Click for wiki

John Piper is arguably one of the most influential preachers among the current generation of Calvinist and Reformed Christians in America. So many things about Piper are great, but the things that are not so great need to be recognized — precisely because he’s so influential.

C or C friend Rob Weaver knows a lot about Piper, and a lot about confessional Reformed theology. If you’re interested in Piper’s work (or have friends that are), you should check out this brief and clear, appreciative but also critical, evaluation of Piper’s Future Grace. To read it (as a PDF) click here.

Authors Bryan Estelle, David VanDrunen, and John Fesko — all of them professors at Westminster Seminary California — chat with Scott Clark, host of Office Hours and fellow WSC prof, about the important book they recently co-edited, The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.

Click on the Featured Audio widget in the sidebar, or click here.

HT: A post on The Heidelblog (The links to available resources in the post are excellent, as well.)

I read a very interesting (and funny) piece in the Times Online the other day about an atheist mom’s struggles with telling her kids what happens when we die. It was funny because of the inherent humor in having what she calls ‘Big, Difficult Conversations’ with children, but it was most interesting because she’s an atheist attempting to come to terms with instructing her kids on this fundamental question — which also makes the piece quite sad.

Understandably, this mom avoided like the plague telling her kids the atheist truth about death, until she realized that by telling them something vague about ‘heaven’, she was holding them back from living life to the full now, since it’s the only one we’ve got.

Three things are particularly interesting about this piece.

The first is that in her eyes the only alternatives are some vague version of heavenly paradise on one hand, and atheistic materialism on the other. So either everyone goes to the big happy dreamy place in the sky, or we simply rot. What’s interesting about this is that the concept of ‘the afterlife’ that’s at work in her understanding of heaven is a million miles away from the biblical portrait of the age to come. In ‘heaven’, according to her, all the right things we’ve done are recognized, all the things we’d like to do are realized, and everything comes out more or less alright in the end. But there is a glaring absence of condemnation, of hell — in other words, an absence of the judgment of God. In fact,  unsurprisingly for an atheist, the glaring absence is God. So in other words, the choice is between inconsistent atheism (we go to ‘heaven’), or consistent atheism (we rot). Which one makes more sense? We rot, obviously.

The second interesting thing is that while this mom’s conception of an ‘afterlife’ bears little relation to the biblical portrait of the age to come, her conclusions bear a striking resemblance to  the biblical understanding of how we  should evaluate the purpose of our lives according to what’s true or not about the age to come. Like this mom, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if there’s no resurrection life in the age to come, if death wasn’t truly conquered by Christ, if ultimately this life is all there is, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor 15:32), and “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19). In other words, this mom is reasoning clearly when she says

[I] realised that so much of what screws up this world comes down to not having a sense of urgency: of time passing, and, eventually, completely running out. Our vague, communal, lazy belief that poverty, global warming, various wars, inequalities and vexations are all things that will be sorted out “in a bit,” without any particular application on our behalves, surely spring from the root-belief that, in some way, this isn’t it; that this world is an odd warm-up act for the real thing: lovely old eternity, where the real stuff kicks in. As long a we all think we can “sort it out later,” we’ll never sort it out now. Humanity is hard-wired to push every deadline to its limit. And of course, if we believe in an afterlife, there is no limit. If you believe in an afterlife – where all your goodness will finally be noted, and taken into account, and justice will reign – it’s like playing a computer game in “infinite lives” cheat-mode.

If that’s the way the world works, then I think she’s basically right.

The final interesting thing I want to point out is that, while this mom’s conclusions are in line with the Bible’s — although running in the opposite direction — as to how we should live if this life is all there is, she’s very wrong in concluding that anyone who belives that this life is not all there is, will have no motivation to embrace life now and live it to the full. It is very important that Paul ended this chapter on looking forward to resurrection life in the age to come, with the following words regarding this present life:

Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Cor 15:58)

Resurrection life in the age to come is not a motivator to endless deferral, laziness, or apathy; it’s a motivator to work that is not in vain, because the consequences are everlasting. God’s truth, goodness, love, justice and holiness will never pass away. Our hope does not lie in a vague sense of everything working out alright ’somewhere up there’, but in the concrete reality of the empty tomb of Jesus on Easter morning, the one who is seated at the right hand of God, who will come to judge the living and the dead, who has been judged that we may be acquitted on that Day. Thus Paul goes on:

If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15:19-22)

So the choice should be clear to all of us, a choice which shouldn’t allow the vaguely godless afterlife as a viable option: Either, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” – Or, “I believe in the resurrection of the dead”.

