Tag: orthodox

Singing Theologically: Modern Hymns and the Atonement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Several years ago I highlighted the advent of the “Modern Hymn.” Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, along with others, have revived and reinvented the hymn for our generation. The most well known modern hymn, is perhaps one of the best: “In Christ Alone.” This song ranks up there with other greats and is as widely sung and loved today as “Amazing Grace.”

Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, recently highlighted the refusal of the authors of “In Christ Alone,” to allow it to be slightly edited and thus included in a new Presbyterian (PCUSA) hymnal. George lauds that decision, since the proposed edit would take out the idea of Christ bearing God’s wrath for sin. Here is the proposed edit:

From: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied.”

To: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified.”

George’s article, “No Squishy Love” was shared and discussed online and in print so much, that he has followed it up with a part 2, today. One of the places where his first article was discussed was Sharper Iron; and this most conservative of online evangelical blogs, was not even immune from those who argued against the idea that Jesus bore God’s wrath for sin. Truthfully the orthodox idea of Jesus bearing the punishment of our sin on the cross is facing hard times today.

The follow up piece by Dr. George, doesn’t back down from defending the satisfaction theory of the atonement, and it includes more historical insight on the question. In the piece, George also highlights another hymn with theological substance, “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us,” by Stuart Townend.

For my part, we should be glad that modern hymns are not as substance-less as some of the praise songs of the last few decades. Unadulterated joy and songs of intense emotion are needed, yes. But the didactic value of theologically rich hymns, which both move and instruct, is untold. May a new generation of hymn-writers pick up the mantle of Isaac Watts and continue to give the church faithful hymns for the next generation.

Tyndale Bible App Sale

~ Bob Hayton

There are a variety of digital Bible reading apps to stimulate Bible reading. And the New Year is a great time to begin again with a fresh resolve to make your way through the Bible. Tyndale’s One Year Bible is one of the best selling Bibles designed in such a way as to encourage reading the Bible in a year.

For a limited time (through Jan. 8th), Tyndale is offering the One Year Bible app for only $1.99. They also are offering the Life Application Bible App for only $14.99 (a 50% discount). Both apps appear to be for Apple devices only. More details on the sale are available here.

This year, I was happy to find a discounted copy of The Orthodox Study Bible, and am now making my way through the Bible at a slower pace, reading the study notes along the way. I hope you have some plan to make the Most Important Book a key part of your reading in 2013!

“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.

Why I’m Leery of the Manhattan Declaration

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Someone recently asked me what I thought of the Manhattan Declaration. For those who don’t know, the declaration I’m referring to links Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants together under the banner “Christian” to stand for life and traditional marriage in our culture. It’s an attempt to stick together as Christians in our opposition to these increasingly abandoned values in our culture.

Here is my response. I understand good Christian leaders to be with me against the declaration, and others have signed it in their desire to stand for life and for transforming the culture. I haven’t really read the arguments or taken a side necessarily. But here is my perspective.

I can appreciate it for what it is, but 2 things keep me from signing.

1) It seems to single out a prizing of life and heterosexual marriage as being what Christianity is all about. I don’t think it is the role of the Church specifically to be legislating morality, as that doesn’t work due to fallen human nature. Instead we need to proclaim the gracious gospel of Christ.

2) It joins hands with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in what could easily blur the distinctions between them and traditional Protestants. Again the gospel of salvation by grace through faith is what differentiates us from these other groups who claim the name Christian. That is an important difference that shouldn’t be obscured.

Still, I don’t think the declaration necessarily requires understanding it this way. It is just a declaration in one sense, so I can understand those who sign it. But the need of our country isn’t a united defense and legislative protection of marriage and preborn children, it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that life is a small cause that we shouldn’t fight for. It is to say that heterosexual only marriage (in my view), isn’t such an important cause.

For more on what I’m getting at in point 1 above, check out my post: America — A Pagan Nation? My pal Jason Skipper over at Fundamentally Changed agrees with my assessment that this declaration represents a compromise with the gospel.

