Bavinck and the Holy Spirit

I have done some posts in the past on the current need in the Church at large for a fuller pneumatology. I would say that this includes those who simply see manifestations of the Spirit in the context of a meeting as ends unto themselves, as well as those who take a more cessasionist stance. As I mentioned in my recent post on Neocalvinism, this Dutch brand of Reformation thought offers a framework that emphasizes a much more robust understanding of the work of the Spirit in the earth, not simply limited to the soteriological aspects of the His task. It even seems that there is room in the Neocalvinist tradition for the Spirit to be understood in terms of charismatic expressions in worship and in the life of the Christian community. Herman Bavinck's definition of a Trinitarian understanding of reality is very helpful in the attempt to articulate the pervasive nature of the Spirit's work in the earth:

God the Father has reconciled His created but fallen world through the death of His Son, and renews it into a Kingdom of God by His Spirit.

This is not only a wonderful, concise statement of the Christian worldview in general, but it also shows the radical importance of the work of the Spirit in revealing Christ and bringing about renewal in the present age. It emphasizes not only the Spirit's work in regeneration of the individual, but also looks to Him for a renewal of all spheres of the creation order. While the Spirit is the seal of our salvation and does manifest Himself in context of congregational worship, there is a much broader aspect of the Spirit's work to which these things point. As we profess that we are sealed by the Spirit, we are also attesting to the Spirit's activity in sealing the salvation of the world at large. As the He manifests Himself amongst us in worship, we are proclaiming to the world that His presence is here and at work among us and in the whole earth.

Calvin and the Lord's Supper

Here's a recent paper that I've written on Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The subject of the presence of Christ at the communion table is one that is virtually neglected by evangelicals altogether. Whether we realize it or not, most evangelicals hold to a Zwinglian or memorialist view of the table. In other words, Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist meal, but rather, we simply remember Christ's death. However, this is position is in one that has been held by a minority of Christians throughout the course of Church history. At the time of the Reformation, it was the controversy over how Christ's presence in the meal was to be understood that was the major issue dividing Protestants. While Luther held to an understanding of the real physical presence, similar to that of the Roman Catholic position, Zwingli denied any sort of real presence.

Calvin's doctrine was an attempt to moderate between these two positions. It maintains that Christ is truly present with his people in table, but he is with them spiritually. Christ's body and blood do not become bread and wine, but rather, bread and wine are means consecrated by God to bring us into the presence of Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit. In a Church culture that continues to diminish the place of the Eucharist in the gathering of the congregation, an understanding of Calvin's doctrine would do much to restore a reverence for the grace communicated to us through the Lord's Supper. For myself, nothing has done more to transform the communion table from a place of meaningless ritual to a source of joy and thanksgiving for the work of Christ than has Calvin's articulation of this doctrine. Keith Mathison's book, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, is an excellent resource on the subject.

Martin Luther on Resurrection and Justification

Here are some classic words from Martin Luther for this Easter. As we celebrate the resurrection of Christ today and everyday, may we remember what it promises!

St. Paul writes in Romans 4:25 as follows: “Christ was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification.” Paul is indeed the man who extols Christ in a masterly manner, telling us exactly why and for what purpose he suffered and how we should conform ourselves to his sufferings, namely, that he died for our sins. This is a correct interpretation of the sufferings of Christ, by which we may profit. And as it is not sufficient to know and believe that Christ has died, so it will not suffice to know and believe that he rose with a transfigured body and is now in a state of joy and blessedness, no longer subject to mortality, for all this would profit me nothing or very little. But when I come to understand the fact that all the works God does in Christ are done for me, nay, they are bestowed upon and given to me, the effect of his resurrection being that I also will arise and live with him; that will cause me to rejoice. This must be brought home to our hearts, and we must not merely hear it with the ears of our body nor merely confess it with our mouth. 7. You have heard in the story of the Passion how Christ is portrayed as our exemplar and helper, and that he who follows him and clings to him receives the Spirit, who will enable him also to suffer. But the words of Paul are more Christian and should come closer home to our hearts and comfort us more, when he says: “Christ was raised for our justification.”

