Bryan Chapell on Creation

I want to pass along a great link to a statement on creation by Bryan Chapell, the president of Covenant Theological Seminary. The statement is a section of the '98-'99 President's Goals and Report. It deals with accusations of liberal leanings brought against the seminary because of the fact that it allows its professors to put forth various interpretations of the creation account in Genesis. Chapell defends this position by noting that the seminary has always held to the stance that a literal 144 hour creation is not the only possible interpretation. He also cites numerous examples of respected, orthodox Reformed theologians who have held to various interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis.

This is a subject of particular interest to me. In my course on Christian doctrine, taught by a Neo-Orthodox professor who is an ordained minister in the PC(USA), we have recently been discussing the doctrine of creation. The stance of the professor is that the creation account is not an attempt to convey a historical account, but rather, it communicates some more abstract idea about God's activity in creation which allows for an evolutionary process to take place. Throughout the class, the assumption has been that a literal view of the creation account in Genesis 1 must be conceived of as a 6 day, 144 hour creation and is necessarily opposed to the discipline of science. This sort of misrepresentation has been extremely frustrating. While I have no illusions that a perspective such as Chapell's (which allows for interpretations of Genesis 1 in ways that acknowledge the historical accuracy and reliability of the creation account apart from a 144 hour creation) would satisfy someone who takes such a stance, it would at least be nice if it were recognized that everyone who believes in the historicity of the Genesis creation account is not a literal 6 day creationist.

While this statement is a bit dated, it touches on a controversy that is far from dead, and it offers some excellent perspective. Aside from the specifics of the creation controversy, Chapell provides excellent insight into the way that doctrinal differences in general should be handled. In tackling issues such as the proper way to interpret and adhere to the Westminster Confession and what aspects of doctrine are non-negotiable for ordained pastors to affirm, Chapell offers these words:

I believe it is fear that is driving some in our church to be interpreting the Confession of Faith so narrowly that even small deviations openly discussed and freely explored for decades are now being taken as sufficient grounds for denying men ordination. While we should have no patience for liberalism (i.e., the denial of any portion of God's Word as absolutely and inerrantly true), neither should we believe that it will aid our church to deny men the opportunity to consider what have been deemed for decades, or centuries, to be legitimate Biblical interpretations that fall within our system of doctrine. Men denied the right to argue Biblically what does fall within historic Presbyterianism will either suppress their opinions for a time or will become facile at wording answers which are true but are nonetheless intended to blur distinctions.

Also, notice Chapell's comment that we should deal with differences in the specifics of creational views in the same way we deal with different millenial views. This is extremely insightful stuff in my opinion. For a good book that touches on this subject, check out God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1, by W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Seminary in California.

Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way

I've found that often, the books that you most enjoying are the ones that you shouldn't be reading. Its scary to think about how little time is left in this semester and how much work I have to complete before its over. Its times like these that I begin to get a glimpse of what Paul was talking about when he said, "He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'" No doubt, part of that weakness is my inability to set aside personal reading to get done the work that is required of me by my various classes. However, even with this being said, I think its a these times that I need to be distracted for a little while with a book that I can simply enjoy and not worry about having to be accountable for the content. Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way, by Pope John Paul II was just such a book.

The book is an address to bishops concerning their specific tasks in ministry, as well as a memoir of John Paul's thoughts and remembrances of his own days as a bishop. It is a wonderful account of the way in which Church leaders should care for their congregations and how they should support one another in their fellowship. John Paul II discusses what the specific responsibilities of bishops should be by describing his own experiences in the office and by recounting different stories of other bishop's from all over the world and from all different times. His approach displays the wonderful unity and antiquity of Church that spans race, nationality, and even time itself. On the definition of the bishop's vocation, he has this to say:

The mystery of the bishop's vocation in the Church consists precisely in the fact that he is situated both in this particular visible community, for which he was made a bishop, and at the same time in the universal Church.

John Paul II displays a commitment, dependence, and faith in Christ that serves as a wonderful example and encouragement to believers from all Christian traditions. This faith is expressed through his desire to see men raised up in the Church that will fulfill the role of a pastor that was most evidently demonstrated by Christ Himself. By way of citing an example of just such a man, John Paul II provides a selection from poem that he had written on the martyrdom of St. Stanislaus, a Polish bishop:

Stanislus may have thought: my word will hurt you and convert,
you will come as a penitent to the cathedral gate,
emaciated by fasting, enlightened by a voice within,
to join the Lord's table like a prodigal son.
If the word did not convert you, the blood will.

The bishop had perhaps no time to think:
let this cup pass from me.

