iMonk Classic: The One and Only

By Michael Spencer — October 2006

For evangelical people, our authority is the God who has spoken supremely in Jesus Christ. And that is equally true of redemption or salvation. God has acted in and through Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners.

I think it’s necessary for evangelicals to add that what God has said in Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ, and what God has done in and through Christ, are both, to use the Greek word, hapax–meaning once and for all. There is a finality about God’s word in Christ, and there is a finality about God’s work in Christ. To imagine that we could add a word to his word, or add a work to his work, is extremely derogatory to the unique glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

• John Stott

Of the reading of books and stuff there is like, just no end. Y’know what I mean?

I don’t read books on post-modernism, but I read enough from those who do that I know what I’m about to write will smell pomo to some of my readers. So, since we’re going to throw things and shout insults, let’s get started.

Today, all kinds of people are blogging and writing their lists of the books we all should have read. Most of them, predictably, are reformed, conservative and seriously theological. It’s the “What Theologians Wish You’d Read” kind of list.

I have a library of books, and I read most of them. I also think about books a great deal. I don’t just think about books, but I think about how I feel about books, what we claim for books, and especially how we relate these books to the one book that we say God inspired: the Bible.

I’ve made a discovery. Or a rediscovery. When I share it, it’s going to make some of you pretty sure I’m unsafe and in serious need of a slice of discernment.

I’m pretty sure that we are getting way too many books out of the Bible. Or to say it another way, I don’t think we can get out of the Bible and with Biblical authority, all the kinds of material that evangelicals, conservatives and culture warriors claim to get from it.

Yes, that’s right, I’m pretty sure that “Biblical Guidelines for Financial Success” and “Biblical Principles For Parenting Your Teenager” may be great big doses of exaggeration. “Some Very Human, Fallible and Possibly Mistaken Ideas About Things I Read In The Bible?” I don’t think that title will be flying off the shelves but it’s a lot more accurate.

When I teach the Bible, I try to frame my student’s understanding with this illustration. Imagine a huge library. You are on a tour of the library with God. He points you to 66 books (some not even books, just essays and short pieces) and tells you to make a xeroxed copy of them and bind them into a book. These 66 books are of a diverse background of authors and situations, but they share many interrelated themes. Some are commenting on others. Many quote from one another. When you read them, you discover that God himself is prominent in most of the selections.

This book, when compiled, God says, is his message to humanity. Actually, his perfect Word-message was Jesus, but Jesus is not available to those who didn’t see and hear him. So this selection of writings is a presentation of Jesus and his message in context and in language for every person. For that reason, it is one book, harmonized and connected through Jesus Christ.

God has given his authority and inspiration to these writings, and to what they are together. His authority is assigned to the Bible, and not to any other book in the library, now or in the future.

This is just one of many ways I characterize the Bible for my students. Now, suppose that I brought in a popular systematic theology text, or a multi-volume Bible commentary much larger than the Bible itself. What could I tell my students is the relationship of the Bible to these other books?

Does the systematic theology text present the contents of the Bible in another form? Are the divisions, vocabulary, outlines and discussions in that Systematic text identical to the Bible? Do they have Biblical authority? Did the author derive out of the Bible a similar divine endorsement for the presentation of his message?

One might ask why didn’t God present his message to us as a systematic theology text? If it is “as clear” and “as authoritative,” as the Bible because it contains the Bible in a digested, systematized, reworded form, what is the reason God did not do us the favor of inspiring both?

Now imagine that I hold up this theology book in front of those who revere it. Here’s my talk:

This isn’t the Bible. It’s not as clear as the Bible. As a revelation of God, it’s not as accurate as the Bible. It doesn’t have the authority of the Bible. Its author was in no way, shape or form inspired by the Holy Spirit. This book does not make the Bible plainer. It doesn’t help you understand the Bible’s message better. It’s not more efficient or useful than the Bible. No one single divine promise comes along with this book. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to your knowledge of God if you read this book or not.

Further, carving up the Bible into little pieces and rearranging them is not the same thing as the Bible. This author’s use of the Bible is not inspired, and that includes his presuppositions, cultural influences, education and language. This includes stacking lots and lots of Bible verses one on top of another in long lists to prove points. That arrangement, in and of itself, is not the Bible’s arrangement of the text and shouldn’t be mistaken for the way the Bible used the texts. The Bible’s arrangement of texts is inspired; this author’s is not.

The title isn’t inspired. The index isn’t inspired. The sales aren’t inspired. The reviews aren’t inspired. The fame of the author makes no impact on this book as compared to the Bible. Any book that has “Biblical” in the title runs into an inherent contradiction in that no discussion of the Bible can be Biblical in the same way the Bible’s inspired conversation is Biblical.

Our entire conversation about God, including that conversation that occurs in books of “Biblical” theology, parenting, marriage, self-help, history politics, psychology, finance, economics, politics, science, art, music, church growth, evangelism and so on, is NOT INSPIRED or AUTHORITATIVE.

The attempt to bring Biblical authority or any aspect of Biblical revelation out of the Bible and into anything other than the Bible is a failure.

In that sense, this book must be seen as a human effort to understand the Words of God, and while the author may, more or less, succeed in grasping the meaning of the Bible under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, his ability to write, publish and communicate that illumination happens entirely without any Biblical authority at all.

Don’t look for me headlining the next Christian booksellers convention.

When someone sells you a book on Biblical parenting, it’s a book on parenting, and it may have some good advice, and it may have a lot of Biblical truth. But it has no Biblical authority as a book and it’s not Biblical revelation in the same way the Bible is revelation. God hasn’t written a book on Biblical parenting, and no one’s book on the principles of Biblical parenting come anywhere close to the book God would write. The best Biblical parent was Jesus, and he never had kids.

This same thing goes for theology, marriage, evangelism and so forth. God’s Word is Holy Scripture. If the publisher says that Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life is somehow the Spirit’s message to the church, that’s wrong. I’d like to use a more colorful phrase but this is a family show.

I am saying this for one reason: theologians and their various versions of Christianity are wearing me out. Don’t get me wrong. I want to hear what theological writers say and I think some of them are closely on track with scripture. I’m not a skeptic that God’s Word can be understood and communicated. I’m a communicator of God’s Word by calling and profession. But I don’t believe I need to “wrestle” with a book by John Piper as if it were scripture, because it’s not.

We can’t and don’t get all these books out of the Bible. The Bible isn’t a book that was given to become the raw material out of which ten million other books derive their inspiration and authority; books that often are contradicting each other at various points, yet all still claiming to be Biblical.