A Biblical Framework for Cultural Activies

Embarrassing title, excellent book. Holding Hands, Holding Hearts: Recovering a Biblical View of Christian Dating, by Richard and Sharon Phillips, is a discussion of what dating should look like for singles in the Church. Despite the horrific title (which, to be fair does communicate a rather good point), the Phillips' book gives a refreshing and practical perspective on how the cultural practice of dating can be approached by Christian singles without feeling the need to give it a strange name or apply some sort of overspiritualized "Christian" method. It clearly lays out a complementarian view of the relationship between men and women and then goes on to give practical and useful advice for Christians in or seeking a dating relationship. The Phillips' are able to lay out a description of the three basic stages of any relationship - commitment, intimacy, and interdependence - without trying to impose a formal structure that must be followed to the letter. The three stages are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

As good as this book is by way of practical advice and biblical counsel on relationships, I found that the most refreshing thing about this book was the way that it undertook to describe a "biblical view" of a practice like dating. The Phillips' outline their approach in the introduction:

What does the Bible say about dating? Nothing. And everything! Our challenge is to think biblically about a practice that isn't in the Bible.

In one sense, the Bible has nothing to say about dating. However, just as with any other practice that changes from culture to culture, our perspective is shaped by our understanding of Scripture. In this sense, a greater understanding of what Scripture says about the relationship between a man and a women, as well as a biblical understanding of love in general, is essential to understanding the way that we should conduct our relationships. This is true not only of dating, but of many other practices and institutions that are unique to our individual culture. We must have an informed biblical framework from which to understand subjects like politics, education, social justice, and a litany of other things, without attempting to force Scripture to speak where it is silent. It seems that so often we are satisfied to create a Christian subculture in which we have chapter and verse to back up every practice. However, if we are truly to have a place of influence in our culture, we must realize that just as with dating, Scripture does not specifically dictate a course of action for most of our cultural activities. What it does do is provide us with a framework of truth that allows us much freedom and creativity, while providing us with hedges to protect and instruct as we engage the world around us.

Not bad for a book with such a cheesy title!

Charismatic Neocalvinism

I know that people always say that they don't like labels, especially as Christians. I have to confess that I love labels. They help to define and clarify positions, even if they do oversimplify or generalize positions and viewpoints at times. Here's a great label from a recent article in Comment, an online journal, by one of my favorites, James K.A. Smith, the head of the philosophy department at Calvin College: "Charismatic Neo-Calvinism." Neo-Calvinism, a Dutch brand of Calvinism as set forth by Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, Herman Bavinck, and more recently, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Richard Mouw, is an attempt at articulating a Christian philosophy of life which takes into consideration the sovereingnty of God in every sphere of his creation, as well as the goodness of the creation structure. This approach is encapsulated by Kuyper's famous quote:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: Mine!

In his article, Smith explains why the Neocalvinistic tradition is his main frame of reference, while offering some suggestions as to the particular weakness that it is hampered by and some potential ways that this tradition could be supplemented and spoken to by other traditions. One of these traditions, Smith believes, is the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition:

Albert Wolters recently confessed: "It is my belief that a 'charismatic neocalvinist' is not a contradiction in terms." Thanks be to God, or I'd be a walking contradiction! My own introduction to and immersion in neocalvinism was concurrent with my own pilgrimage to Pentecost and identification with charismatic Christianity. I found in the wholistic worldview and anthropology of neocalvinism an articulation of just what I was experiencing in worship and spiritual disciplines in the charismatic renewal. I think Wolters is absolutely correct in discerning a deep affinity between neocalvinism and charismatic Christianity, and I think that the future of both would be well-served by their mutual interaction. And given the shape of global Christianity, I think this represents a critical opportunity for neocalvinism to serve the global church.

