Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 29, 2012 in Book Reviews, Christian Life, Ecclesiology |

Brief Book Notes: How Jesus Runs the Church and Jesus + Nothing = Everything

How Jesus Runs the Church by Guy Waters

I just recently finished How Jesus Runs the Church by Guy Waters, and while I don’t have the time to write a full review, I thought it was worth mentioning. It is essentially a biblical examination of church government–so no, not necessarily a page-turner. But here are several reasons why I think it is a valuable contribution that is worthy of our time. (1) It gives a helpful theological grounding for church government. That is, the title is descriptive of what the book is about: how Jesus runs the church, not how we run the church.

(2) It gives a modern defense of Presbyterian church government. So whether one is in a Presbyterian context (like me), and needs to be stretched to consider how important our church government is, or whether one is in a Congregational or Episcopalian setting, and could be stretched to consider whether the Scriptures really indicate more about the topic than one might think, it is worth reading.

(3) Waters regularly helps the reader to see that while church government may seem irrelevant in the midst of a host of other issues, it actually is vital to the church fulfilling her mission. Here are some representative quotes on this point that I found encouraging:

…biblical church government is no obstacle to missions and evangelism. In fact, Scripture shows us that good church government is critical to the expansion of the church. After this Assembly has done its work, the church continues to grow by the Lord’s blessing. Jesus, then, is blessing his own means to gather and to perfect the saints.

Biblical church government, then, is a tremendous pillar and support to the church’s faith, a signpost of the church’s great hope. Church government reminds us that Jesus is presently on his throne, ruling over all things for the sake of his church. It assures us that Jesus will return in glory at the last day.

Jesus + Nothing = Everything by Tullian Tchividjian

I have far too many thoughts about this book than I have time to write at the present, but here are a few. (1) Pastor Tullian gives a powerful condemnation of living to please people, arising from his own painful experience in the first part of his time at Coral Ridge PCA. I was challenged by this part of the book, probably in ways that I needed to be. (2) The book is very repetitive, and in my opinion, not in a good way. I felt like it could have been half as long, and really not left anything out. (3) I think that Pastor Tullian is excellent–both in content and presentation–when describing justification and its importance, but can be confusing and unclear when it comes to sanctification. He seems to equate sanctification almost entirely with resting in justification:

I think of it this way: the hard work of Christian growth consists primarily in being daily grasped by the fact that God’s love for us isn’t conditioned by anything we do or don’t do. Sanctification is the hard work of giving up our efforts at self-justification. Those efforts are what we’re all naturally inclined to do, and it’s what makes the sanctification process so grueling and counterintuitive.

Obviously it’s true that sanctification does include continually returning to justification. But Tullian seems to denigrate almost any other efforts at works or effort, and personally, while if we were to have a conversation, I would bet that we wouldn’t disagree on much, I found the book confusing in its presentation of how sanctification happens.

For more substantial reviews of the book, consider these:

David Murray’s 3-part review: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Mark Jones’ Review

Read More

Posted by on Apr 16, 2012 in Christian Life | 2 comments

Spirit-Powered, Gospel-Driven, Faith-Fueled Effort

Kevin DeYoung gave one of the more helpful messages I have heard in some time at the recent Together for the Gospel conference. His title was Spirit-Powered, Gospel-Driven, Faith-Fueled Effort (video embedded below).

Justin Taylor has helpful put up his notes on the message. DeYoung started by noting what he thinks this “new Calvinism” or “Young, Restless, and Reformed” crowd is known for that is good:

We are, I believe, known for

  • our commitment to the Scriptures,
  • our commitment to expositional preaching,
  • our commitment to the doctrines of grace,
  • our commitment to biblical manhood and womanhood,
  • our commitment to the uniqueness of Christ,
  • our commitment to penal substitutionary atonement,
  • our commitment to justification by faith alone, and above all
  • our commitment to the centrality of the gospel.

But he indicates that there are two things that this resurgence is not yet known for: (1) a commitment to world missions (I’ll have more to say about David Platt’s message on that topic later), and (2) a commitment to personal holiness. It is to that latter topic that this particular message is devoted. I would suggest that perhaps many in the movement have yet to be committed to biblical ecclesiology as well, but nonetheless, surely these are two key areas.

I would highly recommend watching the whole video and looking over Justin Taylor’s notes, but here are a few things about the message that jumped out at me as being incredibly helpful.

