The Boneman

How much theological error is too much?

I was once taught that there are three levels of theological error - technical error, serious error, and fatal error.  (These categories may not be the most helpful, but we'll use them for the moment.)  So for example, someone who confuses God's aseity with His ubiquity is making a technical error that is simple and definitional with little or no consequence.  However, someone who believes that drinking alcohol is always immoral for everyone is in serious danger of being unnecessarily divisive and legalistic.  It is theological error with serious consequences.

Unfortunately, distinguishing serious error from fatal error is really tricky.  How much theological error is too much?  Can you reject God's immutability in favor of "process theology" and be a Christian?  Serious or fatal?  How about a mechanistic understanding of the sacraments?  Serious or fatal?  How about being a universalist?  Serious or fatal?  The list goes on and on.

In my dotage I am much more reticent to identify fatal error in someone who heartily affirms the Trinitarian and historical-Biblical-theological tenents of the Nicene Creed - even if they aren't familiar with the creed(s) at all.  Heck, I think you could potentially strip-down what it takes to be a Christian even more.  Hebrews 11:6 reads, "...because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."  Now clearly, Hebrews teaches a robust understanding of Christianity and the kind of faith that it entails.  And yet... faith is simple and should not be overly complicated with theological nuance.  Yes, we should pursue orthodoxy and Christian maturity, but we should be very cautious about citing fatal error in those who are simply immature and / or ill-taught.

I once had the opportunity to spend three hours with the Reformed theologian, John Gerstner.  I asked him, "Is believing in the tenents of the Apostles' Creed enough to be a Christian?"  He became very animated and said, "No!  Not anymore!"  He went on to say that the early creeds only dealt with controversies of the early church - there have been many important issues since then that simply must be affirmed and / or denied.  I agree that there have been many issues that need to be wrestled with, but I would put almost all of them in the category of serious error and not fatal error.

Perhaps the reason for my reticence is that I am fearful of my own error(s) - and trusting and hoping for mercy now and in judgment.  I willl be shown mercy as I show mercy, so I am in no hurry to condemn error as fatal if there is any hope or room for diagnosing serious error. 

Is this not the practical outworking of "sola gratia?"  How can those who hold to this be so quick to cite errors as fatal?  Perhaps I am just a liberal afterall...

:)

Is Barack Obama a Christian?

Over the last several months I have heard quite a few Christians question the authenticity of Barack Obama's Christian faith.  The comments tend to fall along the lines of, "I don't care what he says, he can't be a Christian."

I understand where this comment comes from, but I think it reveals a flawed and destructive perspective.  Barack Obama has made a profession of faith and since he attended a Baptist church I'm going to assume he has been duly baptized.  His own theology may be deeply uninformed and full of serious errors, but no matter how you slice it, he has made a credible profession of faith.  I have personally heard him say that his sins are forgiven by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

We can't look into Barack's heart or the eternal mind of God and know whether or not he is "truly regenerate."  No one can.  However, we can see what God has given us to look at - and based on those things, we are called to extend a judgment of charity to him.  Last I checked, he hasn't been excomminucated or put under any kind of ecclesial censure.

Barack's political philosophy is deeply problematic in my opinion.  I think his position on "pro-choice" is a major, major problem to which he will be held into account.  But that doesn't make him a non-Christian as far as I can tell.  We should be very thankful that he is NOT a professing Muslim, atheist, or Wiccan.  What we need to do is pray that he would seek God's wisdom through His word and come to greater Christian maturity. 

If Obama suffers some series of major moral lapses or explicit denials of the faith, we'll have to take that into account at that time.  Until then, let's pray for our Christian brother as a Christian brother.

Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus?

A Thanksgiving Meditation

"...although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful..." (Romans 1:21)

Why are men and women sinners?  What is the root of our sinful nature?  Was it Adam's pride or a Satanic power grab?  Is it our tendency towards selfishness? 

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul teaches that our sin is fundamentally rooted in our failure to give thanks.  Giving thanks to God and giving Him glory is what we were created for.  When we fail to give thanks, sin will surely follow.

Things to meditate on...

1.  How does this impact our understanding of the pre-fall covenant of "works" with Adam?
2.  How can thanksgiving help us turn from sin?
3.  How does this enhance our understanding of the Eucharist? (Gk = Thanksgiving)

100 Word Gospel Challenge

I ran across a very interesting exercise for pastors.  The challenge was to imagine yourself in front of 100,000 people from every nation on earth with an opportunity to articulate the Gospel in 100 words or less.  Here is what I came up with:

The world was created by the one God who reveals Himself as a community of loving Persons – Father, Son, and Spirit. God created mankind in His likeness to expand His fellowship of love. The first man, Adam, rejected God for power on his own terms and threw all of creation into self-destruction and death. Instead of abandoning His creation, God sent His Son to reclaim it by dying for Adam’s sin and rising from the dead to establish a renewed creation. All men who believe this are part of this renewal and its ultimate conclusion when God’s Son returns again.

Give it a try - it isn't easy!  I thought it was pretty funny that Michael Horton couldn't help going with 466 words.  Typical Reformed guy doesn't know when to stop...  Is that why Westminster grads have tediously long sermons?!