If the Bible doesn’t push a subject forward, then writing “What Would Jesus Eat?” doesn’t make that subject important. Democrat or Republican books on Biblical politics? Same problem. Books with vocabulary that no one finds in the Bible? Ditto. Counseling books? They aren’t the Bible morphed into another form.

When we’ve got people running around with a Biblical view of every subject because someone wrote a book saying 100 times more than the Bible ever said on the subject, we ought to be suspicious. Is it more than the Bible says? Then it’s likely more than God has to say to you or me on the subject.

“It’s a good book, but it’s not the Bible.” Neither was the author, the school he teaches at, the radio program he preaches on, his last book, his reviews, his fanclub or his opinions on whatever subject.

The Bible is a wonderful gift. It is, however, unique, in what it is and how its truthfulness operates in God’s economy. The Bible is the Bible, and anything that claims to present the Bible filtered through the grid of theology or social causes or culture war analysis may be right or wrong…but one thing it’s certainly not is God’s authoritative Word.

Reformation 500: Ten Things I Love about Luther

Reformation 500
Ten Things I Love about Luther

Ultimately, there was one thing that first got my attention about the Lutheran way and began drawing me toward it —

I fell in love with Martin Luther.

Of all my spiritual “heroes” or “mentors” from church history, he stands tallest. Few before or since ever stood at such a pivotal point of time in history and provided the kind of faithful voice that changed the course of the world so dramatically. Certainly he lived in one of the most epochal seasons of Western civilization — an age which saw both a Renaissance and a Reformation, leading to the inauguration of the modern world. And yes, there were other thinkers, scientists, explorers, religious leaders, and rulers who had tremendous influence in those days. But of all the Reformers, of all the saints in the history of the church (save the Apostle Paul) who have attracted me and in whom I have seen Christ and the Gospel most magnified, I count Luther most worthy of admiration.

Of course, he had magnificent flaws as well, and I could probably write a list of things I in no way, shape, or fashion commend in him. But let’s save that for another day.

Here are ten simple bullet points with brief comments to tell you why I admire and treasure Martin Luther and his influence.

1. For Luther, it was all about Christ.
Martin Luther found his life, forgiveness, salvation, and peace in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. The heart of the Small Catechism is found in these words about Jesus:

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may be [wholly] His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.

In one of his hymns, he wrote,

Thus spoke the Son, “Hold thou to me,
From now on thou wilt make it.
I gave my very life for thee
And for thee I will stake it.
For I am thine and thou art mine,
And where I am our lives entwine,
The Old Fiend cannot shake it.”

Luther and Jesus, forever entwined. Jesus-shaped, to the core.

2. He loved and listened to God’s Word.
Martin Luther is most honored for taking a courageous, unalterable stand on the Bible as the final authority for Christian faith and practice. All other authorities are to be judged by God’s own holy Word. Equally important was his work in bringing a translation of the Scriptures into the common language of the German layperson and seeing to it that everyone had access to the Bible. His own sermons, teachings, and catechisms expounding the Scriptures remain treasures to this day, and in his own time inspired a revival of Gospel preaching in the churches.

Yet, it is also important to say that the faith Luther preached and taught never became “Bible-centered,” because he always saw the Bible as the “cradle of Christ.” The problem he saw with the Church in his day was not a Bible problem, but a Christ problem, and he saw the Bible as the remedy because it relentlessly points to Jesus.

3. I love a good “Rocky” story.
I mean, who doesn’t? At various times in Luther’s life it seemed like Martin against the world. The Roman Church had all the power and all the resources, and yet this “wild boar” from the edges of Christendom stood up and challenged the entire system of the medieval church. He put his life on the line time and time again for Christ and the Gospel. From my perspective, he won. Unfortunately, it led to the division of the Church he sought to reform.

4. The guy had a way with words.
One example: Luther’s Small Catechism is among the most beautiful, simple, and clear explanations of the Christian faith ever written. From The Luther Bible to his treatises, from his sermons and expositions of Scripture to his hymns, from his German mass to his personal letters, he was a master communicator. He was not only an intellectual giant, but had a way of capturing the heart through tender, devotional language. Check out his Christmas sermons sometime.

5. He treasured music right up there next to the Bible.
Luther said, “Next after theology I give to music the highest place and the greatest honor. I would not exchange what little I know about music for something great. Experience proves that next to the Word of God only music deserves to be extolled as the mistress and governess of the feelings of the human heart.” Luther is responsible for revising three major parts of the liturgy with regard to music: the priest’s chants, the choir’s chorales, and the congregation’s hymns. And the results were far-reaching and profound. As Roland Bainton writes, “The Lutheran tradition explains why Bach should write a St. Matthew Passion.”

6. He never wrote a systematic theology.
Many of my peers and I went to seminary and became attracted to Reformed (Calvinistic) Theology. There is something intellectually bracing about the logic and system of the thought produced by Calvin and his heirs. But in the end, I found it too academic, too cold, too divorced from the mess of human life. I have never felt that way about Luther. He started and stayed where theologians should — in the pages of the Bible and in the real stuff of daily living. Luther’s first preaching assignments involved expounding the Psalms. There, in the place that reveals not only divine majesty, but also human darkness, doubt, and despair, Luther learned that Scripture must be grasped and taught pastorally and only in ways that lead us to Christ.

7. He had a pastor’s heart that cared deeply about the church.
Many evangelicals honor Luther only because he honored the Bible. However, Luther was also at the forefront of renewing family life, public education, and most of all, the life of the congregation. He spearheaded efforts to train pastors, rekindle Gospel preaching, catechize the adult members, reform the liturgy, get the Bible into the hands of the people, get them singing, get them to disciple their children, and get them to live out their faith in the world through their various vocations. His catechisms are lasting testimony to that.

8. He cherished his wife and family.
Roland Bainton writes, “The Luther who got married in order to testify to his faith actually founded a home and did more than any other person to determine the tone of German domestic relations for the next four centuries.” His relationship with his bride Katie was loving and close, filled with tenderness, humor, and deep friendship. Their home became known for its hospitality and was an example of the reformer’s emphasis on grace and truth. He also modeled a more egalitarian partnership in marriage, as “Lord Katie” ran most of the affairs of household and family business, as well as Martin’s writing career.

9. He loved a good time, especially when beer was involved.
See the post, “Cheerfulness that Mocks the Devil.” ‘Nuff said.

