Category: The Ministry

Last night, during the share and prayer time, one of the elderly saints who has been a member of the Church I serve since the Church started 45 years ago said,

“There has never been a time in the life of this church that forgiveness has been as emphasized as it currently is in this Church.”

Now, I normally wouldn’t mention this for fear of “breaking my arm in order to pat myself on the back,” but the way I get hammered with for being a “legalist” and worst yet, a “theonomist,” I thought any part of the world that cares should know that such ugly characterizations with their implied associations are completely off the mark.

“We’re no longer going to be united by the Form of Subscription binding us to the confessions. We’re only going to be united by subscription to The Banner.”

Heard from a Calvin Theological Seminary Professor
At the Christian Reformed 2008 Synod

I’m somewhat confident that this was said tongue in cheek. I am also somewhat confident that it was a case of half in jest all in earnest.

Personally, I think this is already true to a large extent. As doctrinal preaching continues to be in decline in all American Churches including the Christian Reformed Church that which binds the CRC denominational membership together is the one thing that they have in common and that one thing they have in common, denominationally speaking is The Banner.

I am fairly confident that one reason why the decision was made to send The Banner free to the home of all CRC members was that it might serve as a kind of touchstone for its membership. If The Banner is the one thing in the denomination that everyone reads then The Banner becomes a kind of literary glue holding the denomination together while serving at the same time as an ideological information guide on what to believe.

This is disconcerting. In the nearly 14 years I have been associated with the Christian Reformed Church The Banner has been a publication that reflects the mainline liberal influence in the denomination. A denomination, thus united by subscription to The Banner will be a denomination that is characterized by the pursuit of a politically correct multi-cultural agenda. Anybody who disagrees with The Banner will certainly be free to do so, but because The Banner is serving as that which glues the denomination together the person who disagrees with The Banner will automatically be seen as the one out of step with the denominational consensus.

Ever since I’ve pastored a CRC church people would tell me that I shouldn’t worry over what The Banner reports because, after all, that’s just The Banner. I thought they were wrong before and I think they are wrong now. The Banner is monumentally significant in the life of the CRC and the sooner everybody realizes that the sooner people might be more concerned about what does and doesn’t get printed in The Banner.

Jack England is a Ph.D. working in a ministerial middle management position in one of America’s Flag ship evangelical denominations. His portfolio includes work with mission.

Dr. Jack,

“While I believe that in the Christian faith there is only one true and absolute doctrine, humans are unable to define it.”

Dr. Jack England, what good is it to have only one true and absolute doctrine if nobody can authoritatively define it? For that matter Dr. Jack, If we are unable to define the only one true and absolute doctrine what the hell does anybody mean when they say “the Christian faith.” This sounds very Kantian in as much as you seem to be suggesting we cannot know the thing in itself.

In point of fact Dr. Jack I believe you have told us that in your estimation there is one true and absolute doctrine of the Christian faith that you as a human are able to define and that doctrine is that there are no other true and absolute doctrines that you are able to define. Your one definable absolute is that there are no other definable absolutes.

Finally, on this score if what you say is accurate then there is no reason to say that Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses or Unitarians aren’t Christian. After all, if we are unable to define doctrine well enough to know who should be in and who should be out then who are we to freeze anybody out of the circle?

“Because, you see, when they try to define it errors are made (we humans ARE frail, fallible, and finite); when errors are made, differences occur among humans; when differences occur, new paths form; when new paths form (within Christianity), denominations surface; when denominations surface, dogma arrives; when dogma arrives, divisions occur within an entity God would rather be unified. Thus, I believe that He only tolerates denominations, Bret.”

Dr. Jack, everyone agrees with the idea of the noetic effects of sin. Further everyone would agree that we see through a glass darkly. The point though is that we do see. The reality of human frailty, fallibility, and finiteness does not negate the ability of God to communicate his mind. Now, certainly no one would argue that we can fully comprehend God (finitum non capax infinitum) but all orthodox Christians believe that God can still be known because he is able to make himself known.

