Literature

If I have an afternoon to kill, one of my favorite things to do is to go to Borders, buy a large coffee, and then find a new section or topic to explore. There is so much joy and fascination in finding a new field of study to get acquainted with – its like entering into a completely new world. I find that when I approach something with patience and an open mind, there is little I cannot find interesting. When I don’t find external reality interesting, its usually because I am not noticing it very carefully.

This past summer I got into political history and biography; now that I have some free time to catch up on reading, I am hoping to start getting into literature more.

First, I want to finish The Lord of the Rings. I started it this summer and had to put it down during the internship. I can already tell I am going to love it, though. Next, I want to read Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. I have wanted to read it for some time and keep hearing about what a difficult and profound a novel it is. We’ll see if I have the determination to get far enough into it to get hooked. Finally, I’d like to read more poetry. I used to read lots of poetry, and wrote poetry regularly throughout high school. To this day I will have lines from Tennyson or T.S. Eliot flash into my head when something calls them up. But I have sort of drifted away from that whole world. I hope I still have the capacity to re-enter it.

Read Full Post »

Favorite Narnia Moments (10): Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time

I am catching up today on a lot of blog post ideas I have been too busy to do over the last several months. Here is another Narnia quote from The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, which I have been reminded of recently in relation to a study I am doing on Christ’s resurrection. I love the way Aslan explains the meaning of the resurrection in terms of “Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time.” Which I interpret as saying: Love is Deeper than, and prior to, Law.

At that moment they heard from behind them a loud noise — a great cracking, deafening noise as if a giant had broken a giant’s plate…. The Stone Table was broken into two pieces by a great crack that ran down it from end to end; and there was no Aslan.
“Who’s done it?” cried Susan. “What does it mean? Is it more magic?”
“Yes!” said a great voice from behind their backs. “It is more magic.” They looked round. There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane (for it had apparently grown again) stood Aslan himself.
“Oh, Aslan!” cried both the children, staring up at him, almost as much frightened as they were glad….
“But what does it all mean?” asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.
“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.”

Read Full Post »

Christocentric Anthropology

“Not only do we only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and death through Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or of our death, of God, or of ourselves.”

Pascal, Pensées, 417

Read Full Post »

A More General Statement on Covenantal Paedobaptism

Since I’ve been going through particular texts, I thought it would be good to give a more general response to the reformed/covenantal argument for paedobaptism.  Its a big issue, and there are lots of points to make, but what follows is a brief summary of the main reason I do not accept covenantal paedobaptism.

B.B. Warfield gave a helpfully succinct expression of the reformed paedobaptist view: “the argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established his Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until he puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism.”

My response can be condensed into two words: which children? Circumcision is given in Genesis 17:9 to “you and your seed (or offspring; or descendants; Hebrew zerah) after you, for the generations to come” – the “children” in view here are the inter-generational descendants of Abraham. The faith of an Israelite child’s parents was not the decisive factor in that child receiving circumcision – it was his association with the nation of Israel. In other words, the lines of covenant were not drawn around individual believing family units throughout the Old Testament, but around the national family of Abraham. It was not the “children of believers” who had right to the sacrament of initiation, but the “children of Abraham.”

The force and relevance of this point can be captured by asking: why not baptize the grand-children of believers? If we are really being continuous with circumcision and the Old Testament precedent, why stop at one generation? Why indeed include only children and not “every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money” (Genesis 17:12-13)?

My disagreement with covenantal paedobaptism is therefore not in spite of covenant theology and unity across the biblical story, but because of it. I agree with traditional credobaptist writers like Jewett and Kingdon and Wellum that paedobaptists emphasize unity at the expense of movement within biblical theology, but I would go even further and say they have not even correctly structured the unity of the covenants. In no covenant and in no era has the sacrament of initiation ever been for “those who believe and their children.” This ecclesiology is new and unprecedented. Better, in my opinion – and more continuous with circumcision and the Old Testament precedent – to define the church as the children of Abraham: defined by physical descent throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 17:9), and defined by sharing Abraham’s faith throughout the new covenant (Galatians 3:7).

Read Full Post »

What I learned from my internship at CHBC

In addition to being a time of significant personal growth in my ministry preparation, the past five months here at Capital Hill Baptist Church have been a theologically formative time for thinking through ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. From observing and participating in the life of this church, and from my studying and dialoguing, I have come to understand the importance of the church in new ways. Here are five points that particularly stand out.

