Category: Church History

“Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church” by John H. Armstrong

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Many today agree that the evangelical church in America has problems. It has a consumeristic mentality catering to the pervasive individualism of our society. Church programs are offered, and sermon series advertised in such a way as to get people hooked on the “brand”. Surveys and market research are conducted to find people’s felt needs and deliver. And with such a cheapening of church, it’s no wonder that counter movements abound in Christianity these days. Emergent, post-modern, missional — you name it, people realize the current super-sized church is high on calories and low on nutrition. Many are just abandoning the ship altogether.

One such counter movement is described by John H. Armstrong in his new book Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church (Zondervan, 2010). He contends that a twin focus on mission and unity will heal the Church’s woes.   He calls this missional-ecumenism.

Many of the problems Armstrong sees in today’s church are problems indeed. There is a high dose of sectarianism, and a low dose of biblical community. He reacts against the prevailing consumerism in churchianity. A return to the church’s “ancient/future faith” with a focus on the value of church history and an appreciation of the Apostle’s creed and other universally accepted creeds, he argues, will cure these ills.

Reacting to sectarianism in today’s church, Armstrong encourages a relational unity flowing from our brotherhood and shared faith in Jesus Christ. He wants us to see past our differences, but does hold that these differences matter. Denominations are not a bad thing in his view, but we should reach beyond them and see our shared unity as the “one church” following “one Lord” and sharing “one baptism” and “one faith” (Eph. 4).

I can agree to an extent with all of this. I too see John 17 and Jesus’ prayer for unity as being too easily dismissed in evangelicalism today. I think we need more charity, more grace, and a greater realization of how big our agreement is if we share in the core truths of the gospel. I agree that working together with other Christians and not viewing them as the enemy positively impacts our evangelism. I even share some of Armstrong’s specific criticisms of the modern church:

[There is] a small view of the church and a big view of our own importance. We have exalted our interpretations of the Scripture by boldly proclaiming: “My authority comes only from the Bible.” (pg. 131)

Some popular evangelical writers dehistoricize the church and make a case for revolution not reformation. They throw out the past. (pg. 107)

…Scripture is clearly not so much a treatise on systematic theology as the unfolding story of a people– the people of God…. A humble and faithful Christian life is marked by “fear and trembling” (Philipppians 2:12) and a willingness to allow for mystery. (pg. 96)

The culture with its decadence, relativism, consumerism, and wanton rebellion against the revealed will have God is actually the symptom of our problem. The root cause is a deeply divided, morally compromised, theologically indifferent, biblically ignorant, and culturally conformed church. The gospel has been reduced to a minimal set of consumer-related facts. The “sinner’s prayer” has replaced the kind of radical conversion that results in life-changing grace. In the process, the larger narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation has been lost. With this loss there is no coherent understanding of the kingdom of God. The church has now become a religious society of the comfortable. Serious Christians should cry out to God for his mercy and grace to be poured out on the church. (pg. 194)

Where Armstrong goes wrong, in my opinion, is jumping from the “one church” ideal in the NT, to affirming that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are part of that “one church” because they affirm the Apostle’s Creed. In vain did I look for any discussion of the Reformation and why Rome really isn’t advocating a false gospel when they do not preach justification by faith. Instead I found statements like this:

My understanding of biblical oneness combines two commitments that are often considered separately. the first is a commitment to work in every conceivable way to demonstrate the God-given spiritual oneness I share with other believers through our union with Christ….

But my second commitment goes even further. Many Protestant evangelicals are satisfied with informal person-to-person expressions of oneness. Because they tend to view the church as a voluntary association, they see no need to seek unity with other churches….

This two-commitment approach… has practical consequences for those who consider themselves evangelicals. It means I can no longer be… anti-Catholic…. With deep conviction, I am compelled to regard both Catholics and the Catholic church with love and esteem. (pg. 60-61)

…the Western church was torn apart by the Protestant Reformation. This movement challenged the Catholic Church to renew itself but resulted in in a massive schism leading to errors on every side. Eventually, these schisms resulted in the birth of several major divisions within historic Protestantism, leading to an endless variety of new churches built around human personalities and doctrinal differences. (pg. 89)

I appreciate the exhortation to unity and the admission that people who don’t think like us may well be honestly following Christ. But I think Armstrong is advocating a dangerous course when he encourages us to just view all Catholics or Orthodox adherents as genuine Christians. At this point, I need to let Armstrong explain in his own words at some length.