(1) He was incredibly helpful in articulating why we we have to be careful with our language. While sanctification is “faith-fueled” and therefore is “by faith,” that means something different than when we say we are “justified by faith.” While justification by faith means that we contribute nothing to our sanctification, sanctification by faith does not mean that we contribute nothing to our sanctification. It means that we work by faith, that even as we work we trust in the Lord’s power at work in our lives. It seems like the gospel-centered movement, for all of the wonderful things it has contributed to the church in our times, seems to really like bumper-sticker theology that leaves itself open to a lot of confusion.

(2) He powerfully calls us to effort in our sanctification, not as a moralistic motivation to be better people, but a grace-founded call to “work out our salvation with fear of trembling.” Consider the following quote:

We must understand that when it comes to sanctification, we cannot simply tell our people, ‘Look to the Lord.’ We cannot only say, ‘Get gripped by the gospel,’ and then when they struggle say, ‘Well get really gripped and get more gripped by the gospel.’ We must also say, ‘Work! Make an effort!’

He talks about the fact that while there is a sense in which our sanctification and growth in grace flows from our justification and regeneration, there is also a sense in which it doesn’t “just happen.” We do have to work at it–for the right reasons, with the right motivations, always recognizing that our works do not make us acceptable to God. (See Justin Taylor’s notes again for a list of the Scriptures he uses to defend this idea.)

(3) He provided a corrective to some of the talk that happens in these discussions of law and grace. He says that he doesn’t really know any antinomians. Antinomians are those who, “It really doesn’t matter how I live. I can do whatever I want, even if it violates God’s law.” In Reformed circles, even among those who might frame all this differently, there probably aren’t many who really say to forget the law (at least in principle). But DeYoung does describe people who may be “nomophobic,” that is, those who are afraid to hear the third use of the law preached. That seems like an insightful distinction. I myself have thought at times that people were being antinomian, and it likely wasn’t true. But we can, as an overreaction to the legalism that has been prevalent in the American church in the past (and is always a battle in our own hearts), be afraid to hear God’s commands and instructions proclaimed in power as well, and if we would really grow in grace and holiness, we should be delighted as those redeemed by the Son to hear the precious words of the Law proclaimed.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 23, 2012 in Christian Life |

More and More on Law and Grace

A lot seems to keep being written around the web about law and grace, the law-gospel distinction, justification and sanctification, legalism and antinomianism, and so on. It’s something that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, not only because of my personal reading (some of which I hope to finally finish on some long plane flights coming up), but also because we’ve been talking about it in Sunday School and in last week’s sermon. Here’s some snippets around the web, along with some classic quotes from the Westminster Confession that I find incredibly helpful (sometimes it feels like we’re thinking that we’ve come up with incredibly new insights, or we’re having debates that have never been had, but then this 300+ year old document shows up again).

Mike Horton’s Series on Antinomianism and Sanctification

This is a series that I have found, for the most part, to be helpful. It’s certainly worth the time to read for the background information and the clear articulation of the 1st use of the law and the 3rd use of the law in church confessions. His plea in part 3 to not serve factions or choose groups was also encouraging, as it does seem that this whole discussion has gone in that way too often.

Part 1: Holiness Wars: What Is Antinomianism?
Part 2: Holiness Wars: Antinomianism in Church History
Part 3: Antinomianism and Reformed Confessions
Part 4: Sanctified by Grace

It appears that there is more to come. I honest think it would be really helpful to have guys like Mike Horton, Tullian Tchividjian, Kevin DeYoung, Richard Phillips, Harry Reeder, and Ligon Duncan get together and video a discussion about all of this. It seems like so often they are saying similar (if not the same) things, and yet they are emphasizing different aspects. Unfortunately, then, it seems like people hear various things from some of them, seize on them as the be-all and end-all of the discussion, and then it all gets blown out of proportion.

Tullian Tchividjian’s Series on Law and Gospel

This is a new series that he started today, so there’s only one part up so far:

Law and Gospel: Part 1

I will be following this one with some interest, though I wonder if there’s a bit of overstatement here in this first one:

This [the law-gospel distinction] may seem like a distinction that would fascinate only the theologian or linguist. But, believe it or not, every ounce of confusion regarding justification, sanctification, the human condition, God’s grace, how God relates to us, the nature of the Christian life, and so on, is due to our failure to properly distinguish between the law and the gospel.

Can it all be reduced to that? I’ll be interested to read the rest of the series to see how he defends that. I affirm the law-gospel distinction, but that seems like it could be an overstatement.