The book is filled with many passages that express the need for the sincerity of a bishop in his vocation in similarly beautiful ways. It seems to me that those of us within Church traditions that recognize the position of apostolic leadership (note the lower case "a" in contrast to the specific formulation of Apostolic authority in the Roman Catholic Church) can benefit from John Paul II's advice to ministers that have oversight over a number of congregations. Surely, we can all recognize the truth and the beauty in a call such as the one that he gives to bishops in the closing chapter:

Echoing the words of our Lord and Master, I too say to each one of you, dear brothers in the episcopate: "Rise, let us be on our way!" Let us go forth full of trust in Christ. He will accompany us as we journey toward the goal that He alone knows.

Aquinas, Natural Law, and Theonomy

When talking with my good friend Gavin Deacon, one of the subjects that frequently comes up is that of Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. While I'm not going to attempt to undertake any sort of detailed discussion of these topics in this post, I simply want to note one concerns that Gavin mentioned recently about Theonomy in general (which I've no doubt will be the topic of a post for him in the near future). Gavin mentioned that he was disconcerted by the way in which the principles of Theonomy seem to want to replace an internal knowledge of right and wrong, as witnessed to us by the Holy Spirit, with the specific dictates that regulated conduct under the Old Covenant. In doing some reading in preparation for a paper on Thomas Aquinas and his views on natural law, I have come across some specific passages from Aquinas that speak directly to this issue. Gavin, I just thought I'd let you know that Aquinas agrees with you wholeheartedly! On the use of the law under the Old and New Covenants, Aquinas has this to say:

"Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically different, e.g. a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g. a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Ga. 3:24, 25) compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue."

For Aquinas, the divine law, the law of God, is eternal and always remains the same. However, there are distinctions to be made in how the law is applied. We can see this distinction made in the law of the Old Testament and the New Law that came with the advent of Christ. The main distinction between the two is that the Old Law restrains our outward actions, while the New Law directs us internally:

"It belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness (Article [4]): wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to Mt. 5:20: 'Unless your justice abound more than that or the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Hence the saying that 'the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind.'"

For Aquinas, because this is the case, the dictates of the Divine Law can be worked out and known by human reason, on the basis of principles that are evident in nature. This means that we have a legitimate basis upon which to form laws which govern our society, apart from the reappropriation of Old Testament formulations of the law.

I'll probably have some more to say on Aquinas and natural law theory in the near future. At the least, I intend to post the paper (or perhaps selections from the paper) towards the end of the semester.

The Reasons of Love

What are the reasons that we value the things that we do? How do we explain the courses of action that we take? What is the criteria that guides our life choices? These are questions that moral philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt (most know for his best selling On Bullshit) asks in his book The Reasons of Love.

Frankfurt divides this book in three sections: 1)The Question: "How Should We Live?" 2) On Love, and Its Reasons, and 3) The Dear Self. He starts out by asking what should be the motivating factor in making choices that determine what kind of life we should live? Is it enough to simply pattern our choices and actions in accordance with a particular moral code? While morality may provide us with a pattern of what we should do, it seems to Frankfurt that it is insufficient to provide us with compelling reasons to act in a certain way. While we often realize that we should make a particular choice simply because it is the right and good thing to do, it would appear that most of our choices are not based simply on a determination that it is the correct moral or ethical decision to make. It seems that we need something beyond the ability to reason out a moral code to explain most of our major decisions. Frankfurt suggests that since, "Morality does not really get down to the bottom of things," it is also legitimate to take into account "what we care about, what is important to us, and what we love." This is more than simply making decisions based on simple wants or desires, which Frankfurt explains with his definition of "caring":

"When a person cares about something...he is willingly committed to his desire. The desire does not move him either against his will or without his endorsement. He is not its victim; nor is he passively indifferent to it. On the contrary, he himself desires that it move him. He is therefore prepared to intervene, should that be necessary, in order to ensure that it continues. If the desire tends to fade or to falter, he is disposed to refresh it and to reinforce whatever degree of influence he wishes it to exert upon his attitudes and upon his behavior."

This definition of caring includes a certain kind of inevitability that comes with anything that we care about or love. There is a strong sense in which we do not chose to love the things that we do, but rather that we have a desire for them that we cannot control. It is when we make a choice or a determination to maintain this desire that we truly care about someone or something.

In the second part of the book, Frankfurt goes on to show how this kind of love can be a basis in and of itself for making choices about how we are to live our lives. He notes that a husband who saves his drowning wife at the expense of another person who is also drowning would be considered to have made the right choice, simply by the fact that he loves his wife. In the same way, a parent that protects his or her children at the expense of someone else is also counted as having done the right thing. These are not choices that are made on the basis of some moral or ethical principle that tells the husband or parent that the proper choice to make is the life of their loved one; instead, these are acts, which are generally considered to be morally acceptable, simply come out of the person's love for the person in danger.