…We have heard a lot about culture wars in the United States for thirty years. I am far more concerned about the truth wars waged by polemicists inside the church. This is the bitter fruit of sectarianism. It lacks charity and leads to mean-spiritedness.

Privately, I hear people ask, “Who is a real Christian?” with regard to their own family members or members of their congregations (including pastors). If a Catholic becomes an evangelical, then those who remain Catholic are viewed by the “convert” as non-Christians….

I am wearied by this attempt to say who is and is not a real Christian… I find it destructive of everything true to Christ’s teaching. During my journey to catholicity, I made a conscious choice to give up this approach. After all, if a Christian is someone who has “the Spirit of Christ,” then I do not know who truly has “the Spirit of Christ.” Scripture further declares, “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Timothy 2:19)…. Real conversion and true faith are God’s work. And since all three of the great traditions of Christianity teach that those who share in proclamation and participation must also have explicit living faith, I began to openly encourage explicit faith rather than wage attacks on others.

Once I took this step, I became more concerned about my own faith and attitudes. I no longer had to answer many of the questions people asked me about other people–questions that only fed my pride. I ask, “Why should you care about what I think since I don’t know the real answer?” I then ask, “Have you confessed faith in Christ? Are you his baptized follower?” If the answer is affirmative, then I proclaim the gospel and let the Spirit work as he wills. God will judge the heart… (pg. 150-151)

I can’t accept Armstrong’s explanation here. Certainly a glib, non-chalant condemnation of others is wrong. I also believe there are many true believers that aren’t Protestant. But I believe Scripture requires us to be more discerning and careful in this matter. I don’t want to publicly affirm Catholicism’s dangerous teachings about the gospel and the relative emphasis on Mary, works, confession, saints and things like that. Paul’s concern for unity didn’t prevent him from making strong condemnations of false doctrine, just see Galatians 1.

This book will stretch you and cause you to think. And much in the book is actually helpful and good. But I would encourage only a discerning use of the book by mature Christians.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com and direct from Zondervan Academic

This book was provided by Zondervan Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Churches Working Together: No Place for “Local Church”-Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton

I am leaving for a trip, but wanted to leave you all with some good reading material.

Jeff Straub, professor of history at Central Baptist Theological Seminary here in Minneapolis has a couple posts stressing the importance of “churches working together”. Rather than seeing each church as an island completely independent and in need of nothing (which many local church only advocates do), his picture is closer to the biblical picture of churches working together.

I encourage you to check out his two posts. For those wondering, “local church” onlyism is the idea that there is little if any sense of the “universal church” idea in Scripture. Instead everything said of the church in Scripture is true of one local church ideally. In my opinion, this leads to the conclusion that cooperation between churches and unity and all that is just optional.

Here are the links to Dr. Straub’s posts. He makes the case that churches working together produce longer lasting fruit than churches doing it solo.

The comments are worth the read too. Let me know here what you think, too.

My Explanation of “The Five Points of Calvinism”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 19 Comments

For a while now, I’ve wanted to do a series on the five points of Calvinism, or at least, in my own words, answer the question: “What is Calvinism?” The wait is over, and my brief (for me) explanation of Calvinism is ready. You can check it out at my Calvinism page, but I want to share it here for your benefit as well.

———————–

This is my own work on the five points here. I recommend John Piper’s clear and concise booklet as the best explanation of Calvinism to those who are ignorant of what Calvinism is and what it teaches. His treatment is respectful and very Biblical, it is available online here.

When it comes to Calvinism I think of it as a description of what happens “behind the scenes” with respect to our salvation. We are confronted with the gospel and asked to believe, we feel conviction and then relief when we trust Christ. Biblically, however, what happened in our heart was more than us independently deciding what we would do with the gospel. I have found that the more we know of what Scripture teaches about the inner workings of salvation, the greater will be our respect and regard for the One who saved us. All of this should tend toward a greater degree of personal worship, a sincere humility, and more glory to God, not a higher degree of pride or party spirit.

