian devotion. But at the same time, I see that “loquacious” is not a fruit of the Spirit. God has created each of us with a unique disposition. Introverts may not be flashy attention-getters, but they are usually thoughtful and insightful in ways extroverts are not. The evangelical church may value the highly sociable and outgoing Christian. But God honors the faithful Christian – regardless of temperament.
So take heart, my taciturn friend. You may feel misunderstood and overlooked in the midst of the evangelical world’s ongoing gabfest, but know that God makes his face to shine upon you, too. And you have gifts to bless the church that others can only, well, talk about.
And if this has been any encouragement to you, let me know. But no need to call me on the phone – an e-mail will do just fine.
Pastor Scott
February 9, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
From time to time at Grace OPC, during the worship service, we confess our faith together using the words of the Apostles’ Creed. One phrase in the Creed says of Jesus, “he descended into hell.” Why do we say that? The Bible teaches that Jesus’ soul went to paradise while his body rested in the grave (Luke 23:43). Since that is so, what do the words “he descended into hell” mean?
First, a little background to the Apostles’ Creed may be helpful. The title of the Creed is a bit of a misnomer; the apostles themselves did not write it. However, the formulations of the creed date back to at least the mid-second century A.D., being used as a confession of faith by converts at their baptism. It developed over time until it reached its present form in the late sixth or early seventh centuries.
So, the Creed’s history reaches far back into the early years of the Christian Church, for ages serving as the common confession of faith for God’s people. Thus, though the apostles may not have written it, the Creed enjoys the authority that time and practice give it. And the theology of the Creed is solidly apostolic – the apostles would have said “Amen!” to its doctrinal statements.
But it’s not inspired, and it is natural for a believer to wonder what is meant by saying Jesus descended into hell. Interestingly, it appears this phrase is a relatively late addition to the creed – the earliest version of the Apostles’ Creed containing it dates to 390 A.D. And there’s no question that it has been interpreted to mean a literal descent of Christ into the underworld during the three days he was buried. According to some teaching, for example the traditional views of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, Jesus (that is, his spirit or soul) did actually descend into hell before his resurrection.
Given the uncertain history of the phrase, how it has been interpreted, and the fact that the words on their own seem to describe an actual visit to hell on Christ’s part, is “he descended into hell” really apostolic doctrine, and should we confess this as what we as Christians believe?
In a word, yes, I believe so. That is, if we understand its meaning correctly. Despite how it’s been interpreted, the phrase itself by no means demands a literal descent into the place we call hell. The English word “hell” in the Creed translates Greek and Latin words that essentially mean “the abode of the dead” (they are more general terms for death, not specifying the place of eternal damnation). For this reason, some modern versions of the Creed translate the phrase, “he descended to the dead.”
More importantly, the Bible does not teach a literal descent of Christ into hell. The passage I preached on this past Sunday (which prompted me to write this, since I’ve been asked before about the meaning of this phrase in the Apostles’ Creed), 1 Peter 3:18-22, includes the words “… he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison” (v.19). Those who teach Jesus’ descent into hell have appealed most often to this verse. However (and the verse is admittedly difficult), Peter here is not talking about Jesus’ going down to hell. Rather, he is saying (most likely) that Jesus, by his ascension to God’s right hand (v.22) after his resurrection, proclaimed victory over evil spirits (fallen angels). One cannot be overly dogmatic in interpreting difficult verses such as these, but the fact that Peter says in v. 18 Jesus was “made alive in the spirit,” meaning his (bodily) resurrection, makes it impossible that v.19 could be talking about what Jesus did as a spirit while his body was still dead in the grave. And there are no other passages in Scripture that teach that Jesus “descended into hell.”
So, the phrase itself does not demand a literal descent to hell. And, the Scriptures do not sustain this reading of it. That being the case, how should we understand these words when we say them in worship as part of our confession of faith? The Reformed Church has taught that these words simply refer to the nature of Christ’s death: either they signify the truth that Christ remained under the power of death for three days (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. & A. 50), or they refer to the spiritual torments of God’s wrath that Christ endured – for his people – in his suffering and death (the view of John Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism). The first highlights the truth that Christ’s death was a real, human death; he truly died the death we deserved. The second stresses the truth that Christ suffered the pains of hell that should have been ours because of our sin. Both underline the gospel truth that Christ suffered and died “for us and for our salvation” (to quote another Creed, the Nicene).