But what do you think? Why or why not do you support this declaration?

The Concept of "Fundamental Doctrines": Modern Reductionism or Historic Protestant Doctrine?

~ fundyreformed ~ 45 Comments

Often I labor to reply to important questions in the comments on my blog, only to have my thoughts buried and hidden in the weeds, so to speak. So I thought I would craft today’s reply into a post.

I’ve been debating with Pastor Kent Brandenburg on the appropriateness of ranking doctrines as fundamental/essential and secondary/tertiary. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives a positive treatment of this: he terms it “Theological Triage“. Brandenburg contradicts this view, believing it belittles the importance of all doctrine, and our obligations to hold to sound doctrine and separate from those who don’t. I side with Mohler, as well as John Piper and D.A. Carson (and others), and recently posted my belief that excessive separation actually belittles the Gospel.

In the debate, which has included “Grace” defending my view, and “Truth Unites…and Divides” who recently joined the fray, three basic points have been raised against my view. This “ranking” of doctrines is a new-fangled doctrine, it finds no support in Scripture, and it ignores the Biblical call for separation from false doctrine. I will respond briefly to all these points, yet major on the first one.

A couple qualifications are in order. First, I unequivocally affirm that we are obligated to obey all of God’s commands and accept all of Scripture as authoritative. Whatever God teaches in His Word, we must believe and obey. However, Scripture teaches that we are fallible and fallen creatures. And God-given common sense affirms that good people disagree and fail to understand one another on any number of subjects. People vary in terms of their backgrounds, intellectual prowess, and even how they reason and learn. So it is no wonder that good Christians often disagree on various points of doctrines. Is it a sin to be wrong? My answer is “not necessarily”. I believe on some issues like Baptism, for instance, good Christians out of a desire to follow Christ, and with Scriptural reasoning and proofs, hold to an incorrect view of Baptism (only 1 view can be the truth) and yet are not guilty of conscious sin.

A second qualification relates to the importance of doctrine. In affirming the primacy of fundamental doctrines, I am not negating the importance of secondary and even tertiary ones. As my own church’s elder affirmation of faith (one of our elders is John Piper) affirms, it is right and good to hold firmly to secondary doctrines and yet still pass beyond those boundaries and extend Christian fellowship at appropriate times. There are different purposes for various organizations and there are different levels of fellowship [1]. When I am warning against “excessive separation”, I am specifically aiming at an extreme sectarianism which allows little to no fellowship at all with any but those who agree on virtually every point of doctrine and practice.

A New Doctrine?

Does the concept of “the fundamentals” stem from the fundamentalist controversy of the late 1800s, early 1900s? Is it a new doctrine that carefully cloaks a reductionist view of Christianity? Is it all about cutting the Bible down to size so we can comfortably hold to the essentials while living how we please?

Frankly, no. The idea of fundamental non-negotiables can be seen as far back as the Apostle’s Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed and so on. Perhaps it can be traced back even more. With the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church and her treatment of church dogma and papal bulls as equal in authority with Scripture, it is no surprise that a complete unanimity of doctrinal belief was levied on one and all. But with the Reformation, the concept of fundamentals of the faith which are necessary for salvation, was once again advanced.

Many Protestant writers grappled with this concept in the 16 and 1700s, as they sought to explain how Protestantism can enjoy real unity across denominational lines yet without Roman Catholicism’s unanimity. I came across an article in an online Catholic encyclopedia which details the key figures in the ongoing debate on this subject between the RCC and Protestantism. Of course the article is written from a Catholic perspective, but it makes clear that both the concept and the phrasing “fundamentals” were used almost from the very onset of the Reformation.

Further historical proof is this article on John Wesley, which shows he also held to a fundamental approach. He emphasized a “catholic (i.e. universal) spirit” and sought to have unity with other Christians despite differences on what he termed “opinions” (see especially section 3). Additionally, John MacArthur draws heavily from Herman Witsius’ Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (from the mid 1600s) as he discusses this very issue in his book Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see pg. 108-117). I recently linked to a 3-part blog series by MacArthur on how to determine if a doctrine is essential, which is a summary from the above book.

Is It Scriptural?

My critics claim this doctrine has no basis in Scripture. I grant that it is largely inferred from Scripture. Yet such inference doesn’t necessarily render it moot. More on that later.

I recently cited a list of commentaries proving that the phrase in 1 Cor. 15:3 “first of all” (KJV) or “of first importance” (ESV) [same Greek words here: en protois] can refer to importance rather than time-order. In fact the conservative Greek scholar A.T. Robertson asserted this. My list also showed that this is no new interpretation of that verse, as several older commentators like Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry understood this verse as teaching that the Gospel is “of first importance”.

Scripture goes on to explain the Gospel as being chiefly important. Paul wanted to preach nothing but Christ crucified, and vowed to boast only in the cross. This certainly implies that the Gospel is the main and most important thing.

Jesus similarly held that on the greatest and second-greatest commandment (to love God, and to love one’s neighbor) all the law and the prophets hinged (Matt. 22:34-40). He further taught that God desires mercy more than sacrifice (Matt. 12:7; see also in a similar vein, David’s assertion in Ps. 51:16).

Matt. 23:23 speaks of the “weightier provisions of the law” as the ESV phrases it. The Pharisees were scrupulously tithing of their herbs, yet were neglecting “justice and mercy and faithfulness”. The word “weightier” can signify either “burdensome/difficult” or “weighty/important”. Calvin interpreted the passage with the latter idea–justice, mercy, and faithfulness were “principal points of the Law” and tithing was “inferior” in comparison. And indeed, the smallness of the herbs in question seems to point to the triviality of their scruples in comparison with these more important matters. Such is a common interpretation of the passage today (see D.A. Carson’s commentary in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary set, as but one example).

These specific proof texts are coupled with arguments that MacArthur explains at length. Scripture explicitly ties certain doctrines with eternal life, and more strongly condemns deviation from others. D.A. Carson, in a lecture on doctrinal causes for divisions in churches (obtainable here for 99 cents), illustrates how in 1 Corinthians, Paul responds in varying degrees to different doctrinal problems. He most strongly reacts to the resurrection question, and the communion problem, as well as the expulsion of the wayward brother. But his reactions to other problems are tempered and more moderate. Obviously this plays in with how important Paul sees the various doctrines in view. Again, I encourage you to read Carson’s entire lecture (transcript) on this point.

Suffice it to say that Scripture generally conveys the idea of a varying level of importance of doctrines. And while this is generally inferred, it remains valid. The Gospel is chiefly important. And doesn’t common sense confirm this? Who would disagree that the Gospel is not most important? Can we not find cause for fellowship/participation in the gospel with our fellow believers? Are not the commands to have unity and avoid schisms in the church important?

What about Separation?

This article has run on too much to discuss this point in depth. I need to treat this at length in the future. For now suffice it to say that every time “doctrine” is mentioned as important, are we to conclude every single particular point that Paul taught? Or the chief body of truths over which we are to contend: the faith once delivered? Many times the separation passages explicitly attach themselves either to a denial of the Gospel, or sinful practice. And while we talk of separation we must talk of unity too. Even in Rom. 16, Paul tells us to separate from the contentious and divisive among us! So unity is so important we should separate over it. Paradoxical thinking, I dare say.

I know that one’s view of the church comes into play here as well. Some Baptists hold that only a local church is revealed in Scripture. No universal church idea exists. Such a view is a minority and I believe a stretch, even for Baptists. Most do not hold to this view. And those who do, often act as if each local church is totally independent and doesn’t need anyone else for anything. I submit a faithful reading of the book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, does not permit such thinking.

Hopefully this will end the debate around here for a while, until I open up the subject at a later time.

Footnote:

[1] See also “Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?”, by Wayne Grudem, published in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (ed. by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003]), pg. 365. Chapter is available online in PDF, and DOC.