Oh - and I didn't use the words, "imputation of active obedience," so I guess I'm preaching a false Gospel.  Ha!

Case for the Church Year

Here is a little paper I wrote about recognizing the church year back when I was the pastor of Ancient Hope Reformed Church.  I might say a few things a little differently now, but it is food for thought.  If you are curious about the rationale and pattern of the historic church year, this is a basic inrtoduction.

Download a_case_for_the_church_year.pdf

Quadrant Analysis of Christendom

To make sense of this post, please click on the image to see my proposed quadrant analysis of Christendom...

It seems to me that the you can tie the on-going identity crisis of Christendom back to how it handles the ministry of the word (particularly as it relates to expositional / exegetical preaching) in proper relationship to the ministry of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper within their proper liturgical contexts).  When these dual "means of grace" are not held in proper proportion and tension within the church, the church becomes distorted.  Consider the possiblities as it relates to our faithfulness to word and sacrament:

High word / low sacrament:  I call this "rationalistic pietism" because it places a primacy on the subjective experience and minds of individuals as they are impacted by the ministry of the word, while giving very short shrift to the efficacy of the sacraments in the context of the church.  I am thinking here of much of the Protestant tradition as manifested by Baptists and many conservative Presbyterians / Methodists / etc...

Low word / low sacrament:  I call this "radical liberalism" because it reduces the church to a social gathering around man-centered principles that are very loosely connected to the word of God or the sacraments.  I am thinking here of much of the Protestant / Roman tradition as manifested by mainline denominations and many post-Vatican II Romanists who are basically relativistic pluralists. 

Low word / high sacrament:  I call this "ritualistic sacerdotalism" because it over-emphasizes a community marked-out by certain mysterious rites without a proper emphasis on individual regeneration through the ministry of the word.  I am thinking here of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.

High word / high sacrament:  I call this "reformed catholicism" because it is what I believe Reformers like John Calvin were striving for in the Reformation of the church.  The fullest manifestation of the church is when the ministry of the word and the ministry of the sacrament are both held out robustly - emphasizing both the individual / subjective and communal / objective realities of the Gospel.  Unfortunately, I find most "Reformed" churches actually fall into the "rationalistic pietists" category due to the scourges of revivalism and post-Enlightenment rationalism.

The current controversies in the Reformed church relate to leaving the "rationalistic pietism" quadrant of Christendom.  It is a paradigm shift that many are not ready to make.  Our pietistic brothers may try and avoid the shift by claiming that is a "Romanizing tendency," but this ultimately false.  There is no need to end up in Rome on the road to Geneva.

Semper Reformanda!

The Gospel is at (the) stake!

The Gospel is at (the) stake when Christian brothers who agree on almost everything factionalize over theological details and nuance.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when the priesthood of the saints is mocked and despised by card-carrying members of non-ecclesial institutions (eg. seminaries).

The Gospel is at (the) stake when when intellectual honesty is suppressed by political manuevering and the need for a steady paycheck.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when we are disproportionately focused on critquing our brothers instead of engaging the world.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when our orthodoxy is measured more by who we anathemetize than what we affirm.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when our confessional standards are debated more thoroughly than the Scriptures.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when we believe that the bride of Christ came into its full maturity in the 17th century.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when when we forget that we will be shown mercy as we show mercy.

The Gospel is at (the) stake when we make hate the fulfillment of the law of God.

Dizzy Yet?

I have a feeling we're going to be hearing a lot more from Joseph Minich.  Posts like this and his recent paper on the FV will make him an important player in days to come.

The current state of Reformed confessionalism...

(Chanting) "Go Joseph, go Joseph, go Joseph!"

Christus Victor

For centuries, Christendom has wrestled with the meaning of the cross.  Theologians study debates over "theories of the atonement." Classical Protestants understand the atonement in terms of "penal substitution."  In other words, Christ suffered the penal sancations of the covenant curse as our substitute.  This "theory" is absolutely true according to Scripture.

One of the other popular theories of the atonement in early Christendom is the "Christus Victor" theory.  This understanding is more narratival - it sees the cross as the point at which sinful men were "redeemed" or bought at a price to trick Satan.  Satan thought that Christ's death would assure his program of death and destruction, not expecting that Christ would rise from the dead as the Lord of Glory.  Therefore, Satan unwittingly defeated and deceived himself in seeking Christ's crucifixion.

I would like to suggest that both theories are true.  Don't misunderstand, it is very good and right that the church has grown in its understanding of "penal substitution."  However, to the extent that the church loses its narratival understanding of Christ conquering Satan on the cross, that is a bad thing.  Indeed, Satan was deceived about the death of Jesus.  The devil was foolish to believe that Christ's death would secure his victory.  In fact, the cross sealed his fate forever.

On this Good Friday, I encourage you to remember that Christ died for your sins, but he also plundered the strong man's house to take back the world and restore it in His image (Matt 12:29).  We celebrate the remission of our sins AND the restoration of the world (Acts 3:21) because of Christus Victor!