So, when we say that Jesus “descended into hell,” we are confessing our belief that the sinless Son of God suffered a sinner’s death, in our place. He endured hell on the cross for us, that we might enjoy the blessing of heaven forever.
Here’s how the Heidelberg Catechism (Q. & A. 44) puts it:
Q. Why does the creed add, “He descended to hell”?
A. To assure me in times of personal crisis and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul, especially on the cross but also earlier, has delivered me from the anguish and torment of hell.
Some conservative theologians, troubled by the confusion the phrase has engendered, have argued we would be better off deleting it from the Apostles’ Creed altogether. However, understood rightly, “he descended to hell” testifies to a crucial truth concerning the death of Christ. In my view, it is better to keep the Creed intact, but at the same time teaching God’s people what the words mean.
Pastor Scott
Other resources:
Rev. John Jones of Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Anchorage also has an article about this phrase in the Apostles’ Creed.
Dr. Cornelis P. Venema (whose father, Rev. Rich Venema, was an interim pastor at Grace), wrote a brief commentary on the Apostles’ Creed - What We Believe.
February 7, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
I thank God for another Lord’s Day – a day of Word-and-sacrament ministry and Christian fellowship. Oh, and great food, too! We had our fellowship meal after the service and, as usual, it featured some very tasty dishes. It’s a blessing to serve a church with such accomplished chefs!
At the adult Sunday School class, in which we are studying The Communion of Saints, the topic was spiritual gifts. An edifying discussion ensued on how we are to understand the place and role of these gifts in the life of the believer and the Church. Everyone agreed that, above all else, we must use our gifts for the sake of ministering to others (1 Corinthians 12:7). I’ve always felt it’s impossible to neatly summarize all that the Bible has to say on this matter of gifts, since the New Testament deals with them in a variety of passages and in a variety of ways. But, I’ve found the chapter on The Communion of Saints to be singularly helpful in this regard.
I preached on 1 Peter 3:18-22 at the morning service. It’s just a tough, tough passage – hard to understand, and hard to preach. My take on Peter’s meaning in v.19 is that, in his ascension to the right hand of the God (v.22), Jesus proclaimed to fallen angels and evil spirits their ultimate doom. The burden of the passage, it seems to me, is to stress the absolute power and authority of Christ over all evil in order to encourage God’s people when they suffer in this life for doing good (v.17). And that was my message to the congregation today. I’m not sure how well the sermon went – I think I may have lost some people along the way. Like I said, it’s a tough passage.
After our fellowship meal (did I mention the fare was delicious?), we came home to rest for a while. Then, it was off to the evening service. There I spoke on Isaiah 47. Similar to the message this morning, this chapter from Isaiah encourages us to remember that though evil human power (epitomized by Babylon) may prevail for a time, the Lord will ultimately judge all such manifestations of human pride and arrogance. When we as Christians feel weak and powerless in the face of immense evil in the world, we need to remember that God will one day make all things right.
So, a good and full Lord’s Day is in the books.
And did I hear somebody mention there was a football game today?
Pastor Scott
February 5, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
The most salient indicator that we live in a post-Christian society may not be the banning of prayer in school, or the rise of postmodern relativism in popular thought, or the call for gay marriage, or the general downgrade of morals, or any of the other usual suspects. Rather, perhaps the sign of the secular times is what has become of Sunday. Not many decades ago, the Lord’s Day was generally upheld as a day distinct from the rest of the week. Though not everybody went to church, businesses and stores were closed and the day was more or less considered the day for worship.
How the times have changed! Sunday is now, for all practical purposes, just another day of the week. More accurately, it has become Saturday’s sequel – a day off for work for many, but devoted to errands, home projects, recreation, and pleasure. In the popular consciousness, whatever sense of sanctity the day might have once enjoyed as a day belonging to God has virtually disappeared.
As our culture becomes less oriented around Christian values and principles and increasingly secular, the de-sanctifying of Sunday is unsurprising (whether it is a cause or effect of this secularization). What is dismaying, though, is how evangelical churches and Christians have so thoroughly embraced this trend. Indeed, in her teaching and practice, by neglecting the traditional (and dare I say, biblical) Christian view of the holiness of the Lord’s Day, the Church has surely given a helping hand in hastening its demise. Most believers do not view Sunday as a special day to be set apart for God and for his worship: yes, they may go to church in the morning, but after that anything goes. And even church attendance is, at best, just a slight notch above optional. We say if someone does something with a consistent and dependent regularity, no matter what may threaten to distract him from it, he does it “religiously”. Given this use of the term, how ironic and tragic that many believers don’t even go to church “religiously”!