The final section of the book discusses what Frankfurt sees as the most basic sort of love, necessary to all others: love of self. Frankfurt states:

"Insofar as a person loves himself - in other words, to the extent that he is volitionally wholehearted - he does not resist any movements of his own will. He is not at odds with himself; he does not oppose, or seek to impede, the expression in practical reasoning and in conduct of whatever love his self-love entails. He is free in loving what he loves, at least in the sense that his loving is not obstructed or interfered with by himself."

For Frankfurt, self-love is a necessary requirement for an individual to be able to love others. While this might sound ego-centric, Frankfurt's conception of self-love is not the same type of self-obsessiveness that we normally associate with the term. Frankfurt defines love as that which is 1) concerned for the well being of the person loved 2) a personal concern for the person loved 3) an identification with the person loved, and 4) constraining the will. In this sense, self-love is perhaps the purest form of love. It is not necessarily good or bad in and of itself, but rather it is a necessary quality to have if one is going to be able to properly love anyone or anything else. If we are divided in our will, that in, not "volitionally wholehearted" then will be unable to show the level of dedication or care that could be considered love to anyone else.

Frankfurt has a wonderfully straightforward style and displays a level of practicality in dealing with significant philosophical themes. He makes the subject of ethics to be more than simply a matter of obligation, but rather, he takes into account the things that matter the most to us. This approach takes ethics from the abstract and displays the importance that questions of morality really play in our everyday lives. Frankfurt works from the position of compatibilism, attempting to show how a certain kind of determinism can be affirmed while human being are still held responsible for their actions. This is much the same issue that we as Reformed Christians face in our grappling with the subjects of God's sovereignty and our own responsibility. Frankfurt's affirmation that the things we love are, by definition, things that we do not choose, seems to allow for us to acknowledge the sovereign hand of God in our lives. At the same time, his understanding of "caring" as the attempt to sustain our desires appears to take into account our responsibility for our actions.

Christ Succeeding in Our Place

I happened upon this sermon by William Willimon who is Dean of the Chapel at Duke University. Aside from being referenced as one of the "12 best preachers in the English-speaking world" Willimon is also doing some amazing ministry on the Duke campus. As much as we like to talk about postmodernity and its various affects, he is someone who is effectively ministering to thoroughly "postmodern" people without making too much fuss about postmodernity itself. I think that this message given in the Duke Chapel is an example of just why his ministry is so fruitful. This is some of the best Law/Gospel preaching you will find, and ironically enough, it comes from a Methodist.

Willimon manages to communicate our inability to live up to the requirements of God's law in a way that is completely relatable. It seems that so often when a preacher attempts to convict his congregation of their sin and to illustrate their inability before God, he falls into simply brow-beating or chiding. I found that Willimon, was able to get right to the heart of what it means to be in despair over sin. He doesn't simply berate or chastise for our moral failing, but rather, he depicts perfectly a picture of failure that we have all experienced many times over. If we are honest, we will admit that our lives are marked by this sort of failure in all sorts of different areas. In bringing this out, Willimon shows us exactly what it means to "fall short of the glory of God."

However, once he has brought us to this point of despair, he does not leave us there. Instead, he does the only thing that can be or need be done: Willimon, very simply, points us to the success of Christ. He causes us to look the Cross once again and to be struck by the profound truth that victory for the human race came out of such apparent failure. He doesn't hype us up, doesn't tell us how we can do better the next time, doesn't try to give us six steps to success in the Christian life; he simply points to Christ.

Tolle Lege

I'd like to direct people to Tolle Lege, the new blog of my good friend Brad Nichols. Brad and I have been friends for a long time and we are both currently studying in the philosophy program at Lindenwood University. We like to keep each other sharp spiritually and intellectually. I'm really excited that, through this blog, so many other people are going to be able to benefit from the spiritual insight and wisdom that I have access to on a daily basis.

Not only does Brad skillfully handle the subjects of theology and philosophy, but he is also one of the funniest people I know. Now Brad, I realize that you want this to be a forum for serious discussion and debate as well as a place where you can work out the serious thoughts and ideas that you are working through. I would just ask that, please, be sure not to deprive us of some random humor. I'm "pretty sure" you enjoy fun as well, so don't neglect to let us in on the fun.

Baxter's Generous Orthodoxy

"In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things charity."