You say God would rather have us united? That is a doctrine, and if humans are unable to define it then why do you presume to define it here?

Your solution of a unknowable doctrine doesn’t work because it ends up being its own unique dogma that you putatively disdain. Indeed, your dogma keeps me from being united with you, and yet that is exactly what you say you want to avoid. Your path has been pursued many times before. It’s the kind of thing you might have heard from J. Barton Stone or Alexander Campbell.

It would be nice if we could all hold hands and sing Kumbayah Dr. Jack but unity can only be achieved and maintained by a mutually shared set of definable doctrines. The doctrine that there isn’t any doctrines that can be defined is not enough to base unity upon.

“Another thought to ponder at another time might be, why have I chosen to be a Baptist, or you, CR?”

Um, because you are confused and the CRC is a denomination that historically has held to the Biblical faith once delivered to the saints?

“Without defining that “one absolute doctrine,” perhaps it would be unfair to entertain the second part of your question, ‘how does it effect evangelism?'”

I don’t understand. If it is, a-priori not possible for humans to define ‘one absolute doctrine’ then why would we even try?

Bret had asked Dr. Jack earlier,

Q: How does the one absolute doctrine effect evangelism?

Dr. Jack responds,

Well, if we look to God’s Word as the basis for the one true doctrine, we find that evangelism is more overt in the NT and more covert in the OT. The reason would be found in the life and work of Christ recorded in the NT, and more specifically in the Savior’s words to those gathered just prior to His ascension, that which believers refer to as the Great Commission. Jesus commands that his followers make disciples. While there is more to making disciples than simply leading another to conversion and belief in Christ (evangelism), God gave authority to His Son to pass the authority to evangelize people on to those called the Apostles of Christ, and I believe to many other disciples who were present, and further on to disciples/followers in this present day (to you and me). So, I believe God’s plan before time (the crux of that absolute doctrine) centered on believers applying/sharing the gospel message.

How do you know this if humans can’t define the one true doctrine?

Still, I agree that we should be busy about evangelism and discipleship. But my question still stands. How do we do evangelism apart from Doctrine informing us? Who is Jesus? What is sin? What of the character of God in relation to evangelism? When God visits salvation upon a husband and wife are they to bring their children into the household of God with them? What does conversion look like? Calvinists, and Arminians answer many of those questions differently. You just can’t do evangelism Dr. Jack without addressing all kinds of doctrinal issues.

“that’s why evangelism outweighs doctrinal dogma/differences in the way I practice my faith.”

I’m sorry Jack, you just can’t divide evangelism from the doctrinal differences. For example, I know countless number of people who will tell you when they converted from Arminianism to Calvinism it was like embracing a different faith.

Another question that comes to mind might be: What IS the definition of evangelism?

You can’t answer that without doctrine and according to you it is not possible for humans to define doctrine because they are frail, fallible and finite.

“Okay, Bret, now answer my first question: In the Christian faith, isn’t there only one absolute doctrine?”

Yes.

“Some honest teachers may receive support from the public treasury; but as we have said, when any one is drawn aside by lucre, he must necessarily pervert and deprave all purity of doctrine.”

John Calvin
Commentaries On Daniel — pg. 128

Sometimes I wonder if the problems of the pulpit today in how it has perverted and depraved all purity of doctrine stems from ministers being drawn aside by lucre. When you connect a guys livelihood with a prophetic role it takes an unusual chap to choose to stick with the prophetic voice at the risk of losing his livelihood. How many ministers trim their message for fear of offending Daddy Warbucks? How many ministers understand that large segments of American culture simply won’t tolerate certain of God’s convictions and so preach accordingly, steering away from those subjects that American culture can’t stand? It is not a wonder that in the Old Testament God repeatedly raised up a prophetic voice out of the middle of nowhere to challenge the institutional priestly class who had perverted and depraved all purity of doctrine. Further, it is not a wonder that often these prophetic voices were people of no repute — sheepherders like Amos, or desert dwellers like John The Baptist. God often reached outside the mainstream in order to find somebody who hadn’t been corrupted by the desire for lucre.