10. He was utterly human, completely dependent on God’s grace.
Martin Luther was a sinner. At times, a terrible sinner. He said things, for example about the Jews and the Anabaptists, that were despicable. He cursed. He was subject to deep depressions and severe spiritual doubts. His anger could be vicious and blunt. Like most people who earn the moniker “great,” he also had great flaws. But…

Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

And that, most of all, is why I love Martin Luther.

As a bonus, here is one of his greatest quotes:

Who then can fully appreciate what this royal marriage means? Who can understand the riches of the glory of this grace? Here this rich and divine bridegroom Christ marries this poor, wicked harlot, redeems her from all her evil, and adorns her with all his goodness. Her sins cannot now destroy her, since they are laid upon Christ and swallowed up by him. And she has that righteousness in Christ, her husband, of which she may boast as of her own and which she can confidently display alongside her sins in the face of death and hell and say, “‘If I have sinned, yet my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned, and all his is mine and all mine is his,’ as the bride in the Song of Solomon says, ‘My beloved is mine and I am his,’” (from The Freedom of the Christian)

17th Sunday after Trinity: Pic & Cantata of the Week

Sunset & Moonrise, Abbey of Gethsemani (2017)

(Click on picture for larger image)

Another wonderful cantata of praise is on today’s menu: BWV 148 – “Bringet dem Herrn Ehre seines Namens” (Bring to the Lord the honor due His name).

Bring to the Lord the honor due His name
Worship the Lord in holy splendor. (Ps. 29:2)

Craig Smith describes the brilliant opening chorale:

The vibrant, dense energy of this movement is reminiscent of the celebratory movements in the B-minor Mass and the later secular cantatas. Clearly Bach wants to give the effect of an enormous crowd singing these ringing words.

Revel in the bright sounds of the glorious trumpets, the sounds of voices lifting up God’s praise!

O come, let us worship the Lord!

Saturday Brunch, October 7, 2017

Hello, friends, and welcome to the weekend. Ready for some brunch?

I’m one of those weirdos who likes all the seasons, but October in the Midwest is special. Not only because of the transcendent scenery, but the traditions: apple-picking, carving Jack-0-Lanterns, the corn mazes. Speaking of that last one, here are some of more interesting ones this year:

Image result for corn mazes 2017
Lacombe, Alberta
Lodi, Wisconsin
Louisburg, Kansas
Levant, Maine
Image result for corn mazes 2017
Schaghticoke, New York

And finally a shout-out to Chaplain Mike and all his fellow long-suffering Cubs fans:

Spring Grove, Illinois

Northern Japan has its own fall tradition. Since 2008, the Wara Art Festival has encouraged students at the local art college to create giant animals out of leftover rice straw. Here are some results from this year:

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, outdoor and nature

Image may contain: tree, sky and outdoor

Here’s a video if you want to see more:

Princeton Evangelical Fellowship is changing its name. Well, just shortening it, actually, by dropping out that pesky middle word. “There’s a growing recognition that the term evangelical is increasingly either confusing, or unknown, or misunderstood to students,” the organization’s director, Bill Boyce, told The Daily Princetonian. This is part of a larger trend of Evangelicals shying away from that name, especially after last year’s election. A Christianity Today Pastors reader survey revealed that 1 in 3 evangelical pastors felt less comfortable identifying as evangelical around non-Christians after the election. On the CT site, theologian Ron Sider defended the label, based on its meaning throughout church history. Baylor University’s Thomas Kidd offered a counter-perspective, arguing “whatever its historic value, the word evangelical in America has become inextricably tied to Republican politics.”

A pumpkin in New Brunswick recently took top honors at a competition, weighing in at 1436 pounds.

Giant Pumpkins

Well, that’s a relief: reality is real. Philosophers have long debated about the status of the external world, and in the last few decades one popular theory is that reality is actually a computer simulation of some kind. Professor Brian Cox opines that our entire universe may have been created by a “super-intelligent computer programmer”. It is a belief that is shared by luminaries including Elon Musk, who famously said there was a minuscule “one in billions” chance that we weren’t operating at someone else’s whim.

But the notion that a computer could create such a huge scale of simultaneous interactions is “impossible”, according to research published in Science Advances.

After doing some old fashioned ‘rithmitic, two Oxford profs, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi, calculated that simply storing information about a couple of hundred electrons (very, very tiny particles) would need computer memory that requires more atoms that exist in the universe. As Andrew Masterton, editor of Cosmos wrote: “Given the physically impossible amount of computer grunt needed to store information for just one member of this subset, fears that we might be unknowingly living in some vast version of The Matrix can now be put to rest”. Whew.

Men: Don’t read this.

A letter signed by over 60 Catholic clergy and scholars has accused the Pope of heresy. The letter to the Pope concerns “the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.” It claims the publication of the exhortation and other acts of the Pope has given “scandal concerning faith and morals” to the Church and to the world. The writers are especially upset with the Pope’s decision that communion can be offered to divorced Catholics, as well as the Pope’s  “unprecedented sympathy” for Martin Luther.

Apparently starting your own cryptocurrency is the next big thing. Wu-Tang Clan rapper Ghostface Killah has co-founded a cryptocurrency firm and hopes to raise $30 million during its initial coin offering. Last month Paris Hilton lent her faint celebrity to a new currency called Lydia. And then…and then there is this…

Hey, good news: We found Santa Claus. Bad news? He’s dead. Archaeologists in Turkey may be on the cusp of solving a mystery thousands of years in the making after they stumbled on a tomb beneath the ruins of an ancient church they believe contains the remains of Saint Nicholas.

At the time of his death in 343 A.D., Saint Nicholas was interred at the Church in Demre, formerly known as Myra, where he lay undisturbed until the 11th century. Then, according to different accounts from Italy at the time, his remains were taken during the crusades to either Venice or Bari, Italy. However, Turkish experts are now claiming the wrong bones were removed and those taken abroad belong to an anonymous priest.

The Babylon Bee has reported that John MacArthur has been added to the cast of “The View”:

If this were true I would watch EVERY DAY just for the worldview clash

Speaking of great photoshopping skills, here is a guy who likes to put himself in celebrities’ photos. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

Celebrity Pic Photobomb

Celebrity Pic Photobomb

Celebrity Pic Photobomb

Celebrity Pic Photobomb

Celebrity Pic Photobomb

Celebrity Pic Photobomb

See more here.