T – stands for Total Depravity. This means that every aspect of man is tainted by sin. No one is as evil as they can be, but evil affects every part of our being – mind, will, heart, etc. We do not seek after God, naturally. And apart from God’s initiative, we cannot please God. In fact, we are enslaved by the devil and are lost, blinded to the truth of the gospel and in need of God to mercifully reach down and intervene. (Rom. 3:10-18, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:3-6; 2 Tim. 2:24-26)

U – stands for Unconditional Election. Since we are helpless and totally depraved, we need God to intervene. God doesn’t sit on the sidelines and see who is worthy of being chosen, God chooses. And because of His choice, the “elect” live lives worthy of their calling. Scripture is quite emphatic that neither our belief nor our works fit us for being elected but rather, flow from our election. (Acts 13:48; John 6:44, 6:64-65; 10:26; Eph. 1:3-6; 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13)

L – stands for Limited Atonement. The choice of “limited atonement” to fit with the TULIP acronym is unfortunate. Actually TULIP doesn’t date back before 1900, and “limited atonement” wasn’t widely used much before then. “Particular redemption” or “definite atonement” give the sense better. Jesus’ death is of infinite value and is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect only. Jesus didn’t just make salvation possible (if “activated” by one’s own contribution of faith). He actually redeemed and saved a people through His death. These are the sheep for whom He died and the church whom He purchased with His blood and the bride whom He died for. He died in some different sense for these than He did for those He knew would reject His atoning sacrifice. He actually bore their real punishment and substituted on their behalf in a real way — He made true propitiation for these. (John 10:11 compared to 10:26; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:9-11)

*It should also be noted that there have historically been varying positions regarding this point among Calvinists. All Calvinists hold that Christ died for everyone in a general sense and for the elect in a specific sense (1 Tim. 4:10). Some take this to mean the typical understanding of “L” must be flawed and so they call themselves 4 point Calvinists, others take this as a “multiple intentions” view that in the atonement, God had more than one purpose. The majority today hold that God’s purpose in the atonement was the saving of the elect, other benefits such as common grace extend to all as an extension of what Jesus did on the cross, but the cross-work was not performed on the behalf of all, but only for the elect. (This does not mean we should not preach to all, since we have no way of knowing who the elect are. Hyper-Calvinists are the ones who do not preach the gospel indiscriminately to all, and they do not speak for Calvinists in this extreme and errant practice.)

I – stands for Irresistible Grace. This point does not mean no one can resist God’s grace. People do resist. But for all who have been elected, God will overcome their resistance and graciously save them. This captures the idea of regeneration preceding faith. Calvinists believe faith flows from a heart that has been regenerated. A dead heart can’t believe. Faith is the sign of what happened behind the scenes in the internal workings of the heart. So while it may look like faith causes the new birth from our perspective, it actually is the new birth which evidences itself in faith. (John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 John 4:7, 5:1 [note Greek tense on both of these = “has been born of God”]; Deut. 30:6; Ez. 36:25-27; Heb. 10:15-16; James 1:18; Phil. 2:13)

P – stands for Perseverance of the Saints. This means more than the common understanding of the eternal security of the believer. God preserves all the elect so that not one of them is finally lost, but He also so works in them that they persevere in their faith. When they fall, they aren’t utterly destroyed, they get back up. They bear fruit and have good works which testify to the genuineness of their professed faith. For those who fail to persevere, we are not the ultimate judge God is. But we should exhort one another daily to “fight the good fight of faith”. When understood properly, this point allows believers to take seriously the many warning passages and “if” statements in Scripture. It also gives us confidence to trust that “He who began a good work in [us], will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ”. (Phil. 1:6; 1 Cor. 15:2; John 10:28; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Heb. 3:12-14, 6:11-12, 10:23-25, 12:14; Col. 1:21-23; Matt. 3:8-10, 7:15-23;)

——————-

I’m open to critique and feedback on this; so please use the comments to let me know what you think. We can have a charitable debate on the topic too, if you’d like.

Vern Poythress, John Walton & “The Lost World of Genesis One”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

IVP recently published John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton brings ancient near-Eastern (ANE) cultural and linguistic parallels to bear on the text of Genesis chapter 1. I found the book both fascinating and challenging. His method of developing his argument proposition by proposition, kept the argument clear, comprehensible and concise. Ultimately, I found it quite convincing. I will be reviewing that book on my site in the near future.

Of course, a big sacred cow has been tipped in this book. Against the very real attacks by atheistic evolutionists, Christians in general have united around a Creationist perspective that upholds a literal, six-day, young earth, non-evolutionary model of the origins of the earth and all life. Over the last few decades, a steady stream of scientific analyses of Scripture have hit the shelves of Christian bookstores. If you stop to think about this from a wider perspective, you would have to think that many church leaders of old would be amazed at the degree of scientific specificity that modern creationists find in the pages of Scripture. It should be obvious that Scripture wasn’t written to answer every question in our science books.