This was the motto of Puritan pastor and author Richard Baxter whom I've been reading a bit about recently. I have always been particularly struck by this quote and in thinking about it recently, it seems that this would be the perfect definition for the term Generous Orthodoxy. This term was coined by Yale theologian Hans Frei and is best recognized as the most recent book by Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren. I certainly wouldn't recommend the book, and yet I love the term. While McLaren's "generous orthodoxy" seems to be little more than a hodge-podge of his own personal preferences regarding the beliefs and practices of various Christian traditions (to which it could be argued that there is nothing "generous" about reinterpreting the orthodoxy of a particular tradition in a way that makes it compatible with any other tradition), I believe that this is a term that has considerable value. The trouble in trying to nail down a particular definition will no doubt be that the things considered "necessary" and the things considered "doubtful" will certainly not be agreed upon by all Christians. I'm sure I'd have a hard time finding any believer who found this quote unsavory. However, my suspicion is that many people whom might like this quote would be rather put off by the things that Baxter himself would have considered to be "necessary."

While this concept of unity in essentials and freedom in uncertainties is more than a bit elusive, I do not believe we are without examples of Christian who have demonstrated that it is possible. In his own day, Baxter worked with Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists in attempts to organize and catechize their congregations. The Westminster Divines were made up of a similar collections of pastors and teaches from Reformed denominations in England and Scotland. Today, groups like Together for the Gospel demonstrate the ability of church leaders with different understandings of baptism, gifts of the Spirit, and church government to effectively work together on the basis of a unified understanding of the essentials of the gospel message.

Is it possible to see unification in the Church on essential issues without minimizing or downplaying or differences? What exactly are those essentials? What about Christians outside of Reformed, or even Evangelical circles that none the less hold firm to "mere Christianity" (a term popularized by C.S. Lewis but which was also coined by Baxter) such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? These are questions that I have few, if any, answers to. I'd love to hear from others as to what they think would fall under the categories of "necessary things" and "doubtful things." How far do you think liberty extends in issues of doctrine, and what would this sort of "generous orthodoxy" look like in a practical sense?

Ministiring to Post-everythings

I included a link to this same post on the NCC Young Adults blog yesterday. I'm including it as seperate post on my own blog for two reasons: 1) the more I think about the issues involved, the more curious I am to hear responses from people. In posting it on two different blogs, I'm hoping that the response will be greater, and 2) recycling posts makes me look like a more productive person.

Do you find it difficult to communicate the truths of Christianity and the message of Christ to those that you come into contact with? Is it hard for you to find ways to show people on the campus or in the work place that the isolation and despair that they experience is symptomatic of the fact that they have violated God's law and that they are in need of the righteousness of another to put them back in right standing with the Creator of the universe? More than likely, if you have attempted to share the truth of the Gospel with others you have encountered these problems. We live in an age that has been labeled, "postmodern." For the greater part of history, most people had taken belief in God as a given. With the coming of Englightenment thought in the seventeenth century, men began to attempt to arrive at certain knowledge of truth and reality by their own reason and intellectual abilities, apart from the idea of dependency upon or responsibility to a divine being. This move towards modernity has created the context for our dependence solely on what man can achieve and discover on his own, apart from any sort of supernatural reality. This can be evidenced by the almost religious reverence that we have when we speak of things being "scientific."

However, ours is a generation that is characterized by a despair of ever finding the certainty that the Enlightenment set out to give us. We are no longer sure that we can really say what is right and what is wrong, if such distinctions even exist. We are trapped within the context of our own experiences, and we cannot know anything for certain about the things outside of this context. This puts sever limitations on our own knowledge and our ability to discover truth (and again, this is a category that we aren't sure if we can even affirm the existence of) or to discern right from wrong. The ways in which we are traditionally taught to evangelize do not seem to be sufficient in light of this condition. Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan speaks to this dilemma in his article entitled Post-everythings:

"...typical evangelistic presentations are effective with persons who assume they should be good. Then the gospel-presenter tries to show them tha[t] they are not good enough - they fall short of God's perfect standards - and therefore they need Jesus to forgive sin and help them do the the right thing. This presentation was quite appropriate for almost everyone in my parents' generation. My parents, who are evangelical Christians, and my in-laws, who are not at all, had basically the same social and moral values. If you asked them the questions such as, 'What do you think about pre-marital sex, or homosexuality, or pornography?' both sets of parents would have answered the same. They were part of a world in which Christianity was the folk-religion even if it was not the heart-religion of most people. They believed that the purpose of life was to be a good person. This world no longer exists everywhere."