Hot Shots are, of course, forest fire-fighters. These Samoan hotshots could also have job as a professional choir, if they wanted. Turn up the volume for this one:

What do you do when you lose the woman who has been your life-companion for 66 years, and the silence and loneliness seem over-whelming? What this guy did:

What? I’m not crying. You’re crying. I’ve just been cutting up onions…

Well, that’s it for this week. We will end with some music to honor Tom Petty. It’s a rather . . . odd video:

Ordinary Time Bible Study: Philippians — Friends in the Gospel (16)

Ordinary Time Bible Study
Philippians: Friends in the Gospel
Study Sixteen: Friends Helping Friends

• • •

Philippians 4:2-9, JB Phillips NT

Euodius and Syntyche I beg you by name to make up your differences as Christians should! And, my true fellow-worker help these women. They both worked hard with me for the Gospel, as did Clement and all my other fellow-workers whose names are in the book of life.

Delight yourselves in God, yes, find your joy in him at all times. Have a reputation for gentleness, and never forget the nearness of your Lord.

Don’t worry over anything whatever; tell God every detail of your needs in earnest and thankful prayer, and the peace of God which transcends human understanding, will keep constant guard over your hearts and minds as they rest in Christ Jesus.

Here is a last piece of advice. If you believe in goodness and if you value the approval of God, fix your minds on the things which are holy and right and pure and beautiful and good. Model your conduct on what you have learned from me, on what I have told you and shown you, and you will find the God of peace will be with you.

• Philippians (WBC), p. 177

•

If you’re a friend, you want to help your friends. When they are struggling with issues, you want to be there for them. As we have said often here at Internet Monk, the best way of doing that is simply by being faithfully present with them, listening, loving, letting them know you are available should they want counsel or assistance.

Paul had no such access to his Philippian friends. There he was, a long distance away, sitting in prison, incapable of providing the companionship and pastoral care they needed. And although we have no specific picture of how serious and dangerous the spirit of disagreement and dissension had become at Philippi, it was alarming enough that the apostle felt he had to address it. After all, he did not know if he would ever be able to be with them again. The only tools he had in his pastoral toolbox were words.

So he gets real with them, and he gets specific:

  • He appeals to two prominent women in the congregation, women who had worked faithfully with Paul himself, to work out a dispute they were in.
  • He appeals to a leader in the congregation who may have had special credibility and influence to help these women resolve their differences.
  • By urging them to rejoice in the Lord, he is reminding them again to focus their attention on their True Leader, who did not pursue selfish interest but humbled himself to serve others (2:1-11).
  • He encourages them to cultivate a spirit of to epiekes,(v. 5), which may be understood as, “magnanimity,” “generous selflessness,” “respectful courtesy that does not insist on its own rights but seeks to benefit others.”
  • He encourages them to remember that “the Lord is near” — he is with them, among them, his real presence and help available to them — the same Lord who emptied himself and set the pattern for their own relationships.
  • He addresses the anxiety that was apparently besetting the congregation — was it related to the relational conflicts that were intensifying? — and urges them to seek God’s peace (both within and with each other) by praying together.
  • He urges them to work on thinking differently as a congregation by accessing two resources:
    • The virtues that all human beings recognize as being healthy and positive — the list in v. 8 is taken right from the moral philosophy of Paul’s day and is not exclusively “Christian” but the common heritage of wisdom and love that is recognized among their neighbors as well.
    • The example of loving service Paul and his coworkers have showed them throughout their friendship.

This is a path to experiencing “the peace of God” as we trust and walk with “the God of peace” in our midst.

Gerald Hawthorne comments on this list of practical exhortations and encouragements from Paul to his friends:

There have been indications throughout the letter that all was not well at Philippi. Hints have been given of selfishness, self-interest, conceit, pride, and so on existing with harmful effects within the Christian community. Now one of these problems surfaces: that of intense disagreement, along with the names of those party to the quarrel. Two women could not agree and the church may have been in danger of taking sides and dividing. What was equally troubling to Paul was that the spiritual leaders within the congregation were not taking the problem seriously enough to become involved in solving it. He was forced to ask them specifically to do what they should already have been doing.

In the rapid-fire commands that Pul now flings out in all directions one gets the impression that there were many other spiritual irritants present at Philippi, such as depression, harshness of spirit, anxiety, failure to take prayer seriously, troubled minds, minds filled with all the wrong kinds of things, and so on. Paul is confident that there are solutions to the problems at Philippi, and thus he encourages them to change not only their actions, but more fundamentally their attitude.

• • •

Ordinary Time Bible Study
Philippians – Friends in the Gospel

Study One: A Friendship Letter

Study Two: Background

Study Three: Greetings in the Gospel

Study Four: Before Anything Else, Thanks

Study Five: All You Need Is (Overflowing) Love

Study Six: The Persevering Pastor

Study Seven: Every Way You Look at It You Win

Study Eight: Courage and Unity

Study Nine: Tending to the Roots

Study Ten: Humility We Must Sing to Imagine

Study Eleven: Tom Wright on Phil. 2:12-18

Study Twelve: Examples of the Jesus-shaped Life

Study Thirteen: Don’t Let Anyone Steal Your Joy

Study Fourteen: Get Up and Finish the Race

Study Fifteen: I’m a citizen of heaven, but heaven is not my home

Bones of Contention

Bones of Contention

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made worldwide headlines in 2005 for announcing that she had discovered soft tissue preserved in 68-million-year-old bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex.  Immediate reaction from the paleontological community was skepticism, as it should have been.  The conventional wisdom has been that no original proteins from once-living cells could remain. If the delicate structure of soft body parts is discernable in a fossil that is normally because these parts were converted to some type of hard mineral during the fossilization process.

Reaction in the young-earth creationist community was also immediate but joyful.  Answers in Genesis said:

“…the presence of tissue and protein fragments still remaining in dinosaur fossils poses a direct biochemical challenge to the standard geologic dating paradigm. If dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million years old, how has this biological material survived? How could these bones not yet be fully fossilized even after millions of years? These questions raise significant issues about contemporary dating methods.”

Coming on the heels of the 2005 publication of the failure of the R.A.T.E. (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) study to make the slightest dent in the reliability of radiometric dating, Schweitzer’s study must have seemed to be a major “bone” thrown to the YEC camp by the paleontological community.  As Randy Isaacs of the Christian American Science Affiliation (ASA) said:

“In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.

[C]laims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.”

High magnification of dinosaur vessels shows branching pattern (arrows) and round, red microstructures in the vessels. Source: Schweitzer, et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”, Science, 307 (2005) 1952.

So the publication of Schweitzer’s study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (an actual one, not a creationist one) seemed to lend some credence to the young-earth view, at least to those already predisposed to wish a concordance between scientific evidence and biblical evidence.  But the YEC “good news” was not to last.  Of course the radiometric dating of the Hell Creek Formation where the T-Rex bone was found was well established with multiple lines of evidence.  The actual problem for the paleontological community was not the dating of the bone, but what they thought was the conventional wisdom of soft tissue preservation.  It turned out the paleontological community didn’t know everything they thought they knew.  And that’s what science is about, correcting what we think we know with additional evidence.

