Literature, War, and Christian Theology

War and Peace
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Around the time of the American war between the states, the renowned Russian novelist, Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) composed one of the greatest narratives in the history of Western culture -- about some of the most significant military events of last century: the Napoleonic wars, the burning of Moscow, the retreat of 1812. The title of the enormous novel was War and Peace.

Read the article here.

The Federal Vision and the PCA's Report, Part 1

After recently writing a post on the Federal Vision, I took it upon myself to read C. Hodge and other magisterial reformers on the topic of justification, error among the clergy, and divisions in the church. These are surely broad strokes in theology, but I hope to make a case that answers some of my thoughts and concerns as they relate to the Federal Vision—a minority of heretical teachers within both the PCA and OPC.

Earlier I noted that the reports and study committees of both Presbyterian bodies haven’t dealt with the issue concerning the FV satisfactorily. I also noted that the PCA was more lenient than the OPC in their final ruling on the report. I will focus more or less on the PCA since it is my Presbyterian denomination. This should concern elders within the church, both in the PCA and those outside the denomination. Paul warns,

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

Calvin in his commentary on 1 Timothy warns similarly,

A good pastor ought therefore to be on the watch, so as not to give silent permission to wicked and dangerous doctrines to make gradual progress, or to allow wicked men an opportunity of spreading them. But it may be asked, “How is it possible for a bishop to constrain obstinate and self-willed men to be silent? For such persons, even though they are vanquished in argument, still do not hold their peace; and it frequently happens that, the more manifestly they are refuted and vanquished, they become the more insolent; for not only is their malice strengthened and inflamed, but they give themselves up to indolence.” I reply, when they have been smitten down by the sword of God’s word, and overwhelmed by the force of the truth, the Church may command them to be silent; and if they persevere, they may at least be banished from the society of believers, so that they shall have no opportunity of doing harm (Calvin, 298.).

My question still remains at this juncture, what has the PCA done so far? Have they heeded Paul or Calvin? Yet still, there’s more they need to heed. In PCA’s Book of Church Order, who every elder in the church is vowed to keep, says of the General Assembly (also known to others as a synod): “The General Assembly shall have power (g.) To suppress schismatical contentions and disputations, according to the rules provided therefor” (BCO, 14-6[g].). Of course, answers to this kind of precedence could rouse the retort that the officers conducted a study which concluded to adjudicate those elders teaching FV as “brothers in Christ.” I would then ask, is the study committee compromised? Can they not tell the difference between the Gospel of Christ and the doctrine of which is not of faith?

(More to come in part 2. We will look at the report the committee produced and evaluated it more fully.)

The Federal Vision, NPP, and "Dangerous" Underpinnings

After doing some careful research, what I found concerning the NPP (The New Perspective on Paul) and the Federal Vision among two leading conservative Presbyterian bodies have declared unwittingly that the Federal Vision is “dangerous.” That concerns me, mainly because the OPC hasn’t declared it heretical. The PCA is even more lenient in its study committee. They went on to say that they [Federal Vision proponents] are “brothers in Christ.” I have a hard time accepting this line of thinking if what is being taught is contrary to the Scriptures and more specifically contrary to the Westminster Standards, the confession and catechisms of both Presbyterian bodies.

Brian Schwertly writes, “Most importantly it [the report] explicitly states that the Federal Vision doctrine of justification is contrary to the Word of God and the Westminster Confession of Faith.” I would like to see what the reasons were behind the label of “dangerous” instead of “heretical.” Mr. Schwertly goes on to write that the FV denies the active obedience of Christ imputed to the Christian, which is a definite blow at the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Paul’s words are more than apt as it concerns the church’s body of beliefs, confessions and elders:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9 ESV)

Good Men & Women in a Cruel World: Divine Justice and Moral Obligation

If there is anything we learn from history, it is that it is filled with books that teach us that honorable men and women have suffered under the hands of tyrants and malefactors. This raises a very personal and crucial question: Why is the world so full of evil, especially evil people, without some measure of divine justice? I sometimes feel that God has fallen asleep and has left the honorable and faithful to suffer at the hands of the unholy and reprobate—without reason. There was another person who thought the same thing and has actually authored a great portion of Scripture, and his name is King David. He often suffered under the hands of the “Lord’s anointed,” King Saul. King Saul had sought to "pin him to the wall." On more than one occasion, King Saul had intended to use his spear to kill David. On a constant basis, David would plead with God to avenge his cause. The funny thing is that when David actually had a chance to actuate his vengeance by simply cutting off a piece of Saul’s robe (the corner piece of his robe) while he was sleeping, David immediately felt guilty; the text literally reads, "Afterward David's heart struck him[...]" (1 Samuel 24:4-5). The difference between those who are honorable and those who can care less about honor, values, and doing the right thing is that the honorable will always act with their conscience selflessly whereas the unholy and vile will act out of selfish and malevolent intent. If we act this way, the way David did (by wanting to exact his vengeance instead of trusting in God), what then would separate the honorable from the dishonorable? I am sure there are many who deserve to be treated dishonorably, but why would the faithful stoop to that level, that debased level of the vile and dishonorable? If good men do nothing or worse, act vile, where would that leave the honorable? Paul had similar words for his disciple Timothy in his second letter, Second Timothy. I would suggest reading Paul's letter, seeing that it is short and relevant to my point. Keep the faith. Act with honor. God is faithful and he will exact vengeance on His terms.  

Scripture & Authority

In the wave of current antagonism to the church, our culture has made it no surprise that the church is nothing more than a politically driven machine, and those minorities known as fundamentalist are nothing more than unintelligent individuals who are holding back the culture from evolving, to use the allegory of certain unhappy Darwinists (Smith, Dennet, and Hitchens).

Moving away from this cultural crisis, the church has scrambled as it seeks to plant itself as an institution (or movement) and provide somewhat of an alternative to the neo-Darwinian materialism. The only problem, however, is that the answer the church is giving the culture is a drastic shift away from the Scriptural mandate to proclaim the Word of God.  Essentially the Christians have retreated and ignored the call to transform the culture around them. This is the current problem outlined in Reforming or Transforming (Johnson and Gleason). Leading up to this point, however, Schaeffer has some very important words to say,

The basic problem of the Christians in this country (America) in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals… This shift has been away from the world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people’s memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different—toward a worldview based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance.

For Schaeffer, this move away from a holistic approach (what he calls a worldview) has led to the devastation and collapse of Biblical values in the culture. It is the unfortunate consequence of this status that we, as the Christian community, must reckon with and resolve.

            We are at this point still pressed by another matter plaguing the church. Though much of this problem is seen from without (meaning, the problem is stemmed on the outside patio of the church steps), the church has to deal with herself. Some in the church have taken steps to try to resolve this problem from the inside. Like a virus, the cultural problem has now become an ecclesiastical problem. Do you see what happened? A shift from correcting the outside has brought about a complete reorientation of change to the inside, namely the church. This problem, however, only begs a very crucial question: where are the Christians? Today, Christians still seem to be asleep at the wheel as the socio-political climate changes! These changes, however, are a result of the ineptitude and inaction of Christians in America.

            The new Christian consciousness, as spread by people like McLaren and most of the post-moderns, reply that we as the Christian community have thought of Christianity not as an organism of change but one of acceptance and love. And while this attitude—that’s what it is after all, an attitude—may seem appealing to the new Christian, propositional truths have taken a backseat. We are no longer concerned with truth as a mechanism, so goes the logic, but we think more in terms of people. The shift in propositional truth, namely the Word of God as an authority (or I should the only authority) that speaks both on the individual and corporate level, is now a synthetic “answer” to the culture war. In effect, the answer to this problem is not an answer in the strictest sense, since an answer would imply that there is something that needs to be corrected and only propositional truth can truly give us that. Gary Johnson, in his book Reforming or Transforming seeks to correct this line of thinking. He writes, “We cannot escape the powerful undercurrents of postmodernity that course through the times we live in. The question that confronts us all is, how do we respond to such things? Since the apostle Paul tells in a very direct way—we are not to be conformed to the pattern of this world (Romans 12:1-2)—exactly what do we do when we find ourselves being molded and shaped by the culture around us?” Truth as truth, the way we find it expressed in the pages of Scripture, comes down in fiat. God doesn’t merely suggest a way of living but speaks with authority to obey His Word (John 6:35-40).

            As we continue to look at the doctrine of Scripture, I want you to have this in your minds: every man and women has an outlook on how they see the world, what Schaeffer calls a worldview. That worldview does in large measure define and control (authority) our beliefs and ultimately our actions. The question that lingers is “what authority is running your life?” For some, the final reality of pure chance and material energy is apex (Darwinists). (Essentially, what we do doesn’t really matter in light of this philosophy.) For others it is the changing of cultural norms to fit a working order (postmodernists). For the Christian, there is nothing more sure than the hope we have in God, who speaks in every time and culture and violates the laws of nature to do. We need to follow Paul when he penned these words: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 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.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-21 ESV)

More on Ecclesiology

Roughly three months ago, I had undertaken a personal writing assignment for my readers and critics alike on the subject of the Church. Up to this point I have taken a hiatus to think about what I have written so far—though I have not written much—and possibly think about other views, for example those held by Viola and the Barna group. There were other circumstances that also led me to my writing, though personal in nature. I will disclose the nature of those dialogs and hopefully draw some conclusions about my critics, and perhaps engage my readers in the discussion of the church (origins, function, and order) and its role on culture.

Pundits of the Alarming Heresy of Churchless Christianity

Many have been hurt by the church. This shouldn't be surprising given the amount of people leaving the church. I had recently stated (in a previous blog) that a great number of people have been leaving the church in droves because of a large number of unscrupulous leaders. There are other factors as well, but I wanted to point out that many people who are in leadership today really shouldn't be involved in those positions. One of my harshest critics pointed out that not every elder is going to be ideal, and I grant that point. It isn't necessarily that people are essentially "bad" but the positions and creedal limits have given non-denominational elders to practice an unprecedented amount of unmitigated power. The notion of a system of powers—think of our government, but specifically the judiciary branch—and its connection to the church at large has really been a post hoc reaction to the pietistic movement, and more specifically to the Holiness movement in the early 19^th century. One example is clearly seen in the individualism of Phoebe Palmer (1807-74). According to the Handbook of Denominations, the editors wrote that "she worked tirelessly to bring others to a similar experience of holiness."[1] This reaction towards Palmer's teaching has led many to believe that if one could churn their faith into some pure holiness, they would, in effect, be holy. The doctrine and its practice has been substituted from theology to praxiology, what Dr. R. Scott Clark calls "The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience," a quest he believes is "the most ancient impulses in Christian theology[2]." Her influence was nothing more than a pietistic enterprise to get Christians to look inside themselves instead of among themselves. Such an idea as egregious as hers has led many Pentecostals and contemporary evangelicals to begin to look inside their faith, and therefore has inoculated Christians from transforming the culture around them. The solution wasn't to transform the culture or the church but to transform ourselves. Might I add, she was heavily influenced by the radical theology of John Wesley. Students of theology know that that is saying a lot.

But it wasn't just that singular movement that has caused many Christians to form within themselves a sort of retreat-ism, but that the pietist would, in effect, turn the tides in Christianity's theology about culture and the relationship it shares with the non-believing world.

(I will deal with Viola and Barna in another blog but I at least wanted to give some of the influences that were at play before we ended up with this new "phenomena"[3] we are seeing today in the church.)

Christianity and the Church

Strictly speaking, when we [Christians] speak of Christianity we also speak of the church. One cannot speak about Christ apart from his bride just as a belief cannot be separated from its institution. I can recall, for example, Calvin's locution about the church: One cannot have God as father without the Church as mother (roughly stated)[4]. Christianity shares a long history, and though its history hasn't always been the best, it is still rooted in the documents and practices of the church. I personally don't hold to everything the church has ever produced—take, for instance, the Lateran Councils or Trent—but a large majority is held by many traditions within its ranks. We will discover many of these rich histories as we move along the corridors of church history, but let it suffice that the tradition at large is institutional and maintains a rich history, be that Roman, Orthodox or Protestant.

[1] Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 161.

[2] R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession, 71. See the entire chapter for his explanation of this strange practice among evangelicals as he critiques the contemporary church of its theology and practice.

[3] The group The Reformed Forum, which also happens to be a weekly podcast, alarmed the Reformed community that this is a fairly new phenomena. Listen to the interview with Ted Kluck of his recently co-authored Why We Love the Church.

[4]John Calvin, (Ed. John McNeill) Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.1.(all sections).

Doubt

I haven't written in a while, so I thought I'd make a comeback with some inquisitive questions. I have been on a sort of writing hiatus, and because of it I had the time to think about religion and how it can buoy in my practical life. This isn't going to be a thorough and analytic sort of blog but more of a personal one. There are reasons for this sort of writing, one of which is the ease and enjoyment of writing. Other kinds of writing usually invites a sort of criticism, and I usually have to prepare for those criticisms ahead of time.

Anyway, the topic is doubt. We all have it, so let's face it. I doubt all the time. I doubt God, and I doubt my faith all of the time. There are advantages and disadvantages to this sort of doubt. The major advantage is that I am able to see who really is pastoral in character and caring enough to meet another person in their state of doubt. This has also caused me to be bitter. It has caused bitterness because the people who are more rigid tend to stand out as the most narrow-minded bigots I have ever met, and I am glad they are not pastors. These sorts of people could really cause some real damage and unfortunately they already have.

The advantages tend to come in waves. The one advantage I have seen the most is that people who have doubt have an authentic spirit of getting to the truth. They do not prejudice where it comes from and hence allows a free spirit of inquiry. The way I see it, if "the truth" comes to be questioned, no matter how fundamental the belief may be, it should be tested by all quarters. We should not prejudice its origins or the person judging/criticizing the belief. This is where there is a synonymous relationship with my animosity. If we shouldn't prejudice where truth comes from and there is someone who says that we shouldn't doubt this or that belief, he is prejudicing the doubt and therefore causes my animus. This is why I have a big problem with religious folk or ultra-religious folk. They tend to come off so narrow-minded that they cannot even question simple beliefs, and this sort of reasoning will lead to bad leadership.

In thinking about all of this, I have come to terms with ignoring narrow-minded people and work as best I can to relate to people with similar doubts and come to some sort of resolution.