Does love for money, prestige, and fame keep us ministers from giving the unvarnished truths? Are we compromising the message because we have come to think of our congregations or denominations as the source of our incomes as opposed to only one channel among many that God — the true source — can provide? Are we thinking more about our retirement and our future financial stability when we speak then we are thinking about being in the presence of God when we speak?

God keep us from perverting and depraving all purity of doctrine because we don’t have the confidence He can provide water from stone and bread from birds.

Over at Mablog Doug Wilson continues to write on how to go about reading the meaning of historical events in terms of what God is saying. Wilson’s contention is that Christians ought to be able to read the times and by doing so proclaim what God is saying by events that happen in history. The belief that Christians ought to have the ability to do this has long historical legs in Christian thinking. St. Louis IX the Christian Crusader King concluded that God was afflicting him for his sins by not giving him the victory he was looking for on the Crusades in which he participated. The Puritan forebears in the early colonies understood God’s hand to be against them for disobedience when calamity came against them. Many of the Southern Theologians in the 2nd War for American Independence explained their defeat as God’s just judgments against them for their sins as a nation. In the same way you can find the opposite conclusions that God was giving success to undertakings because of obedience rendered by the people. You can find the kind of thing that Doug Wilson is contemplating all over Church history.

Now the positive aspect of this kind of approach is that it reminds us that what happens in history does not happen by way of mechanical necessity. This approach reminds us that God is intimately involved in history.It reminds us that Hurricanes are God’s Hurricanes. It reminds us that a rising to or falling from power is done by God. It reminds us that prosperity is ultimately due to God’s favor. Christians raised in a world where science is sovereign and so everything that happens has to be explained in terms of science need to learn that everything comes from a sovereign God who remains the sustainer and governor of the Universe.

Of course the problem with this enterprise is that it may be beyond human endeavor to climb up into God’s filing cabinet in order to say a “Thus saith the Lord” by way of precise explanation for why Hurricane Katrina happened or why 9-11 happened or why there are floods in the Midwest. Sure, we can always give the necessary observation that if towers fall and kill people what the living should do is repent unless something worst should happen to them (Luke 13:1-4) but that is a far piece from saying that the tower fell because of some legislation that passed that was anti-Christ.

On this subject here are a few things that I would like to recognize.

1.) Immediate blessing is not always the consequence of obedience and immediate cursing is not always the consequence of disobedience. The Covenanters were an obedient people but for decades they were mercilessly persecuted. The same goes for the Hugenots and the Puritans. Immediate blessing doesn’t always follow obedience.

2.) Whenever God does curse a people that curse is a blessing to God’s people who live among the cursed people. This is to say that for those who belong to God, whatever God does is blessing to them. The Heidelberg Catechism gets at this when it says “that God will make whatever evils he sends upon me (His people), in this valley of tears turn out to my advantage.” This means that if God sends a natural calamity it is both a cursing and a blessing. It is a cursing to God haters but a blessing to those God loves. God may chasten those He loves but that chastening is a blessing.

3.) Similarly whenever God blesses a people that blessing is always a curse to the reprobate. God may act favorably toward a people for the sake of His people in their midst but that very favor is judgment against the reprobate in their midst.

4.) The ability to say “This is That” gives the person who takes that upon himself to much power. If people really believe that somebody can tell them why God does such and such in history that person speaks to them with the voice of God and so has a leverage that probably isn’t going to be healthy. Cults form around people who presume to be able to be God’s interpreter on why what happens, happens.

It is my conviction that we should go very slow on taking up the prophetic mantle in order to do a “this is that” commentary at what happens in history. We don’t have the advantage of being inspired so as to have divine insight into the meaning of God’s working in this world as did the prophets in the Scriptures. On the other hand we need to cultivate the sense that all that happens, happens by the working of a Sovereign God bringing about the ends he has decreed.