The long explanation of what Mary Schweitzer found can be seen here and a shorter version can be read here.  The tl:dr explanation is that the heme iron in the dinosaur blood, after death, is let free from its other bonds. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.  The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots.   They basically act like formaldehyde, preserving the tissue.

Answers in Genesis addresses the explanation by citing it as one, albeit the most popular, model of how preservation could occur.  They then quote Schweitzer thus:

Dr. Schweitzer, who continues to be one of the leading researchers in dinosaur tissue, has provided a valuable summary of the discovery. She concludes that we have “two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved.”

They are, of course implying she acknowledges that the “young” age of the bones is a viable explanation.  You know the drill; same facts just different presuppositions.  But as she notes herself, for example in this interview with Biologos:

“If you believe 24/7 creation is really the only interpretation possible and ignore tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life was a simple construct that got way more complex over time, that’s fine—we may be wrong about the science (I don’t think we are, but as a scientist I have to leave that minute possibility open).”

Mary Schweitzer at the ‘scope. Source: God and Nature, Summer 2014.

She is simply using the rhetoric of even-handedness to keep from antagonizing those Christians who “ignore tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old” needlessly.  Because the other interesting aspect of this story is that Mary Schweitzer is a relatively conservative evangelical Christian who is trying to educate her fellow Christians in as irenic a manner as possible.  From the Biologos interview:

“One of the churches I go to is very conservative—But the pastor and I have discussed what I do, and we have agreed to disagree on some things. I think that’s the appropriate attitude to have—after all, God is the only one who knows for sure—he is the only one who was there.”

Well and good.  Mary Schweitzer seems to be a very nice person who is trying very hard not to pick a fight.  She is just trying to be a good scientist and a good Christian at the same time.  The money quote, for me though, is this (from the Biologos interview):

“One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.

AIG tries to spin the evidence to look as if the “evolution community” just will not face the possibility that one explanation could be that the bones aren’t “millions of years” old but are only 5,000 years old.  So the “evolution community” just has to come up with some ad hoc explanation to preserve their “millions of years” bias.  As Scott Buchanan (the author of the long version of the explanation) notes:

Now, consider this individual:  When he was discovered in a Danish peat bog, looking so dapper, the police were summoned on the assumption that he was a recent murder victim. This “Tollund Man” was in fact a murder victim, but the crime (likely a ritualistic human sacrifice) took place over 2200 years ago. It happens that the chemical conditions in the bog into which he was thrown facilitated preservation of skin and some other soft tissue. Notice that with this and other bog-persons, the wrong approach would be to insist that, because normally human skin does not endure for thousands of years, they must have died recently. Instead, researchers took into account other dating information to realize these bog people were over a thousand years old, even though the preservation mechanism was not initially known. Comparing 2200 years of preservation here, versus complete flesh decomposition within a month on the Tennessee body farm, we have a factor of more than 25,000 difference in rates of soft tissue degradation.

This again makes the point that rates and modes of protein and soft tissue decomposition can vary dramatically, depending on circumstances. Thus, it is absurd to say that because proteins disappear in a million years under one set of conditions, therefore protein remnants could not endure for more than 100 million years under some other conditions. The claim that “We know that substantial fragments of proteins, even in some cross-linked form, cannot survive for 80 million years” is simply not true. Since that claim (in one form or another) is at the heart of the young earth interpretation of these fossil tissues, the young earth case here collapses.

Yes, the young earth interpretation collapses, yet again.  And Mary Schweitzer’s bones of contention aren’t the boon to the young earth case they were hoping for.

Reformation 500: How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (3)

Note from CM: It is October 2017, and many of our posts this month will be about the Reformation. This year marks 500 years since Luther’s 95 Theses, and we will do our best to look at the subsequent world-changing events and movements from as many perspectives as possible.

We begin with my own personal journey. This week, I am re-posting about why I am now a Christian who practices my faith in the Lutheran tradition.

• • •

Reformation 500
How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (3)

This week I have been giving some examples to show how concerns I have had over the years about evangelicalism are answered by the traditional teachings of historic Lutheranism. Today, I want to discuss an emphasis that Martin Luther and his heirs have stressed, which I think is one of their greatest contributions to Christian theology.

Today’s subject is introduced by an important quote from Luther, which came early in the Reformer’s career.

He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn “wisdom concerning invisible things” by means of “wisdom concerning visible things”, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, “Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.”

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: “Show us the Father.” Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, “Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6), “No one comes to the Father, but by me;” “I am the door” (John 10:9), and so forth.

• Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation (1518), Thesis 20

This is one of points Luther debated in a meeting of the Augustinian Order in 1518, the year after he had posted his 95 Theses. In the editor’s introduction to this disputation in the Book of Concord it is noted that these points represent an important development in Luther’s thought and show his “growing realization that the theology of late Medieval Roman Catholicism was fundamentally and essentially at odds with Biblical theology.”

At the heart of his argument was that the Church had been overtaken by a “Theology of Glory,” whereas God has revealed himself and brought us salvation through a “Theology of the Cross.”

I met with a Lutheran pastor recently, and we discussed some of the unique contributions the tradition has to offer to contemporary American Christianity. The one he felt was most important was the theology of the cross. He spoke eloquently about how much that passes for “faith” today is in reality little more than “positive thinking.” People are attracted to this upbeat message, but when things start going wrong, when the bottom drops out of their lives, suddenly they discover that clichés and platitudes are not enough to sustain them.

The theology of the cross, in contrast to teaching that continually promotes a “victorious Christian life,” proclaims that God hides himself in the most unlikely disguises.

Martin Luther loved the Christmas story for this reason. In a most unexpected manner, God took on human flesh and was born in an obscure village to an unwed mother, laid in a manger among farm animals, and acknowledged only by rough and simple shepherds.

Then there was Jesus’ life and ministry. Throughout its course, the words of the prophet Isaiah characterized him: “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account.” (53:2-3)

Jesus did not live a “successful” life in worldly terms. Riches, power, luxury, wide influence — he knew none of these. He had nowhere to lay his head. He walked on dusty paths in forsaken regions of the empire, far from the halls of power. Even the parochial leaders in Palestine — the big fish in the small pond of Israel — dismissed Jesus as a small-time pretender from the sticks.