In modern times, many people consider themselves blessed to not have children. Europeans—and I would include Americans—believe now more than ever that the traditional family-unit is not worth striving for. Steven Ozment, a renowned Reformation and modern European scholar, considers this trend in an article published in The Weekly Standard called Diminishing Europe. He specifically focuses on Germany as it is witnessing historically low birth rates. In light of the upsurge of Islamic peoples in Germany, Matthias Platzeck, chairman of the Social Democratic Party, sadly notes the differences of German families and their Islamic counterparts. Unlike the Germans, Muslims are extremely devoted to their families, tradition, and work. Platzeck worries that the reason for this is that most Germans want “a fun-filled life in the moment” (Spass im Tag) instead of the struggles that come with having children.

At times even I find myself feeling cursed to have children. I wonder what a life without children would be like. After all I am an aspiring scholar, longing to pursue the rigorous and taxing life of an academic. I catch myself thinking, “Life is so complicated with children. They are getting in the way of my dreams, hopes, and expectations.  They are very expensive, and I could accomplish so much more without them. Indeed, I think I would be so much happier if I had much-needed freedom.”

But this attitude is entirely sinful and unbiblical. In biblical times women thought they were cursed if they were barren, and men did not want to be married to them. In many cases, to not have a child was to have an incomplete life. From the very beginning, God commands people to be fruitful and multiply. A man, whose quiver is full as the Scripture says, is a blessed man. I could go on and on.

And the command to be fruitful and multiply is not just intended for Christians, but it is a command for all peoples. It is a creation—as distinguished from a redemption—ordinance that all societies share in common, irrespective of race, culture, or creed. It has significant implications for the lasting happiness and joy of people and for the future of good societies. Platzeck sees this breakdown of the family as detrimental to German society and feels the future happiness of people is dependent upon children. Ozment describes Platzeck’s sobering disconcertment,

In his best interview moment, Platzeck, echoing a more famous German, admonished his fellow countrymen and Europeans to let the tempting, ephemeral, self-indulgent moments go, and reach out for something larger and more lasting, what he called prolonged “joy in life” (Freude am Leben). Training a new generation in the way it should go, he allowed, is the supreme challenge of a people and a nation. Living for the moment does not help a society develop itself. It is children who give meaning to life. A society without children is a society without a future.

When we are tempted to discount the importance of children, we should recall not only what the Bible says about them but also what societies would be without them. Westerners need to cultivate our love and appreciation for children. Our happiness, traditions, and joy depend on them. If we do not, the fleeting moments of the present will meet the lasting moments of our old age. Dying alone, we will realize that we have squandered our whole life on our own pleasures and selfish dreams. As I type this, I wonder what my life would be like without Erin, Jackson, and Ella, and I am struck by a deep sense of nothingness and lack of identity. My family brings me joy, and the short-lived moments of pursuing my own dreams, which I would have to trade for them, would only bring me long-term sorrow.

Joshua

I recently came across on old book by the Rev. Samuel Reed Fisher (1810-1881) with the promising title, Excercises on the Heidelberg Catechism: Adapted to the Use of Families, Sabbath-Schools, and Catechetical Classes, the revised edition published by the German Reformed Church in 1854. The full book is available from Google (click on the title if you haven’t already). I recommend it heartily as a resource for catechizing young and not-so-young children.

There are a lot of good things about this book (besides the fact that really old books are cool, of course). It’s very readable, even at 155 years old cool, and it includes:

• A brief history of the Catechism
• Explanation of all difficult or technical words and phrases
• Doctrines set out and explained separately as they come up in the course of the Catechism
• Cross-referencing througout, both to the Catechism and to the various Exercises
• Extensive biblical references in addition to the proof-texts included in the Catechism itself

One thing I really like about this book is that it is thorough enough to be a helpful resource, but it’s still just a resource — its purpose is to facilitate the discussion and explanation provided by parents or teachers, rather than to replace parents and teachers. What it’s good at is getting you to really chew on the questions and answers. The book doesn’t aim to become its own monologue, but to foster dialogue between catechist and catechumen (although I don’t recommend using these titles in normal conversation).