I am currently exploring this issue in more depth and looking to Scripture for what perspective to have on this issue. John Piper’s thoughts on the matter are similar to mine at present. In a recent online Ask Pastor John event, (the answer is not yet posted on their site), Piper says he leans toward Sailhammer’s view (as explained in the above link).    After reading Walton (as well as G.K. Beale), I agree. I don’t think the issue has to be as divisive as some make it out to be.

Everyone doesn’t agree that such matters should be open to such variation, however. Vern Poythress, who I highly respect, recently offered a decidedly negative assessment to Walton’s book in World magazine. His review, obviously bound by space constraints, did not adequately explain Walton’s position. It misrepresented the book. Now, John Walton has responded to that review. Both Poythress’ assessment of the book, and Walton’s rejoinder are short reads and will provide a peek into the nature of the debate (and of course, the book). I encourage you to take the time to read both articles, and let me know what your thoughts are.

Vern Poythress: Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result, he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation…. In short, Walton’s book has mixed value. Positive insights about the practical focus of Genesis 1 mix with some unsound claims. (read the entire review)

John Walton: I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion. (read the entire response)

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this in the comments below!

You can purchase the book at Amazon.com or Westminster Bookstore, or direct from IVP. Westminster Bookstore has a .PDF excerpt available as well on the book page.

“A Reformation Reader” edited by Denis Janz

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Author: Denis R. Janz, editor
Publisher: Fortress Press (Augsburg)
Format: softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 453
ISBN: 9780800663100
Stars: 3 of 5

The Christianity that shapes our world today, was profoundly influenced by the Reformation — Roman Catholicism as much as evangelical Protestantism. For conservative evangelicals who prize the notion of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), the Reformation represents a great restoration of the importance of Scripture and a revival of the true and saving doctrine of justification by faith on the basis of the merits of Christ alone, and by God’s free grace.

Any study of the Reformation does well to focus on the many documents and books written in that era. Some of the truly great Christian writings hail from that era. Luther’s commentary on Galations, and Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion deserve the attention of Christians of our own era as much as they shaped those in the midst of the Reformation. But there are scores of additional writings by other lesser known figures of that time, which do much to open our understanding of what actually was happening in that time, now nearly 500 years ago.

A Reformation Reader, edited by Denis Janz, brings these lesser known documents, and figures, to light. Zwingli’s Swiss Reformation work and writings; the Anabaptist movement and their writings — most notably the the Schleitheim Confession; and the English reformers Cranmer and Cromwell all are illuminated through Janz’s inclusion of key documents and insights into their role in the Reformation era. The context of the Reformation is made more vivid and clear by his inclusion of pre-Reformation Catholic authors and sentiments, and a discussion of the counter Reformation and the Catholic Council of Trent.

Janz introduces each section with a brief introduction to that segment of the Reformation. The pre-Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Swiss Reformation, Anabaptist movement, English Reformation and the counter Reformation movements are all represented. Janz brings up various scholarly disputes in how to interpret the Reformation. He does a good job staying neutral and explaining what the questions are. He presents documents that are able to challenge both viewpoints, and he encourages a study of the texts themselves.

This book includes a wide array of material. It certainly would serve well as a text book for covering the history of that era. The role of women in society in that day is explored alongside the other more typical theological disputes. Janz includes the writings of female characters throughout the book to serve that goal.

The book is more than a textbook, however. It provides a fascinating amount of material for the average Christian lay reader to explore. I enjoyed the historical perspective and the inclusion of many of the original writings of the key players in the Reformation. Most readers today don’t acquaint themselves with historical writings of that era, and so the selections from Calvin’s Institutes and Luther’s writings, for instance, allows for a first encounter with some of the key leaders in the Church’s history. It is hoped that this book will spur on its readers to desire a deeper reading of the classic writings of the Christian faith. I know it has done that for me.

I will point out just a few of the many interesting selections I enjoyed here. They are selections from Thomas a Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ, Erasmus’ The Abbot and the Learned Lady, some of the actual indulgences of the era of Luther, Luther’s 95 Theses, Luther’s Preface to the New Testament, Zwingli’s Of Freedom of Choice in the Selection of Food, Zwingli’s 67 Theses, the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, an autobiographical account of Calvin’s life, letters and judgment concerning Servetus, and Thomas Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible.

I highly recommend this book, and the study of this important time in Christian history.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Fortress Press.