We know the ending of the story. Betrayed by one of his closest followers, convicted through a mockery of a trial, tortured, abused, and publicly shamed by his captors, he was executed as a criminal on a Roman gibbet.

And this is our God.

Those who follow Christ most faithfully know that the cross is also the key to the Jesus-shaped life for his people.

The Apostle Paul, for example, testified, “[The Lord] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.’ So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.’” (2Cor 12:9-10)

Through these words, Paul was trying to provide his Corinthian friends an antidote for the deadly triumphalistic teaching being promoted in their midst by certain “super-apostles” in Corinth. These leaders were always “boasting” about their spiritual credentials, experiences, and victories, promoting a “power religion” that despised weakness and humility. This was faith for winners, with no room for losers.

Paul, however, determined only to boast in those things that revealed his weakness (2Cor 11:30), for those were the experiences in which he believed God was present, though hidden.

Do I need to set forth evidence that a similar “power religion” which unabashedly calls people to a “faith” that seeks spiritual enthusiasm, spectacle, ecstatic experiences, “abundance,” “victory,” “prosperity,” and “deliverance” from sin and suffering, and which despises weakness, struggles, doubts, and helplessness characterizes much of what we see in American cultural Christianity today?

What happens when enthusiasm fades? When spectacle no longer titillates? When you “crash” and can’t find that spiritual “high” anymore? When prayers for deliverance aren’t answered? When poverty replaces abundance? When Christian “answers” no longer ring true? When healing doesn’t come? When your marriage falls apart or your children go astray? When all the principles and steps and methods and programs you were counting on to bring success turn out to be ineffectual? When your “faith” and your “confession” and your “decision” don’t seem to make a difference?

Where is God in all of that? Is he in any of that?

Yes, that is exactly where he is. This is the life in which God is present and active, for this is the God who hides himself. This is the God of the cross.

This is the One who meets us in our sorrow, our pain, our weakness, as well as in every experience of our ordinary, human lives. He may be hidden so that we cannot see him, but he is present and active. As Jesus said yes to the cross as the way God had for him, so must we. Baptized into Christ, we reject the way of glory — the way of human power, wisdom, technique, control, and manipulation — and we embrace the way of the cross — the way of trust, receptiveness, and the freedom to be human, weak, and vulnerable.

I have been crucified with the Messiah.
I am, however, alive — but it isn’t me any longer; it’s the Messiah who lives in me.
And the life I do still live in the flesh, I live within the faithfulness of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

• Galatians 2:20, The Kingdom NT

Reformation 500: How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (2)

Note from CM: It is October 2017, and many of our posts this month will be about the Reformation. This year marks 500 years since Luther’s 95 Theses, and we will do our best to look at the subsequent world-changing events and movements from as many perspectives as possible.

We begin with my own personal journey. This week, I am re-posting about why I am now a Christian who practices my faith in the Lutheran tradition.

• • •

Reformation 500
How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (2)

I continue this overview of how emphases in the historic tradition of Lutheranism have helped me with many concerns I’ve expressed about American evangelicalism.

Thus far, I have introduced the following elements…

  • How I came to peace with finding a tradition,
  • How I appreciate the priority of Word and Table liturgical worship in the Lutheran tradition,
  • How I affirm their emphasis on pastoral ministry,
  • How I love their healthy view of Christian vocation in the world.

Today, let me begin to say a few words about some other theological distinctives upon which Lutherans focus.

First, the centrality of Christ. In some ways, Lutherans share this in common with all historic traditions. Now I’ll admit that this was a hard fact for me to get through my head, but what I have found is that church groups that I would have formerly labeled as “liberal” or “non-Bible-believing” are often more Christ-centered in practice than their evangelical or fundamentalist counterparts. This includes the Lutherans.

First of all, Lutherans (at least the Lutherans I’m with) observe the Christian Year, which is as Jesus-shaped and salutary a practice for getting to know Christ and learning to live in his story as any I know.

Second, throughout the year this involves preaching from the lectionary, which shows week in and week out how the Bible relentlessly points to Christ and God’s kingdom. As I’ve attended the Lutheran church, I have heard sermons from the Gospel reading almost every Sunday, which means it is Jesus’ story and Jesus’ voice that is constantly highlighted.

Third, traditional liturgical worship itself is by nature Christocentric, as Robert Webber has explained so well in his writings on worship. The liturgy is designed to reenact the drama of the Gospel, with Christ at the center through proclamation of the Gospel and invitation to the Lord’s Table.

In my experience in evangelical churches and in my own ministry as an evangelical pastor, I would say that the ethos of evangelicalism is more Bible-centered than Christ-centered. My own approach was to preach and teach books of the Bible in expository fashion. Though I still think that is a viable method, one can easily lose track of the “big picture” of the Bible’s story and get wrapped up in details rather than keeping the focus on Jesus and God’s Kingdom. Sermons can become discussions about any number of “Christian topics” instead of Gospel proclamation.

A further observation, which Scot McKnight makes in his book The King Jesus Gospel (reviewed two weeks ago on IM), is that when evangelicalism does talk about Jesus, it tends to be more “salvation-centered” than “Gospel-centered.” Their emphasis on Christ extends primarily to Jesus dying for our sins to bring us personal salvation. As Scot writes, it’s almost as though our faith is exclusively about Good Friday, and nearly everything else in the Gospels is disregarded or downplayed.

I can testify that, even after more than 25 years of ministry in evangelical churches, I have never gotten to know Jesus as well as I have in the past few years as a member of Lutheran congregation.

Second, distinguishing Law and Gospel. This is a huge topic, and one which lies at the heart of what Internet Monk is about, so I won’t write a tome on it today. Suffice it to say that the moralistic approach to the faith is a huge problem in evangelicalism.

As in the days of the Pharisees, churches tend to designate certain religious and moral behaviors as “boundary markers” that identify who is “in” and who is “out.” Practices of hospitality, grace, love, gentleness, forbearance, patience, and trust in the ministry of the Holy Spirit get neglected and then forgotten, replaced by a system of expectations and rules (stated and unstated) that place heavy burdens on people. And those who run the system and the ones who buy into it wholeheartedly are ever in danger of the most spiritually damaging condition of all: pride and self-righteousness.

Now this is not evangelicalism’s problem alone, nor is it a menace only to those who are conservative or involved in the “Christian Right.” Moralism infects religious communities of all kinds. One can be just as moralistic about justice issues and environmental concerns, the inclusion of gays, and advocacy for any number of “liberal” or “progressive” causes as those on the other end of the spectrum. When any group starts elevating issues to the level of the Gospel, it is a short step to constructing boundary markers and installing a rules-based system in which only those who look and talk and think the right way are accepted. Churches, period, are notorious for this.