For another very good — but much more in-depth, technical, philosophical and theological — discussion, unfortunately not freely available, check out the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism by Zacharias Ursinus. Or one of the newer commentaries, I guess, if you’re into new books….

If you are like me, you probably struggle to pray every day. I must confess that most of the reason why I do not pray more frequently is that I hate my own prayers, especially when I pray out loud with my family. When I do pray, my prayers are often unfocused, redundant, shallow, way too long, and littered with too many “uhs” and “ums.”  One of the things that I enjoyed about my time at Westminster Seminary California was some exposure to reading powerful and thoughtful prayers, but my sense is that most people find the practice of reading prayers to be unwholesome, impious, formulaic, and cold-hearted. Without spontaneity people often argue that the Spirit is inhibited.

Morning Prayer

Almighty God and most merciful Father, we do not present ourselves here before your Majesty trusting in our own merits or worthiness, but in your manifold mercies (Dan. 9:18), which have promised to hear our prayers and grant our requests which we shall make to you in the name of your beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord (John 16:23-24): who also commands us to assemble ourselves together in his name (Matt. 18:20), with full assurance that he will not only be among us, but also be our Mediator and Advocate towards your Majesty (1 Tim. 2:5), that we may obtain all things which shall seem expedient to your blessed will for our necessities (1 John 3:22). Therefore, we beseech you, most merciful Father, to turn your loving countenance towards us, and impute not unto us our manifold sins and offences (Ps. 32:1-2), whereby we justly deserve your wrath and sharp punishment, but rather receive us to your mercy for Jesus Christ’s sake, accepting his death and passion as just recompense for all our offenses (1 John 2:1-2), in whom only you are pleased, and through whom you cannot be offended with us. And seeing that by your great mercies we have quietly passed this night, grant, O heavenly Father, that we spend and bestow this day wholly in your service, so that all our thoughts, words, and deeds may redound to the glory of your name (Col. 3:17), and good example to all men, who seeing our good works may glorify you, our heavenly Father. And forasmuch as of your mere benevolence and love you have not only created us to your own similitude and likeness (Gen. 1:27), but also have chosen us to be heirs with your dear Son Jesus Christ of that immortal kingdom which you have prepared for us before the beginning of the world: we beseech you to increase our faith and knowledge (Luke 17:5), and to lighten our hearts with your Holy Spirit, that we may in the meantime live in godly conversation and integrity of life: knowing that idolaters, adulterers, covetous men, contentious persons, drunkards, gluttons, and such like, shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

And because you have commanded us to pray for one another, we do not only make request, O Lord, for ourselves and them whom you have already called to the true understanding of your heavenly will, but for all people and nations of the world (Acts 10:35; 1 Tim. 2:4), who as  they know by your wonderful works that you are God over all, so they may be instructed by your Holy Spirit to believe in you, their only Savior and Redeemer. But forasmuch they cannot believe except they hear, nor they cannot hear but by preaching, and none can preach except they are sent: therefore O Lord, raise up faithful distributors of your mysteries, who setting apart all worldly respects, may both in their life and doctrine only seek your glory. Contrarily confound Satan, Antichrist (Rom. 16:20), with all hirelings and Papists, whom you have already cast off into a reprobate sense, that hey may not by sects, schisms, heresies, and errors, disquiet your little flock.

And because, O Lord, we have fallen into the latter days and dangerous times, wherein ignorance has got the upper hand (2 Tim. 3:1ff.), and Satan with his ministers seek by all means to quench the light of your gospel, we beseech you to maintain your cause against those ravening wolves (Matt. 7:15), and strengthen all your servants, whom they keep in prison and bondage. Let not your long-suffering be an occasion either to increase their tyranny or to discourage your children; neither let our sins and wickedness be a hindrance to your mercies, but with speed, O Lord, consider these great miseries.

Grant us, dear Father, these requests, and all other things necessary for us, and your whole church, according to your promise in Jesus Christ our Lord: in whose name we beseech you as you have taught us saying, “Our father, in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen (Matt. 6).”

Joshua

A great little article from Scott Clark of WSC (and the Heidelblog), available in full here.

The hit TV show Seinfeld has been called a show about nothing. One of the most pernicious falsehoods about the Bible is that it, too, is a book about nothing, that it is a random collection of ancient myths and moral aphorisms. Strangely, some Christians seem to regard Scripture this way. Others find unity in Scripture around God’s plan for national Israel and/or a time of millennial glory. Still others treat the Bible as if it is about the reader, as if there is no such thing as a “text” or authorial intent but only the reader’s experience of the text. Even more crassly, the Bible is read as if the reader (and his or her prosperity and happiness) is at the center of the story….

One of my favorite modern-day thinkers is Carl Trueman. His penetrating analysis of  theology and contemporary issues causes me to pause for self-reflection. In his essay, “The Theater of the Absurd” found in his book Minority Report: Unpopular Thoughts on Everything from Ancient Christianity and Zen-Calvinism, Trueman discusses what he sees as a deficit in the blog-world. In the wake of the second amendment and the democratization of knowledge, the web has proliferated our sense that we have a right to speak whatever we want. The result is that many people believe that they have expertise on stuff that even scholars with actual PhDs struggle to grasp. In some ways, this is nothing new under an American sun. Americans usually become deeply religious and zealous when their right to speak is threatened, even if blatant ignorance gets in the way of it. Rights are genetically hardwired into our DNA.

Our right to speak is a good thing. It protects us against religious tyrants, and since I fall on the libertarian side of the spectrum politically, I especially sympathize with this concern. But like Trueman always warns, a good thing is not always good. As proof of the bad in the good and that the blog-world is more often full of blogic (Trueman’s term) than robust and thoughtful logic, Trueman anecdotally presents this story of his encounter with an “email” scholar. This “scholar” wanted to argue with him as if he had a PhD. Read for yourself,

There was the case of a young guy who wanted to engage in e-mail banter about something I’d written. What fascinated me was the way this person referred to himself at one point in our exchange as a scholar. Yet he had no higher degree, no track record of publications which had passed muster with his peers in the field. In fact, he’s still a student, not yet beginning a doctoral program. Indeed, he’s a long way from possessing even the most basic  of academic union cards: a PhD. Now, I guess I’m old-fashioned, but the category of scholar is one which should be reserved for those who have established themselves in their chosen field by actual scholarly achievement, not by simply talking a good game (MR, p.174).

Trueman says that this is basically like him hanging out at poll stations and thinking that he is now qualified to become president. There is a lesson here for blogmeisters (Trueman’s term) and those who read and comment on blogs. Do not pretend like you are a scholar when you are not, and do not perpetuate the democratization of ignorance. If you do, do not expect anybody to listen to your blogic. Be humble. Think twice (no thrice) before you type.  Just because you have the right to speak, does not mean that you have a right to be heard. And yes, I am preaching to the choir and engaging in some level of hypocrisy (I am only a student). That is one of the reasons why I prefer to reflect on what other scholars have said instead of trying to create ideas de novo.

In Ephesians 4:15, Paul enjoins that as Christians we should “Speak the truth in love.” It seems to me that we in the Reformed world are all too commonly beset on both sides of this statement.

‘Love’ without Truth

On one hand we have those who seem to be all too willing to sacrifice the truth for the sake of love, a love which ends up ringing hollow. How can we speak in love, in accord with Paul’s exhortation, if it’s not in fact the truth we’re speaking? He didn’t say, “Speak what people happen to want to hear at the time in love” or “Speak what you think will be most popular or least offensive in love.” Neither of these approaches, in fact, could be taken in the kind of love Paul is talking about. Is it really loving someone to deny them the truth fitly spoken? And although it sometimes feels like we need to downplay the truth in order to show love, it’s just not so. Being tactful, gracious, discerning and wise in our speech, are not attributes which are in contradiction to being truthful. Love without truth is not truly love, not least because God himself is both truth and love (John 4:24, 17:2-3), so these can never be at odds with one another.