As a Reformed Charismatics, it is this sort of position that we hope to see spread through the Church at large. We long to see a Church that takes seriously the doctrines of grace, as well as the transforming effect that they can have on the culture as we begin to see that all creation is good and that our activity in different spheres of cultural can point others towards Christ. We also believe that this will only happen by a powerful movement of the Holy Spirit as we gain an ever increasing understanding of the biblical role of spiritual gifts and the subjective, experiential aspect of the Spirit's work in revival. In the article by Albert Wolters, referred to by Smith in his quote, Wolters lays out some suggestions as to how these two traditions might complement one another:

The power, vitality and emotional spontaneity of the charismatic movement, as well as its openness to the charismatic gifts, its emphasis on the effectiveness of prayer, and its acknowledgement of the reality of the demonic are all part of a vibrant biblical Christianity from which neocalvinism can benefit. On the other hand, I believe that charismatic Christians can derive great benefit from the strengths of neocalvinism, notably its broad cultural vision of the Christian life, its intellectual sophistication and maturity, and its tradition of responsible biblical exegesis.

Ok, so I know that we shouldn't be dependent on labels. They are often misleading, and as soon as we find one that we like, we usually find items that go under that label that we can't agree with. But come on, if you have to have a label, being called a Charismatic Neocalvinist isn't bad, is it?

Joel and the Lord of the Covenant

I've been greatly enjoying O. Palmer Robertson's commentary on the book of Joel, Prophet of the Coming Day of the Lord. It comes from a series of very helpful commentaries put out by Evangelical Press. This is a simple exposition of the text of Joel with practical application and a very devotional feel.

One of the most interesting, as well as clarifying aspects of this commentary is the way in which Robertson chooses to render the name of God used in the Old Testament, known as the "Tetragrammaton." This Hebrew word YHWH or "Yahweh" is traditionally represented by the word LORD. Robertson points out that while this is not a bad translation, the significance of the Hebrew word, which is so pregnant with meaning, is often missed by readers when rendered this way. In his own translation, used in the commentary, Robertson uses the phrase "Covenant Lord." As one of the foremost experts on covenant theology within Reformed circles, it is not surprising that Robertson is able to recognize this particular aspect of the name of God. He explains the decision in this way:

The translation adopted in this commentary has worked with the generally accepted understanding that this special name for God is related directly to his revelation to his people as their 'Covenant Lord'. Only to the people called out to be his own has God made himself known by this name. In association with his oath-bound commitments, God has revealed himself as 'Lord of the Covenant'.

This is a wonderful truth, that God relates to us on the basis of the special relationship found in his covenant. The terms of this covenant are set by him and fulfilled by him as well. What better arrangement could we ask for?! Not only does this rendering of God's name as "Covenant Lord" reveal to use the way in which the Hebrew's understood their relationship to God, but, as Robertson points out, it has Christological implications as well. He sees the historic difficulty of translating the Old Testament name of God to have very specific foreshadowings of Christ:

It just may be that God intended it that way for a special purpose. The revelation that came in the person of God's Son burst onto the scene of human history with the greatest brilliance because of the 400 years of divine silence that preceded it. In a similar way, the obvious blank at the place where God's name should have been heard made the way clear for the name of 'Jesus' to receive the full honour it deserved. Without a rival even from Scripture itself, it is clearly and exclusively 'at the name of Jesus' that 'every knee should bow and every tongue declare that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:10-11).

J. Ligon Duncan on Eschatology

I came across this comment by J. Ligon Duncan on escatology recently and was amazed by the way that it expressed my own particular leanings on the question of the millennium. Its always wonderful when you can find someone as brilliant as Duncan express a certain viewpoint or position that you hold to, but may not be able to express or defend adequately.

The specifics of the millennial question have never been the main focus of my teaching on eschatology, but I suppose I'd be characterized as amil or postmil on most matters relating to that (I say a- or post- partly because on the one hand I look for continuity between the already and the not yet in terms of the reign of God's kingdom on earth [in a way that most amils don't], and yet on the other hand do not conceive of a "golden age" in the way that classic postmillennialism does - I see a simultaneously increasing opposition to the kingdom growing alongside an ever advancing and expanding kingdom).

Men like Duncan who are such accomplished scholars know more about eschatology than most of us could ever hope to know, even if it is not their main area of expertise. If someone so knowledgeable on such a subject can express a certain amount of uncertainty as to exactly how something like the millennium will play out, I hope we can all recognize that our own positions should probably be subject to some scrutiny. Any thoughts on the millennium or Duncan's particular position?