The Lutheran tradition has a solid theological answer for this. It lies in keeping a proper distinction between Law and Gospel.

Law is the expression of God’s righteous character. It tells the truth about how things should be in this world that God created. It reveals what is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).

The Law comes to us in imperatives: “Thou shalt…” and “Thou shalt not…”

It draws the line and therefore defines crossing the line as “transgression.” It paints a picture of perfect health and defines the corruption of our nature as “iniquity.” It issues commandments, requirements, laws, exhortations, and instructions, and defines disregard of those standards as “lawlessness.” As a revelation of God’s character, it declares that our lack of conformity to him is “ungodliness.” It sets forth a clear path, a “straight way” on which humans should walk, and then points out that we have “gone astray” and become “lost.”

The problem is that many churches are, in essence, preaching the Law and calling it good news. Viewing the Bible as a detailed instruction manual for human living, week after week preachers are giving “precepts” and “principles” designed to help people experience “transformation” (which may mean little more, practically speaking, than conformity) so that they will enjoy healthy, happy, and holy lives, families, and careers. All this, and heaven too, because Jesus died for us.

This fits our quintessentially American way of looking at life. We honor self-made people who walk to a different drummer and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, underdogs who overcome all odds by sheer force of will. Give people the right instruction and a little encouragement — why shouldn’t we, with all the resources we have at hand, be able to construct our best life now, with heaven the icing on the cake?

The Gospel, on the other hand, is the announcement of God’s grace in Christ for a rebel creation. In his fine book, Grace in Practice: A Theology of Everyday Life, Paul Zahl defines grace as “one-way love,” love that has everything to do with the lover’s heart and generosity and nothing at all to do with the worthiness of the beloved. Grace, according to Zahl, is “an invasive and strongly new intervention, through which trust in God rather than in human performance is at the heart of the human relationship to God.”

Each Sunday, when we confess our sins in my Lutheran church, we pray, “For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, for the sake of your holy Name. Amen.” This prayer describes the work of grace in our lives. Through the grace of the Gospel, which comes to us in the person of Jesus and because of his finished work, our sins are forgiven. But that is not all.

God’s grace also renews us and God’s grace leads us. Through grace we delight in God’s will. Through grace we are strengthened to walk in his ways. The formation of virtue in our lives does not come through simply hearing God’s commands and “following the instructions.” It comes instead as we focus on Christ and feed on Christ, digesting his grace toward us. We learn with amazement that we are accepted by him solely because of his “one-way love” and not because we are in any way attractive or deserving. Our relationship with God has been initiated and is sustained wholly from outside ourselves.

This is one reason I appreciate the more “objective” worship offered through the liturgy each Sunday. It allows me to take my place as a pure recipient of God’s grace in Christ. I receive the word of absolution. I hear the Gospel of grace proclaimed. I hold out my hands and receive Christ in the bread and wine. I respond with words of thanksgiving and praise.

None of it is about learning how to participate in the “sin-management” project. It is not about improving my life. I don’t sit and take notes any more to fill my head or make sure I get God’s instructions or “marching orders” for the week to come.

Having received the grace of God in Christ with my brothers and sisters, I am free to go forth and live as a forgiven, renewed, and led human being. A recipient of grace, I am at liberty to extend grace to others.

Third, sacramental theology and worship. When push comes to shove, this is probably the primary difference between revivalistic evangelicals and churches in the historic traditions. This perspective is the one thing evangelicals have the hardest time accepting, and yet what I have found is that the sacramental view magnifies God’s grace and promotes childlike faith much more than anything I experienced under non-sacramental teaching.

Jesus Christ is the living and abiding Word of God. By the power of the Spirit, this very Word of God, which is Jesus Christ, is read in the Scriptures , proclaimed in preaching, announced in the forgiveness of sins, eaten and drunk in the Holy Communion, and encountered in the bodily presence o f the Christian community. By the power of the Spirit active in Holy Baptism, this Word washes a people to be Christ’s own Body in the world. We have called this gift of Word and Sacrament by the name “the means of grace.” The living heart of all these means is the presence of Jesus Christ through the power of the Spirit as the gift of the Father.

• THE USE OF THE MEANS OF GRACE
A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament, ELCA 1997

Lutherans accept two Sacraments as the means by which God penetrates the lives of people with his grace. Those who take a sacramental view of these practices believe they are God’s works toward people, not the works of people pointing to God.

  • In baptism, God makes us his people, by “the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”(Titus 3:5).
  • At the Lord’s Table, we experience the real presence of Jesus Christ, and his body and blood nourish us with God’s mercy and forgiveness in our union with him and one another. Our risen Lord is “made known to us” when we gather at his Table together (Luke 24:35).

The sacramental perspective takes God’s presence and action in the midst of his creation seriously. Some expressions of faith are essentially world-denying and more akin to forms of Platonism, docetism, or gnosticism that make radical distinctions between the material and spiritual worlds. From this perspective, God works and we grow “spiritually,” and this world is one we are “passing through” on our way to an ethereal heaven. The Lutheran tradition, on the other hand, rejoices that God is present and working throughout his creation, and that he especially works in and through simple elements like water, bread, wine, paper and ink to communicate his truth and love to his people. He meets us here, and he is leading us to a renewed creation.

Sacramental theology takes the Incarnation seriously. Jesus the Eternal Word, “became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). Sharing fully in our humanity and the experiences of life in this world, God visited his creation personally, spoke, broke bread with us, wept, touched broken bodies, and even died himself to identify with and redeem all who are in bondage to sin, evil, and death. The Spirit he sent now works through the Word and the Sacraments in the midst of his gathered people to apply the benefits of his saving work.

There is much to learn about the Sacraments, but the primary shift for me, coming from the evangelical world, was simple. It involved coming to understand them as God’s works, not mine.

I no longer see baptism as something I do to profess my faith in Christ. I see it as something done to me through which God acts savingly. I no longer see Communion merely as something I do to remember Jesus. I see it as his Table, to which he invites me and at which he feeds me.

These practices are the means by which God’s grace in Christ is communicated to me, for in them his promises are made real in my life.

Reformation 500: How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (1)

Note from CM: It is October 2017, and many of our posts this month will be about the Reformation. This year marks 500 years since Luther’s 95 Theses, and we will do our best to look at the subsequent world-changing events and movements from as many perspectives as possible.

We begin with my own personal journey. This week, I will re-post about why I am now a Christian who practices my faith in the Lutheran tradition.