1) The importance of membership in the local church

One intern discussion early on that particularly stands out to me is when we addressed the question: can we practice the “one another” commandments of the New Testament during a Wednesday evening campus ministry just as effectively as a Sunday morning church service? Most Christians would agree that our culture is too individualistic and that we need to live together in community: but do we need a local church in order to experience this community? Can’t we just do it on our own?

I know that God uses campus ministries and many other para-church organizations in significant ways, but being here has helped me get a vision for the uniqueness of the local church in God’s redemptive plan. Only the church has the sacraments. Only the church has discipline. Only the church is called the bride of Christ, whom he nourishes and sustains as her head, and for whom he died (Ephesians 5:22-33). Only the church has the promise of Christ that it will endure to the end despite opposition (Matthew 16:18). Only the church is united to Christ in such a way that he who persecutes the church persecutes Christ (Acts 9:4). Only the church is called the “pillar and buttress of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15). If God has made these massive redemptive promises to the church, why would we not want to be a part of this great thing God is doing?

Many people today believe the important thing thing is to be connected to the universal church, not the local church. I’m sure that its possible to be a member of the universal church and not be connected to a local body, but the question is, why would we not want to be committed to a local church? After all, local churches are the best expressions of the universal church that we have in this world. Wouldn’t we be eager to give our union with other believers around the gospel a concrete, official, public expression through local church membership? If we love what Christ loves, wouldn’t we want to be publicly identified with it, held accountable to it, feel ownership of it?

Moreover, while we have no mention of formal membership rolls in the New Testament, the idea of belonging to a particular community seems to be presupposed by Paul’s concern for the immoral brother at Corinth to be put out of fellowship (I Corinthians 5:4-5, 13), and in his reference to the punishment inflicted by “the majority” in II Corinthians 2:6. It seems unlikely to me that “the majority” is simply “those who happened to be in attendance during the particular gathering when the discipline was carried out.” After all, he elsewhere acknowledges the presence of unbelievers and inquirers during the corporate gathering (I Corinthians 14:24). It seems to me that the concern for a clear line of demarcation between the church and the world, presupposed throughout the New Testament (Matthew 18:17, I Corinthians 5:9-13, II Corinthians 6:14-18), would have required public knowledge of who is a part of the church and who is not (beyond mere attendance).

2) The corporate witness of the church

From my time here I have a better understanding of how a church can – by its very nature more than by programs and events – be a picture of the character and glory of God to the world. One of the most significant texts on this point for me this semester has been Ephesians 3:10-11: “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” In other words, the church is God’s plan, from all eternity past, for glorifying his redemptive wisdom, displayed in Christ, before the angels. The church is God’s redemptive wisdom, power, and glory on public display before the creation. As Charles Bridges puts it in his Christian Ministry: “the church is the mirror, that reflects the whole effulgence of the Divine character. It is the grand scene, in which the perfections of Jehovah are displayed to the universe.”

There is something powerful that happens when believers gather together for worship and edification. When it is a healthy and mature congregation, it like a public acting out of the gospel itself. As Mark Dever put it in one of the books we read, “the church is the gospel made visible.” The church is the only institution on the planet that operates according to the rules of the gospel, the rules of sacrificial love. John 13:34: “by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” When believers gather together to live out the gospel, God’s character is displayed before the world. What a high calling for those of us who seek to serve in the church!

3) Congregationalist church polity

I would have called myself a congregationalist before I got here, but I thought about it primarily in terms of how one local church relates to others. Being here has helped me understand how congregationalism – the view in which the final authority over a church is the membership of that church – also refers to how a particular local body is structured internally. Its the alternative not only to inter-connectional and hierarchical forms of church government, but also to elder rule, because in a congregationalist church the elders have less authority. To use traditional terms, they have the power of counsel, not the power of command. What this means is that while the congregation may delegate many responsibilities to the elder body as a matter of expediency, the congregation itself bears the final responsibility for the life and doctrine of the church, not the elders. For example, in congregationalism, the members are the ones ultimately responsible for determining true doctrine (Galatians 1:6, I Thessalonians 5:21, I John 4:1), settling disputes between believers (Matthews 18:17), conducting church discipline (I Corinthians 5:1-13), and determining the church’s membership (II Corinthians 2:5-11).