Proof of the American Church’s active role in the secularization of the Lord’s Day is what takes place on Super Bowl Sunday (which, in case you somehow haven’t heard yet, is this coming Sunday). Super Bowl Sunday has evolved in my own lifetime from a championship football game to something closer to an unofficial national holiday. It is the new “Greatest Show on Earth.” Many churches host Super Bowl Parties on that day. The practice is common enough that one law firm gives some free legal advice on their website on how to host a Super Bowl Party at your church without running afoul of any pertinent intellectual property laws (for example, don’t call it a Super Bowl Party, but a “Big Game Party”). One church in Great Falls, MT, , advertises this on their website:
Join us for our annual Super Bowl Sunday Service on February 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. It’s a great time of Super Bowl challenges and lots of fun and energy as well as a motivating message from our coach, Pastor Gary Hart.
Notice this is not just a post-morning service Super Bowl party, but a “Super Bowl Service”! I am willing to bet this church’s leadership, and other church leaders who put on Super Bowl parties (ahem, “Big Game Parties”) justify these activities as a way to be relevant to people in our culture – meeting people where they are, so to speak. But the more a church’s Super Bowl Party imitates the more familiar secular version, the more irrelevant it becomes. If I am an unbeliever, why should I go to a church for my Super Bowl festivities, when the neighbors down the road will be having a party? At least at my neighbor’s house, I will be watching football the way it is meant to be watched, with a cold beer in my hand! In my view, what is more relevant to people is a church that, Sunday after Sunday, preaches the good news of Jesus Christ crucified for sinners, and calls people to repentance and faith.
But even if a given church isn’t hosting a football-themed worship service, or a Super Bowl Party, it is very likely that a good portion of the congregants will be spending most of the day (after church, of course!) watching the game at home or with friends. Now, at the risk of sounding like a hide-bound legalist, or the male version of “the Church Lady,” allow me the temerity to say I don’t believe watching the Super Bowl is the best way for Christians to keep the Lord’s Day holy. If the Fourth Commandment has any validity at all for New Testament Christians (which I believe Scripture teaches), then Christians ought to set apart Sunday as a day devoted to the Lord, keeping it holy. If most of the day is taken up with the Super Bowl, that’s just not honoring the Lord’s Day.
Here’s one way to look at it. I suspect every church that hosts a Super Bowl service or party would be scandalized if, when they celebrated communion, sitting next to the bread and grape juice were plates piled high with nachos, chicken wings, and bite-sized burgers. That would be shocking, indeed! But if cluttering the Lord’s Table with Super Bowl snacks is profaning a holy meal, is it not true that cluttering the Lord’s Day with Super Bowl activities is profaning a holy day?
I love sports just as much as any other red-blooded American male. If the St. Louis Cardinals were playing Game 7 of the World Series on Sunday, I confess it would be a mighty struggle, and probably a losing battle, for me to keep my focus on Christ that day. But nevertheless, the Church sacrifices far too much in giving up any notion of the sacredness of the Sunday. The day is supposed to be a delight (Is. 58:13), a day God made for us and for our good (Mark 2:27). But if we give ourselves over to entertainment on the Lord’s Day, whether it is Super Bowl Sunday or any other Sunday, we miss out on that delight and blessing. And, more than that, the unbelieving world gets the message that the Church has nothing more meaningful to offer than a baptized version of the world’s fare of entertainment and distraction. It may be enjoyable, but it is ultimately trivial and fails to satisfy the soul’s longing for the Bread of Life.
Pastor Scott
February 1, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
Today was a good, long day of ministry, fellowship, and meeting new people. As usual, my Sunday began at 6:00 a.m. with the “beep…beep…beep” of my faithful old alarm clock. With a hot cup of coffee at my side, by 6:30 I was reviewing my sermon and making notes for the morning service. Then breakfast and a shower, and by 9:15 all 7 Johnsons were buckled in the Suburban and on the way to church. I am responsible for getting myself ready; my wife is responsible for getting herself and five kids ready. It’s not altogether fair, but that’s our Sunday morning routine.
An elder taught the adult Sunday School on the book, The Communion of Saints. The topic was the Lord’s Supper, and how as a sacrament it signifies and seals both our union with Christ, and our communion together as the body of Christ.