• • •

Reformation 500
How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (1)

I have come to peace with my place in the tradition of the Church. My new personal statement of identity is:

“I am a Christian, and I practice my faith in the Lutheran tradition.”

I am the first to admit that I have a long way to go in understanding all that this means, but in a few posts over the next couple of days I want to highlight distinctive Lutheran teachings that, in my view, answer many concerns about the revivalistic evangelicalism I have left behind.

Before I do, let me first reiterate in this first post what I mean when I say I’m a “post-evangelical,” and that I no longer see myself as being within the church system known broadly as “American evangelicalism.” We speak a lot around here about being in the “post-evangelical wilderness,” but perhaps some of you are new and are wondering what we mean by that.

When I speak of “American evangelicalism,” I am describing those churches, many of which are non-denominational, whose theology and practice has its roots in the revivalist awakenings of the 1800’s. Many pinpoint Charles Finney (1792-1875) as the “Father of Modern Revivalism.” Finney, a Presbyterian, introduced “new measures” into church meetings, emphasized conversion and spiritual enthusiasm, as well as social and missional activism. His emphasis on revival paved the way for the later mass revival preaching of D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham.

At this same period of time, in frontier areas like Kentucky and Tennessee, the Second Great Awakening was spreading like wildfire through “camp meetings” characterized by passionate evangelistic preaching and emotional calls for public acceptance of salvation. One significant new practice in these revivals was the “altar call,” during which sinners came forward to receive salvation (Finney had adopted a Methodist practice called “the anxious bench”).

The churches that were formed out of these awakenings developed a revivalistic style of “worship.” When they gathered, services were no longer patterned after the traditional liturgy of Word and Table, but instead followed a threefold model of Preparation/Preaching/Invitation. The “song service” was designed to warm the hearts of the people. The preaching was emotionally charged and intended to bring people to a crisis of decision. The invitation gave them the chance to make whatever spiritual decision the Lord was convicting them to make.

The Southern Baptist church tradition to which Michael Spencer belonged and in which I had a spiritual awakening as a teenager has been famously devoted to practicing church this way.

When I went to Bible college, I was introduced to a variation of the revivalist tradition that emphasized doctrine and teaching rather than evangelism (Robert Webber writes about this as well.) This part of the tradition developed through the doctrinal battles between fundamentalists and modernists in the 19th and early 20th centuries, leading many conservatives to separate from mainline Protestantism into independent churches and splinter denominations. At the same time, the development of dispensational theology and the popular appeal of tools like the Scofield Study Bible led to an emphasis on Bible study. For a time, there was a significant split between “fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism,” as the latter sought to be less separatistic and more involved in mainline churches, academies of higher learning, and secular culture. The difference remains, but further developments we’ll address in a moment have lessened the distinctions.

In the “Bible teaching” churches, the same revivalistic patterns characterized the “worship” service, but the emphasis was different. The churches held up before us as examples in those days were not the ones that had emotionally persuasive evangelists in the pulpit, but Bible teachers who could “rightly divide the Word of Truth.” Expository preaching and teaching was the job of the pastor and the purpose for gathering as a church was for the edification of the saints, not primarily the conversion of sinners. The latter was to be done through personal evangelism and special evangelistic meetings and programs. I recall when some of us used overhead projectors and put detailed inserts in the bulletin on which people could take notes and learn their Bibles through the teaching. John MacArthur has been a consistent example of this “pastor-teacher” approach (though with a distinctly net-reformed emphasis), as have been those who have graduated from such schools as Dallas Theological Seminary.

Then, in the 1970’s, a movement that began to combine various revivalistic traditional emphases morphed into a powerful new force in American Christian culture — the Church Growth movement. Donald McGavran’s book Understanding Church Growth and the founding of The Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission are commonly viewed as foundational to this movement.

As I experienced and observed the development of the church growth philosophy, it combined

(1) an emphasis on the Great Commission as the raison d’etre for the church’s existence in the world,

(2) an emphasis on teaching — however, it was teaching that moved away from doctrine and toward practical emphases such as “equipping the saints” for service by helping them find and use their spiritual gifts,

(3) a cultural emphasis on “relevance” that depended on sociological research to understand and reach one’s “target audience,”

(4) a corporate model taken from the American entrepreneurial tradition of charismatic leadership, pragmatic decision-making, and a programmatic approach to reaching people and building churches that would grow numerically.

At the same time the church growth movement was gaining ground, parachurch organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ were going strong, the “charismatic movement” was growing and infiltrating a broad range of Christian groups, breaking down distinctions and leading to a more experiential and less doctrinaire approach to faith, and an American evangelical subculture was expanding exponentially through contemporary Christian music (CCM) and the Christian book and media market. In addition, Christians were becoming more involved in the public sphere and politics through the “Christian Right” and the “culture wars.”

The 1970’s proved to be pivotal. “Evangelicalism” came of age and became a vocal, visible force in American culture. What we have seen in the years since — the seeker movement, megachurches, the purpose-driven church movement, etc., as well as, I might add, various post-evangelical movements — has been primarily further development of and response to the many developments that brought evangelicalism new public visibility during that decade.

In broad terms, this is the American evangelicalism that I have known. This is also the evangelicalism that Michael Spencer wrote about in his famous articles, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” In May 2010, after Michael’s sad passing, I wrote a series of posts called, “My Issues with Evangelicalism.” In those pieces, I identified three main areas of disillusionment with the culture of American evangelicalism: (1) Worship, (2) Pastoral Ministry, (3) Missional living.

Let me say, by way of concluding this overview, that I have been thrilled with what I have learned and experienced in the Lutheran tradition with regard to these three areas.

  • The Word and Table liturgy of the Lutheran church, rooted in the historic tradition of the church rather than the revivalist movement, restores the priority of worship in the local congregation.
  • Pastors are not CEO’s or program directors in the Lutheran church as they have become in much of evangelicalism. Rather, they represent Christ in distributing the means of grace through Word and Sacrament. Preaching is embedded in the liturgy so that worship does not revolve around the charisma of the preacher, but the Word Himself who meets us in the gathering of his people. Pastoral care and catechizing the congregation are essential components of his or her work.
  • The doctrine of vocation is one of the gifts the Lutheran tradition has given to the larger Church. Luther, himself a monk, came to appreciate the priesthood of all believers and the integrity of every calling, “sacred” or “secular,” as a means of showing Christ’s love to the world.

This is just a start in showing how the Lutheran tradition has answered some of my concerns with the system of evangelicalism dominant in America today.