Church government is not the most important or clear thing in the New Testament, but I do think that it matters and is worth taking the time to think through. Grappling with arguments and counter-arguments for congregationalism from Scripture, sifting through the historical conversations about polity and seeing how seriously previous generations took this issue, and catching a vision of the emphasis in the New Testament on every member Christianity (how I would summarize the spirit of congregationalism) – all this has been very clarifying and filled in some blanks.

4) Church Discipline

John Dagg said that “when church discipline leaves a church, so does Christ’s presence.” This seems to me like a bit of an over-statement, but it nevertheless makes an important point and shows how seriously previous generations took this issue which we often neglect today. Certainly church discipline can be abused, but it is unavoidably biblical:

Matthew 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
I Corinthians 5:12-13: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’”
II Thessalonians 3:14-15: “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
I Timothy 5:20: “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”

Reading through historic Baptist documents on church discipline and thinking through specific, detailed scenarios in light of texts such as these has given me a data bank to draw from as I continue to think about this issue and seek to implement discipline into the life of whatever church I serve. There are all kinds of categories of thought that the discussions here opened up: different kinds of offense (public and private, serious and mild), different kinds of discipline (warning, avoidance, excommunication), the different purposes of church discipline (the restoration of the sinner, the purity of the church, the reputation of Christ in the community), and all kinds of practical questions about when and how to sensitively introduce discipline into the life of a church. While I have always believed in church discipline, being here has given me a more thorough understanding of what it looks like and why it is important.

5) Deeper sense of calling to pastoral ministry.

My time here – my reading, my conversations, my interactions, my prayer life – has increased and confirmed my longing to preach and minister to God’s people. As I have reflected on the nature of Christian ministry, I found myself again and again saying, “this is what I long to do: this is how I want to spend my life.” At times, I have doubted this call, as I have seen with deeper clarity my sin, rough edges, blind spots, and areas where I need to grow. But a strange thing has happened. Even when I see my weaknesses and inadequacies, my sense of calling to the pastorate does not go away. It stays constant. I was born to be a pastor. I can do no other. Ultimately, my deepest desires are not to write get a doctorate or write books: I just want to be a pastor.

Read Full Post »

John Owen’s 7 volume commentary on Hebrews

Its been called the greatest commentary on Hebrews ever written. Its been said that what Luther did for Galatians, Owen did for Hebrews. Its been said that he who enters this work has entered into the heights of theology.

Just ordered it. Cannot wait to dig in.

Read Full Post »

Are Mark 10:13-16 (and its parallels) valid prooftexts for paedobaptism?

I recently read Baptism: Three Views, ed. by David Wright, with Sinclair Ferguson arguing for paedobaptism, Bruce Ware for credo-baptism, and Anthony Lane for dual practice.

I thought Ferguson’s selections were the best parts of the book, and there is much in his case for paedobaptism that I agree with. For example, I thought he handled the symbolic meaning of the sacrament better than the other writers: he shows how baptism ultimately points to Christ (not our faith!).

One of the things that I found unconvincing about Ferguson’s case, however, was his repeated appeal to Jesus’ blessing of children in Mark 10, Matthew 19, and Luke 18, and in particular Jesus’ statement, “to such as these belongs the kingdom of God.”

Why I respectfully feel that this statement by Jesus falls short of an argument for paedobaptism:

First, Jesus says that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these, not to children per se. What he is commending is child-likeness, with all that it entails, as a prerequisite to entering the kingdom.

As in Matthew 18:3-4, where anyone (of any age) can enter, if they become like a child: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (italics mine). Or Mark 10:15/Luke 18:17: “I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Second, Jesus’ statement is not made with respect to the “children of believers,” but children in general. He is not talking about covenant children.

Third, Jesus refers to children entering the kingdom, which is not precisely what evangelical paedobaptists believe is happening at the baptism of an infant. Kingdom entrance is associated in Colossians 1:13-14 with redemption and forgiveness of sins.

Jesus’ point, in my opinion, can be summarized as follows: kingdom entrance requires childlikeness. For these passages to constitute an argument for paedobaptism, Jesus would have to say that church membership (not the kingdom) belongs to children (not those like children) of believers (not children in general).

Read Full Post »