Ligon Duncan’s Highlights from Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Some Quotes from the Confession

WCF XIII on Sanctification

I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

WCF XIV on Good Works

VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

WCF XIX on The Law of God

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

Perhaps if we knew the Confession (and the Scriptures of which they are a summary), we would have, if not all the answers, at least a better starting point for the discussion. Of course, that is not to say that these authors above don’t know the Confession well. I am quite certain they could run confessional circles around me. It just seems that in our discussions, we don’t always approach it with what we confess to believe in mind.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 16, 2012 in Christian Life |

On Gospel Shorthand

Harry Reeder, in the audio series I highlighted a few weeks ago, makes a few comments that have had me thinking. One I hope to study up on some (now that I’ve turned in my written work for ordination), and another I just hope that I will never forget.

Regarding our tendency to want to be able to summarize the gospel in a tweet or bumper sticker, he says:

If you want to do gospel shorthand, there’s only one phrase that you can use: union with Christ. ‘I am in him, he is in me, that’s the hope of glory.’ Regeneration is not shorthand. Justification is not shorthand. Adoption…every time we think the gospel is in one piece of the ordo salutis, we just set up the errors of the next generation. We can’t do that. We must preach Christ, the victory of the cross, and its implications, and the unnuanced claims of the risen, ascended Christ and his crown. That we surrender to him as Savior and Lord and that in fact we don’t do shorthand. [Part of this is a quote from John Murray, but from the audio, I couldn't tell which part specifically was.]

This is something that I will want to keep thinking about. His basic point is that sanctification is not merely remembering our justification, since there is more bound up in the good news than just justification. That is not to say that we should downplay justification (since sola fide is at the heart of the Reformation). But he argues that the good news is much broader than simply justification. In light of other things that I have read that do seem reductionistic regarding justification and sanctification, I find this helpful. But the reason that I want to study it is that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 does give a summary of the gospel that does seem to hone in on justification. That warrants further study. Is there a sense in which justification encapsulates the gospel in a way that no other element of the ordo salutis does? I want to keep thinking about this one.

Dr. Reeder says something else towards the end of his talk that I found to be powerful:

I want my church to be safe for sinners. But I want it to be a death-trap for sin…because of the gospel.

Surely that ought to be our attitude. It seems that in the church (and in our own hearts) we swing back and forth between those–between the desire to avoid sin so much that we avoid sinners and between the desire to love sinners so much that were unwilling to call sin what it is.

Read More

Posted by on Feb 13, 2012 in Christian Life | 1 comment

Jesus Was Radical So I Don’t Have to Be?

I recently saw a tweet that said this:

Jesus was ‘Radical’ for me so that I could be freed from my always failing attempts to be ‘Radical’ for him.

I get the sentiment. I get that if we try to live holy, passionate, even radical lives in service to our Lord apart from his empowering grace, we will be consumed with feelings of failure or guilt (or arrogance if we deceive ourselves). That is a message that needs to be heard loudly and clearly. Surely there are broad streams of the church that have failed to clearly articulate the necessity of remembering our justification when approaching sanctification.

But is it proper to say that Jesus was radical so that I don’t have to be? Did Jesus fulfill the law and sacrifice himself so that we would not have to attempt to live a holy life, a self-sacrificial life on behalf of others?

One of the things that I regularly hear from people who emphasize such thoughts is that the answer to unholy living is not more rules but more grace. The law doesn’t motivate, they say, so when someone is living licentiously, they don’t need to hear more law; instead, they need to hear more and more about justification, which will naturally motivate them to progress in sanctification.

But as far as I can tell, quotes like the Tweet above (which may indicate more than anything that provocative statements through Twitter are generally more unhelpful than helpful) seem to make the opposite error of throwing rules at someone. Of course, simply throwing the law at someone without the gospel would lead to arrogance or depression via moralism. But throwing grace at them and saying that we no longer need to attempt to live powerfully radical lives for the sake of Jesus seems to demotivate us in our mission.

It is entirely possible of course that this tweet was simply meant to communicate that Jesus freed us from feeling like we are accepted by God because of any of our good works. And of course that is necessary to hear. But by saying he freed us from our attempts to live radical lives, it seems like it would create a complacency. An intellectual agreement on grace. But a cheap grace, not a heart-liberating, soul-motivating passion for the glory of God in all things.

It also entirely possible that part of the problem has to do with our definition of “radical.” If by radical we mean that all Christians need to move overseas, or not be content with the job to which God has called them, then sure, we are free from that. But if by “radical” we mean a life that is wildly different from the surrounding culture, a life full of self-sacrifice, a life that is unfathomable to those who don’t know God’s grace, then we are only free from that as the basis of justification. We are called to imitate Jesus’ example (1 Peter 2:21). And anything that would suggest (intentionally or unintentionally) that because Jesus did this for us we are free from attempting to follow his example seems to miss the mark of what Scripture really calls us to do in light of the wonderful redemption that has be accomplished on our behalf.

 

Read More
%d bloggers like this: