The Boneman

Understanding Circumcision in the Old Covenant

One of the reasons Baptists and Presbapterians fail to understand the full import of baptism is that they don't fundamentally understand the role of circumcision in the Old Covenant.  The apostle Paul wrote of Abraham, 

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe..." (Romans 4:11)

Let's camp out on this for a second.  How is cutting off the end of Abraham's genitalia remotely related to faith?  What did his foreskin have to do with trusting in God?  In short, everything.

Abraham received a promise of a Seed (Messiah) and that he would be the father of many nations.  The challenge was that Abraham's aged wife, Sarah, wasn't getting pregnant...  So, they took matters into their own hands and used a surrogate mother, Hagar, to get the job done.  Ishmael was soon born to Hagar, and it is directly after this episode that God gives the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17.  God in effect says to Abraham, "No, the Promise is not coming through your use of a surrogate to get the job done.  It isn't coming through your efforts, but by My grace.  My promise will be accomplished by Me, not by you.  To help underscore this in a major way, I want you and your posterity to cut off the end of your penises.  I think that will help you remember that this is all about faith and trusting Me."

There you have it.  There was an unmistakable connection between the trimming of Abraham's "manhood" and "the righteousness of faith."  Circumcision was not about good hygiene or cleanliness.  It was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith in God's Promise(s).

And so it is with baptism.  When our children receive the promise that is "to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off," (Acts 2:39) they are receiving the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith.  The faith they have is not and will not be "from" us, but from God and His promises.  We are people of the Promise(s), and baptism, like circumcision, points the way (Col. 2:11,12).  The way of faith.  

How I ended up at Mass last Sunday...

Last weekend I was in San Antonio, TX, for a business trip.  I missed church in the morning because I was in transit, but I had the afternoon to myself.  Since I had no commitments I decided to explore downtown - and as I did I stumbled upon one of the historic churches / cathedrals in the center of the city.  It seemed very good and right to go in to spend time in prayer, so I went in to grab a pew and a kneeler and get to work...

Little did I realize that I had stumbled into five o'clock Mass.  Rather than turn tail and run I thought it would be fun to at least observe since I don't often have that opportunity.  Within minutes I was more than a spectator.  What struck me first was the cruciform layout of the seats.  The pews were arranged in the shape of a cross and the Table was at the center of the cross.  "Cool," I thought to myself.  Then we were called to worship by this young woman with the most angelic voice I ever heard.  This was followed by Scripture readings, a confession of sin, beautiful hymns (not the stale 18-19th century crud in the Trinity Hymnal!), a recitation of the Nicene Creed, and the Lord's Prayer.  I recognized I was being swept into this but remained pretty skeptical until we came to the Homily.  Surely, I thought, they would stumble here.  They didn't.  The young Hispanic Priest preached a very fine sermon from The Gospel of Matthew.  Very fine.

And so there I was, in a Roman Catholic church in San Antonio, TX, with a decision.  Do I take the eucharist or not?  I realized that if I could say the same creed, prayers, and worship the same Lord, not partaking would be an act of high-handed sectarianism.  I wondered if they would want me, a Presbyterian guy, to come to the table.  Would it be okay?  What should I do?  I frantically grabbed at the literature in the pew and came across this statement in their worship bulletin:

"Guidelines for the Reception of Communion - For Fellow Christians"

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the eucharist as our brothers and sisters.  We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this eucharist will draw us closer to one another begin to dispel the sad divisions that separate us.  We pray these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (John 17:21).

That was all I needed.  I got up and celebrated the eucharist with my brothers and sisters in the Roman church.

Go ahead.  Call me an ecumaniac.  Guilty as charged.

Name That Heretic!

Which of the following heretics wrote the following?

"It is certainly true that when children of believers reach the age of discernment [and have never repented or believed] they will have alienated themselves from God and destroyed utterly the truth of baptism.  But this is not to say that our Lord has not elected them and separated them from others in order to grant them His salvation. Otherwise, it would be in vain for Saint Paul to say that a child of a believing father or mother is sanctified, who would be impure if he were born of and descended from unbelievers (1 Cor. 7:14)."

Was it:

A.  Rich Lusk
B.  Douglas Wilson
C.  Steve Wilkins
D.  James Jordan
E.  John Calvin

Pick carefully!  This is a pass / fail test.  If you fail to name that heretic, you may disqualify yourself as a good Reformed person...  Have you chosen?  Good.  And the answer is:

E.  John Calvin - that's right!!!  Yes, this is straight from John Calvin's, "Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines," pg. 52

If you failed this test, it may be yet another sign that you have wrongly persecuted your FV brethren.  I suggest that you flog yourself at least 2 dozen times, repent before your Maker, and send a check to the FV church nearest you.  Oh yeah, and why don't you actually read primary sources for a change as well?   Time to grow up, folks.

HT: Wedgeworth

"Do this as my memorial..."

I have to admit that I cringe everytime I hear a pastor misquoting Christ's words of administration saying, "Do this in remembrance of me."  The Greek text simply doesn't say this.  In fact, it says, "Do this as my memorial."  The difference is huge.

What is the difference, you ask?  The difference is that when we hear, "Do this in rememberance of me," we hear, "remember me in remberance of me."  Sit down and think about Jesus.  Retreat intospectively and subjectively assess whether you are partaking worthily.  Be contrite as you curl up into your fetal position remembering what Jesus did for you.

This is emphatically not what Jesus said.  He didn't say to remember Him in rememberance of Him.  No, we are to DO this (celebrative act of feasting with God and our brothers) as His memorial.  When we celebrate the Eucharist (literally, "thanksgiving" dinner), God remembers us.  He remembers not to forsake us because we have been reconciled in His Son.  He does not break covenant with us because Christ's death is once again "proclaimed." (1 Cor 11:26)

You may ask, "But God doesn't need to be reminded!"  I respond, have you read Genesis 9:15?  The rainbow in the sky isn't for us to remember God's promise of preservation, but for God to remember His promise of preservation.  Yes, your Sunday school teacher taught you incorrectly about this.  Take a look and see.

When we take the Lord's Supper, we are engaging in a rite that reminds God of His promises to His people in Christ.  Yes, it is for our nourishment and encoruagement, but it is not primarily about our introspection.  It is about God's extrospection - His outlook on His people.  We can rejoice around a meal in which we feast with God as His friends and family.  We don't do it to remember Him, but for Him to remember us.

More on this topic at this great post

HT: Barb

No Fetal Positions Allowed!

I was very privileged this weekend to attend the first worship service at Saint Andrew's Community Church, pastored by Garrett Craw  The liturgy was rich, the word was faithfully preached, and the communion of the saints was very sweet.

I especially appreciated the administration of the Lord's Supper.  Pastor Craw emphasized the Supper as a Thanksgiving Meal - a "Eucharist" (Greek for thanksgiving).  Therefore, when we came to communion, we did not curl up into our fetal positions - transforming the feast into the supreme moment of morbid / subjective introspection.  Rather, we sang an uplifting hymn together and greeted one another with the peace of Christ.  People were smiling with the joy of tasting God's grace. 

This is so important to a correct understanding and practice of the Lord's Table.  In most places I see the administration of the Supper, it is a morose exercise with a funeral dirge played in the background.  The warnings are so shrill and frightening that the invitation and welcome into Christ's presence are lost.  People are exhorted to reflect more on their unworthiness (something they should have already done in the confession of sin), instead of their glorious union with Christ's body and blood.  Instead of being the climax of our covenant renewal with God, it is a disturbing foray into our own psyches. 

Behind this is the reality that the Supper is primarily a memorial rite, not a subjective remembrance.  Christ literally says, "Do this as my memorial," not, "Do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)  With these words, Jesus teaches us that this sacrament is a place where God remembers us, not vice versa.  As the rainbow in the sky causes God to "remember" his Noahic covenant (Gen 9:14-16), so the Supper causes God to "remember" his New Covenant with us in Jesus.  Because we are united to Christ, we are at peace with God.  The Supper is a supreme moment of joy, not morbidity.  What a blessing to worship in spirit and truth! 

Our Controversy Du Jour is...

In "conservative" Reformed / Presbyterian circles, the controversy du jour goes by various names including the "Federal Vision" (FV), "Auburn Avenue Theology" (ATT), or the closely related "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP).   Some of the men associated with these "teachings" who are being put under the ban include NT Wright, Norm Shepherd, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, Douglas Wilson, Ralph Smith, James Jordan, and Mark Horne.  (Soon to follow are John Calvin, Martin Bucer, John Knox, Philip Schaff, John Nevin, John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Vern Poythress, and Richard Gaffin - but we won't go there now...)

I have a unique interest in this flap because my path to ordination in the PCA seemed to be closed when I was discovered to be infected by the dangerous "FV" virus.  Instead of writing endless position papers against the brethren to little or no avail, I resigned my post in the PCA and was almost immediately called to pastor a small church in the CREC.  Someday I will tell that story in more detail, but that is not my mission here.   

It is also not my intent to retell the history behind this particular set of controversies.  That can be found easily enough by doing a Google search.  What I do want to explore in a multi-part series is why I think this controversy has occured and why it won't fade away even when the denominational politics (Presbyterian "courts") have run their course:

1. Battle for the Bible:  The Reformed tradition has developed a specialized vocabulary in its discipline of systematic theology, and this is very valid and necessary.  However, it can be dangerously tempting for Reformed pastors steeped in Reformed systematics to read their specialized systematic theological terminology back into the Bible (eisogesis), rather than nuancing their technical vocabulary and schemas according to the Bible (exegesis).  The FV represents a fairly robust attempt to nuance and flex our systematic theological terminology in closer accordance with rigorous exegesis.  Our supposed commitment to "sola scriptura" demands that our systematics arise from and be refined by the Bible, and there is simply no escaping this reality - unless we abandon "sola scriptura!"  The Reformed confessional tradition will never escape this battle for the Bible as it relates to its confessional standards.  Ever.
2. Back to the Future:  The Reformation was not a revolution or a rebellion because its intent was to get back to basics of apostolic teaching.  Nevertheless, no one can deny that the understanding of the church develops over time as we stand on the shoulders who have gone before us (eg. the Christus Victor theory of the atonement vs. penal substitutionary theory).  Unforunately, there is a prevailing psychology among many anti-FV folk that the high-water mark of Christendom was reached in 17th century England (Westminster Standards), and everything else is liberal degradation, unfaithfulness, or even "speculation" (boo!)  Like the battle for the Bible, our movement "back to the future" will never go away.  As we move back to the Bible, we cannot help but move forward to higher vistas of understanding in various areas of study.  We should respect the past, but clinging to it and idolizing it is not proper for those who are committed to maturity in Christ.  Change in our understanding (not the teaching of Scripture itself) is a part of the maturation / development process, and there is no avoiding it.  Ever.
3. Thorough-going Trinitarianism:  The Western theological tradition has tended to focus on legal aspects of the Gospel - and this is very good and right according to the Bible.  What the Western tradition has tended to miss is the filial / Trinitarian context that these legal aspects exist within.  A perfect example is our understanding of the "work" or "obedience" of Christ on our behalf.  We tend to reduce Christ's obedience to that of a moral wage-slave, and forget that His obedience was that of a Son to a Father.  The FV's denial of "raw" / "strict" merit is simply an effort to thrust the filial realities of the Trinity into the foreground of our theologizing in these matters.  If we are truly committed to Trinitarianism and the revelation of God as Father, Son, and Spirit, we can hardly resist the impact this will have on every detail of our theological understanding.
4. The Heart of The Gospel:  There are several dimensions to this aspect of the controversy, but let me take one angle.  I was asked by my PCA questioners if "justification" (being forensically declared righteous) was the "essence of the Gospel."  I replied that it was "of the essence" of the Gospel, but not the essence itself.  The "essence" (if I am forced to even identify such a thing) is union with the crucified and resurrected Christ (who is the righteousness of God) - of which justification is a benefit / derivative, and not vice versa.  I believe this is totally Scriptural and ultimately compatible with Reformed theology, but this subtle shift in articulation and perspective causes anti-FV'ers major heart-burn.   According to them, by making union with Christ ultimate and justification derivative, I am in danger of embracing a Romanist doctrine of "infused" righteousness instead of an alien "imputed" righteousness.  Of course, this is a non sequitur, but that doesn't stop FV critics.  Future generations will see through this despite the politics of today.  The heart of the Gospel will always prevail.
5. Word & Sacrament:  Once union with Christ is seen as "ultimate" or "primary" in soteriology, the place of the sacraments come into much sharper focus.  Instead of being mere footnotes that stir up memories, they are means by which I persevere in Jesus.  They actually accomplish something - mysteriously, but really.  This means the church is important and not incidental.  This means that my faith and the testimony of the Spirit have a context.  Even the word preached does not exist in a vacuum.  The FV's emphasis on the grace of the sacraments is very good and right, and will not simply go away because a church court wishes it so. 

Well, there is so much more, but that is a beginning.  If someone wants to label me as a "FV" ne'er-do-well, that is up to them, but from my stand-point I'm just being who I am.  Reformed.

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!

Church Radio Ad

Why haven't I thought of this before?

Download church_ad.mp3

Let the little children come...

"Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.  But Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'  And he laid His hands on them and departed from there..."  (Matt 19:13-15)

If that isn't enough to convince you of paedocommunion, then maybe this article by Dr. Peter Leithart will do the trick.  I dare you to read it.  In fact, I double-dog dare you to read it.

Sign(ed), Seal(ed), Delivered

Reformed theology recognizes two sacraments instituted by Christ in the New Covenant - Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  We refer to them as sacraments instead of mere "ordinances" because the Bible attributes more to them than "naked signs" (cf. Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 10:16).  They are not just acts of obedience that stir-up our collective memories, they are mysterious (sacramentum) gifts from God to His people.

Reformed folk often define sacraments as "signs and seals of the covenant of grace" based on the language of Romans 4:11,

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had..."

Understanding sacraments as signs is pretty easy - they mark-out the recipient as a member of God's covenant people.  They signify that the person is no longer his own - the sacrament functions as a badge of covenant membership.

Unfortunately, many Reformed folk define a "seal" in the same way they define a sign - it is an official "stamp" or insignia impressed on a person - validating their covenant membership.  You may have heard of how royal "signet" rings were pressed into wax to "seal" letters in order to authenticate them...  So far so good, but we shouldn't stop there.  Seals have a signatory aspect, but they have more - they close or protect documents so that they are opened properly.  There is no better place to show this than Revelation where the scroll with seven "seals" could only be opened by the Lamb (Rev 5).  The scroll was protected - it was "sealed" so that it would not be opened improperly.

The cash value of this teaching is that sacraments serve as mysterious means of "sealing" / keeping us for God in His economy.  Baptism is not just a sign that we are "externally" part of the visible church (WCF 28:1), it is a spiritual way of sealing us to God.  Baptismal water does not "magically" regenerate in and of itself (ex opere operato), but the Spirit "mysteriously" works to bind us to Himself in and through a faith bathed in the sacrament(s), not devoid of them.

In the Gospel we are delivered, but we are also signed and sealed.  The Gospel is not an ethereal reality that stands outside of us - it is an incarnate Person that we are united to as evidenced by God's sacramental economy.