At the morning service I preached from 1 Peter 3:13 – 17. As Christians we suffer, either for righteousness’ sake, or because we share in the suffering common to all men. Though Peter is concerned particularly with the former, suffering for doing good, I argued that his words apply no matter the cause of our affliction. Suffering never comes to us alone, but God always adds his blessing to it (v.14). First, he confirms in us our hope in Christ (v.15). Though we always have this “living hope” (1:3), it is sweetest to us when we experience the bitterness of pain and sorrow. Next, in suffering God gives us a testimony of his grace that he will use as a blessing for others. If we hold fast to Christ in suffering, the world will be compelled to ask us for a reason for the hope that is in us (v.15). If we are faithful to confess Christ as our hope, God may use that to reach others with the gospel.
We invited four visitors over for lunch, plus a couple that regularly spends the time between Sunday services at our home. As we talked, the topics ranged far and wide: fishing, church discipline (to some, this may sound odd, but we had a good talk about it), “Alaskana” (if I may coin a word), and several others my tired mind cannot recall now but I assure you were very interesting at the time.
More people than usual came to the Sunday evening service, which is always pleasing. I spoke from Isaiah 45:20-25, making the point that the Christ who will be our judge at the day of judgment (v. 23; Philippians 2:10) is also at the same time our Savior from sin. Therefore, in Christ, we have nothing to fear on that day. I quoted the following questions and answers from John Calvin’s Geneva Catechism for children:
Q. Does it give any delight to our conscience that Christ will one day be the judge of the world?
A. Indeed singular delight. For we know assuredly that he will come only for our salvation.
Q. We should not then tremble at this judgment, so as to let it fill us with dismay?
A. No, indeed; since we shall only stand at the tribunal of a judge who is also our advocate, and who has taken us under his faith and protection.
What a thought! And a good one with which to end the Lord’s Day.
Pastor Scott
January 29, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
The Reformed faith, or Reformed theology, is an understanding of the Bible’s teaching that centers on the glory and sovereignty of God (Isaiah 6:3; Ephesians 1:11; Revelation 4:11). Though those committed to Reformed theology – myself included – believe it is Scriptural, and therefore was the theology of Jesus, Paul, and the apostles, the Reformed faith as a systematic expression of biblical truth came to full flowering during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries. The confessions, catechisms, and creeds from that period give the best summary and definition of what the Reformed faith is all about. I’ve included links to some of these at the end of this post.
Rather than trying to say all that could be said here – which is a lot! – I’ll focus on two fundamental truths taught by Reformed theology: God’s sovereign grace, and God’s gracious covenant.
1. God’s sovereign grace.
God’s absolute control over all he has made extends also to the salvation of sinners (Psalm 62:7; Revelation 7:10). God’s sovereignty in saving his people magnifies his goodness, grace, and glory. The usual way of expressing this sovereign grace is with the acronym TULIP (also called the five points of Calvinism).
T – Total Depravity.
The Bible is clear – we are born sinners (Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 5:19). “Totally depraved” doesn’t mean we are as bad as we possibly could be, but it does mean sin has corrupted every part of our being. So that, by nature we are unable to do anything truly good in the sight of God, including putting our faith in Christ for salvation (Isaiah 64:6; Luke 6:43; Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14) .
Another way the Bible expresses this is by saying we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). Just as a dead person cannot make a choice, so as people spiritually dead, apart from God’s grace we cannot choose to believe in Christ. First we need to be made spiritually alive (Ephesians 2:5), which is a work of God’s Spirit and is called in the Bible being “born again” (John 3:3, 7).
U – Unconditional Election.
This simply means God has chosen whom he will save (Ephesians 1:4). And he made his choice not on the basis of any goodness or worthiness in us, because as we’ve seen the Bible teaches that, as sinners, we are totally depraved (Romans 9:11). Nor did he choose those whom he foresaw would believe in Christ (which is just a backdoor way of saying the choice ultimately lies in man!).
According God’s own boundless goodness and wisdom, in that ineffably mysterious eternal decree in which God ordained all that comes to pass (Ephesians 1:11), he set apart a people to be saved. This people the Bible calls the “elect” (Titus 1:1).
Now, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life promised in the gospel is to be offered freely to all people (Isaiah 45:22; Acts 1:8; Romans 10:18). All are called to repent and believe in Christ as Lord and Savior (Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47). But as Jesus declared, “… many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). Only those whom God has chosen will come to saving faith in Christ (John 6:37; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29, 30).
L – Limited Atonement.
Many have found this the most difficult of these five points, because it appears to suggest a limit to the worth of Christ’s death, or because it seems to deny that the gospel is for everyone. But limited atonement does not entail these things. Instead, this doctrine highlights an extremely important aspect of the death of Christ, that is, God’s sovereignty in securing the salvation of his elect.