On the other hand we have those who seem to be quite ready to sacrifice love for the sake of truth. We talk a lot on this site about the importance of being confessional (see here, for example). There are many among the Reformed who, frankly, do not agree with much that would be considered historically ‘Reformed.’ Some who tend to sacrifice truth for love seem to suggest that what’s really the truth is a shared personal commitment to following and serving Jesus — a kind of ’salvation by experience’ that professes the truthfulness of the Bible without acknowledging that the Bible itself calls us to recognize its own nature as God’s objective and self-consistent revealed word, especially concerning who he is and what he’s done. In other words, the nature of biblical Christianity is confessional (though we might argue about which confession is most faithful to what God has said). But it must also be said, and said loudly and repeatedly, that confessional conviction and faithfulness should never suggest a hint of ’salvation by doctrine’, as unhappily it so often does.

‘Truth’ without Love

Again, as with ‘love’ without truth, ‘truth’ spoken in this way is often far from gospel truth. Integral to the truth of the gospel is the truth of our own sinfulness and the righteousness of Christ that is ours merely of grace. We aren’t saved by doctrine or traditional distinctions or by confessions — and no one who participated in the writing of the Reformed confessions would disagree. While it’s true that we should never be affable at the expense of being faithful (as Chaos recently put it), it’s also true that it is indeed an unfortunate state of affairs when a group of Christians are widely disliked by and disreputable among their brothers and sisters. This isn’t a good situation, and at least part of it is that we are speaking ‘truth’ without love, and forgetting the gospel in the process. No matter how weak or faulty one’s faith is, if it’s true faith, it grasps faith’s true object, the only one who is Faithful and True (Revelation 19:11), who is strong to save even by the weakest faith. We need to remember this, not only when we’re speaking to our Christian friends who disagree in some areas with us, but if we’re to have any Christian friends at all who are not carbon copies of ourselves (and equally self-satisfied about it).

Further, why do those of us who are more doctrinally sound so often fall into the trap of thinking we are the strongest in faith or in fruitfulness? We may not be dispensationalists, but we need to recognize that in reality many dispensationalists (like Lewis Sperry Chafer) understand law and gospel better than many Reformed. John Wesley may have told his old Calvinist friend and colleague George Whitefield in the heat of argument, “Your God is my devil!”, but Whitefield fully believed that when he and Wesley got on their knees to pray (or picked up the pen to write a hymn!), they were in fact praying to and worshipping the same God. The proverbial Arminian grandmother who has prayed every day of her life for her children’s and grandchildren’s salvation and perseverance, knows and believes in the sovereignty of God much more truly and consistently than the proverbial hyper-Calvinist minister who refuses to evangelize for the sake of his doctrine of predestination. And, not speaking proverbially, how often it happens that those of us who constantly speak of free grace fail to show any! The answer isn’t to stop speaking the truth, but to truly speak the truth — in the kind of repentant, trusting gospel-centered love that understands both our own sinfulness and frailty and the righteousness and mercy of God.

The gospel isn’t only for other traditions, it’s for the Reformed tradition. If the strongest Reformed advocate of the widest doctrinal flexibility relies to any extent on that tolerance and liberality instead of upon Christ alone, to that extent he or she is condemned; just so, if the staunchest professor of the strictest Reformed position relies to any extent on that profession instead of upon Christ alone, to the same extent he or she is likewise condemned (Galatians 2:11-21). I would argue that the confessionally Reformed should be that much more humbled by our doctrinal and practical sin, because we spurn the greater light. If we are to stand before the Lord, he must forgive us even for what we do (fairly) well, even for what we get (fairly) right, in the same way and just as much as he forgives us for everything else we’ve done in falling short of the glory of God: freely through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-26). Jesus died for us, too, and we only live because of his resurrection. Let us then speak the truth in love while looking to him who humbled himself in order to lift us up (Philippians 2:5-11).

VanDrunen, professor at Westminster Seminary California, speaks on Proverbs 12:23,

A prudent man conceals knowledge,
but the heart of fools proclaims folly.

Click on the Featured Audio widget in the sidebar, or click here. You won’t be disappointed.