This is the problem: In previous generations, people have had general ideas about what is right and wrong and therefore had similar ideas about what a good person acts like. Appeals to sinfulness mean something to people like this. However, many in our generation would look at you cross-eyed or even react violently if you bring up categories of right and wrong. For these people, we must first find ways to communicate the concepts of good and bad before we can show them their depravity before a holy God and their subsequent need for a Savior. No doubt, all human beings have an inborn understanding of right and wrong, but the suppression of these concepts by our postmodern age have caused people to doubt their own ability to distinguish or affirm these distinctions.

How then can we set out to present the truths of the Gospel in a way that is faithful to God's Word and also able to communicate these truths in way that penetrates the minds of people in the postmodern world? Keller, who has had enormous success in ministering the Gospel to a young generation of hip Manhattanites, suggests several ways in which we can go about this task, including the use of narrative. Stories are one of the greatest tools we have in communicating the need for a Savior to our generation. Think of how obsessed our culture is with movies, role-playing games, first person shooter video games, and other forms of entertainment. We love being placed in the center of story.

This love of narrative, while particularly characteristic of our generation, is not a unique characteristic. The longing to be in the midst of story that is greater than the tale of our own individual lives is something that is inborn. We can easily see that Scripture, which is given to us largely in the form of stories, speaks to this longing. We are given the story of a majestic garden that is corrupted through the disobedience of its inhabitance. We are told of a race of people sought out by the Creator to bring restoration to his fallen creation. We follow these people through their captivity and their release, their military victories and their devastating defeats, all the while looking forward to the One who will set all things right. We are told of the miraculous events that surround the birth of this One and we listen to Him teach about the Kingdom that He is instituting. We see Him as He sets in to motion the promised restoration in an unexpected plot twist that sees our protagonist hanging dead on a cross. We are told of the impossible reality of His resurrection, and we are commissioned to bring about the realization of His kingdom in the world through the message of His death and resurrection.

This is an amazing story! Perhaps by attempting to communicate not only the propositions of the Gospel, but also the story of the Gospel, we can have a greater influence on our postmodern world. Our culture provides us with all sorts of narratives through film, music, and other mediums into which we can inject the redeeming message of Christ and His cross. Instead of simply telling people that they are sinful and that they need a Savior, perhaps we can show them through a stories that communicate to them. Instead of assuming an understanding of right and wrong, perhaps we can make sense of these categories for people through narratives that clearly illustrate them.

The question in now, how can we do this? I'd love to hear suggestions from people. As we set out to evangelize as a group and as we attempt to reach individuals with the message of the Gospel on our campuses, how could we employ narrative in our efforts? Does anyone have any example of different stories (i.e. movies, books, whatever) that communicate the realities of our sinful condition and a need for redemption? Let's make this practical!

Christus Victor

The young adults at New Covenant Church are starting our own blog. Christus Victor will feature thoughts from the entire young adult community on current events, cultural issues, ministry opportunites, and discussion regarding our involvement in these issues. At least, that's kind of the idea at this point. The blog is still a bit sparse, but we should be putting some more information on it before long. I've entered an article of my own as the first official post. Check it out and leave a comment!

Horton on Kingdom and Culture

There are few topics that are more interesting or vital than a proper understanding of how Christ relates to culture. At the same time, there are few subjects that are more controversial or have as wide a range of thought within the pale of orthodoxy than does our understanding of how we as Christians should relate to and interact with the world around us. Thankfully, in such a controversial and often confusing discussion, there are certain thinkers who can bring much needed clarity and scriptural insight. One such person is one of the foremost evangelical authorities on issues related to Christ and culture, Michael Horton. As an author, radio host, and professor, Dr. Horton educates Christian laymen and women on "what they believe and why they believe it." I believe that he does more to bring a balanced and scriptural view regarding our roles as dual citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of this world than any other current Christian author. I recently stumbled across an excellent article that he has written for Christianity Today entitled, How the Kingdom Comes that deals with this very subject. Here's a sample:

The kingdom at present is hidden under suffering and the Cross, conquering through Word and sacrament, yet one day it will be consummated as a kingdom of glory and power. First the Cross, weakness, and suffering; then glory, power, and the announcement that the kingdoms of this world have been made the kingdom of Christ (Rev. 11:15; see also Heb. 2:5-18).

This article, which was printed in the January edition of Christianity Today, was the first in a series dealing with the issue of the role of Evangelicalism in the 21st century. In it, Dr. Horton discusses how we can be truly "conterculteral," offering hope through the word and the sacrament, without creating a Christian subculture in which we mimic what we see the rest of the culture doing and label our particular appropriation of it "Christian." Dr. Horton brings much neededclarityy to this subject, not to mention the fact that he quotes CNN's Anderson Cooper. How cool is that?!