The inherent value of Christ’s death is such that, were all people to come to Christ for salvation, his death would be sufficient to cover their sins (John 3:16). And, God wills that the gospel be proclaimed to all (though not all are elect). However, Christ died specifically on behalf of his elect people (Matthew 1:21; Mark 10:45; John 10:26-28; Acts 20:28). What this means is that Christ did not merely die to make salvation possible for all, but he died to make salvation an absolute certainty for many.
I – Irresistible Grace.
This means when God calls one of his elect to faith in Christ, that person will not fail to believe (John 6:37). This doesn’t mean that God brings people into his kingdom against their will – kicking and dragging all the way to the cross! Rather, the Spirit so changes a sinner’s heart, that he or she comes “most freely” (as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it). A good illustration is the prodigal son. In his sin, he wanted nothing to do with his father. But by the grace of God his heart was changed, so that in the end he wanted nothing other than to be with his father (and what a welcome his father gave him! – see Luke 15:11-32). So it is with God’s grace towards a sinner chosen for salvation – the Spirit renews his heart so that he wants nothing more than to believe in, and follow, Christ.
P – Perseverance of the Saints.
For the believer who struggles with his sin (and what true Christian doesn’t?!), this doctrine is a comfort and encouragement. It teaches that God, out of faithfulness to his promise and by his almighty power, preserves and keeps us in his grace until the day of final salvation – the day when Christ returns (Philippians 1:6; 1 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Peter 1:5). In other words, no true Christian can ever lose his salvation (John 10:28, 29). Knowing how weak and faithless we can be, that is good news!
2. God’s gracious covenant.
Reformed theology also teaches that the essential character of God’s dealings with us is expressed by the biblical term “covenant”. One children’s catechism says a covenant is “a relationship that God establishes with us and guarantees by his word.” Since God is God and we are his creatures, if we are to know and love him, he must establish that relationship. And that relationship is based on this promise: I will be your God, and you shall be my people (Jeremiah 30:22; Revelation 21:3).
God first entered into a covenant relationship with Adam and Eve. Reformed theology calls this the “covenant of works,” because Adam’s right standing with God, and therefore eternal life, was conditioned upon his perfect obedience to God’s commands (Adam’s “works” – see Genesis 2:15-17).
Since Adam sinned, God established another covenant with man – the “covenant of grace.” In this covenant, we obtain a right standing with God and eternal life not on the basis of our obedience, but by faith in Christ (Romans 3:28). When we trust in Christ, God graciously forgives our sins and counts us as righteous in his sight on the basis of the perfect obedience of Christ (Romans 3:21, 22; Romans 5:19).
Like the teachings of TULIP, the Reformed understanding of the covenant magnifies the grace and sovereignty of God in our salvation. We are not saved by our works, but by the obedience, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And just as this is true for us, it was also true for the people of Israel in the Old Testament (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6-9). Salvation has always been by faith alone and in Christ alone, and for the glory of God alone.
I love the Reformed faith. It unites the various strands of biblical teaching in one grand vision of the surpassing glory and grace of God. In my mind I find it profoundly satisfying as a comprehensive system of doctrine. But far more than that, the truths expressed by the Reformed faith move my heart. I am humbled by my sin and desperate need for grace. I stand in awe of the majesty of God. And when I am gripped with a fresh remembrance of the sovereign grace of God in saving me from my sins, my heart swells with thanksgiving.
At its best, theology issues forth in worship (Romans 11:33-35). For me, it is Reformed theology that presents God and Christ as most worthy to be praised.
Here are some helpful links to learn more about Reformed theology:
Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, and Smaller Catechism (pdf). The denomination I serve, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is a Reformed church and committed to the theology in these documents. As a minister in the OPC, I have vowed to “receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms… as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”
Three Forms of Unity – Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort (pdf). These make up the doctrine believed and taught by the United Reformed Churches (among others), a denomination very similar to the OPC in faith and practice.
“What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism” from desiringGod ministries (John Piper). This is from a baptist perspective, but is an excellent explanation of TULIP (though they change it to “TILUP”!)
“A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith,” by B.B. Warfield. This is just what it says, a “brief and untechnical” statement of Reformed theology.
“What We Believe,” from the website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. A summary of the theology of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.
Pastor Scott
January 28, 2012 in Blog/News by scottj
No comments yet
