David's Articles

Death By Duty?: Assessing John Owen's Theology of Mortification

2007-04-29T19:35:00.000-07:00

It has been the pervasive view concerning the Puritans, and Puritanism, since nearly the end of the nineteenth century[1] that those heirs of the Protestant Reformation turned the Biblical spirituality of their eminent predecessors into a legalistic, “do-it-yourself” religion.[2] Among those accused of such distortions is none other than the towering Puritan theologian John Owen. One of his hallmark works The Mortification of Sin in Believers might understandably be identified as evidence for this charge. For, in the work Owen lays out a strong and hard plan for the fight against sin, and in so doing clearly indicates that it is a duty of man. The last five decades have, however, shed new light on the Puritans as “people,” and opened up much discussion about their theology that is still continuing to produce new ground. It is with this in mind that the question, “Was John Owen a legalist,” becomes significant for understanding better the Puritans. The following paper is an examination of this major work on sin and an assessment of the author’s so-called “legalism” within it. Owen’s work is rich with the gospel, and the misunderstandings of it are simply poor readings of the work.

Before examining the work of this significant representative of the Puritans, however, we must understand who John Owen was. If it is true that a knowledge of a man’s writing will reveal the man himself, then it is equally true that a knowledge of the man himself helps us to interpret correctly his writing.

John Owen was born in 1616 at Stadham, England, near Oxford. He was the son of a Puritan vicar, Henry Owen, and so it was only natural for him to grow up into a Puritan himself. J.I. Packer says of Owen that he “embodied all that was noblest in Puritan devotion.”[3] In fact at his funeral service Owen’s colleague David Clarkson said of him, “Holiness gave a divine lustre to his other accomplishments.”[4] Owen had understood what Clarkson believed was “most needed to humble the souls of men”: (1) Knowledge of God and (2) Knowledge of Self. “The man that understands the evil of his own heart, how vile it is, is the only useful, fruitful, and solidly believing and obedient person.”[5] This certainly described Owen. But he had not come to this knowledge of self merely through academia, but through painful periods of spiritual depression in his own life.

After graduating from Queens College with his M.A. in 1635 Owen delved into more hard and serious study. Even pushing himself to study eighteen to twenty hours a day. But ambitions of greatness were displaced when in his mid-twenties he experienced such a conviction for sin that for the next three months he was academically frozen. It was a period, not uncommon to Christians of his day, where he wrestled with his own sinfulness before a holy God. The results were both steps towards his conversion, and, unlike most Christians of his day, the beginning stages of a thorough and expansive theology of sin.

Greater knowledge of his heart did not, however, lead to a stagnant life and satisfied mind, and Owen once again threw himself, whole-heartedly, into his studies, sleeping only four hours a night. But by 1630 the landscape of Puritan England was changing. Archbishop William Laud was appointed Chancellor of Oxford in 1630 and was highly involved in University life. His new statutes for the Church of England were to be enforced and each student was bound to agree to them. It was this pressure which drove Owen to finally leave Oxford in 1637. Laud had Catholic tendencies and his new statutes reeked of that popish religion which the Puritans were so strongly resistant to. John Spurr describes the changes as follows:

Clergy were instructed to conform to the letter of the Prayer Book, to read the services as and when prescribed, without addition or omission, and to wear the stipulated clerical dress and vestments. Parishioners were to stand for the creed and the gospels and to bow at the name of Jesus. In 1633 the Privy Council instructed the parish churches to follow the lead of cathedrals and to keep the communion table permanently against the east wall, in the position of an altar, and surrounded by rails; the laity should receive communion on their knees at these rails. Preaching was regulated and discussion of predestination especially discouraged.[6]

For Owen these statutes were the teaching as doctrine what were the commandments of men. He saw them as an imposition on the Scriptures and could not abide by them in good conscience. It seems, then, that from an early stage Owen had accepted the old Puritan principle of regulative worship.

After leaving Oxford Owen found himself soon involved in the English Civil war. The war was engulfing the continent at large and lines were being drawn and sides chosen. Owen, naturally, felt compelled to side with Parliament, who was largely Puritan. Throughout the 1640s he served as chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was the leading figure in the English revolution, leading the rebel Puritan army into victory against King Charles I. It was during this period of chaplainry that Owen again felt the consuming depression of conviction for sin. He wrestled and studied and found little consolation until in 1642 God gave him assurance.

He and a friend were going to hear the great preacher Edmund Calamy at Aldermanbury Chapel. Calamy, however, was not there and in his place was a preacher of relative obscurity.[7] The text of his sermon was Matthew 8:26, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” The words grabbed Owen’s attention and held it firmly. Andrew Thompson says of the event, “Immediately it arrested the thoughts of Owen as appropriate to his present state of mind, and he breathed an inward prayer that God would be pleased by that minister to speak to his condition. The prayer was heard, for the preacher stated and answered the very doubts that had long perplexed Owen’s mind.”[8] Finally, he was converted. It was out of this life, in this world, and on the authority of God’s word that Owen’s theology developed.

These were full years for Owen. His popularity spread through his writings and his preaching. His studies too produced both several works (A Display of Arminianism, 1643) and his public transition from Presbyterianism to Congregationalism. The period saw as well the marriage of Owen to Mary Rooke, of Fordham. Together they had eleven children, though, sadly, only one survived. It was the 1650s, however, that would prove to be the most productive years of his life.

After serving as both a state preacher and, again, chaplain to Cromwell, Owen took the job as vice-chancellor of Oxford University. The sermons he preached during these days at both Christ’s Church, Oxford and St. Mary’s were theological seeds that later blossomed into the work we are now here to consider: The Mortification of Sin. There were other works during this period too. Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson list, coming out this period, works on “perseverance of the saints, Christ’s satisfaction, mortification of sin, communion with the Trinity, schism, temptation, and the authority of Scripture.”[9] Writing was the major contribution of John Owen to greater Christendom.

This period of peace, however, did not last. For, a man of Owen’s uncompromising nature is never far from distressing those in authority. The 1660s found Owen out of favor with Cromwell, then protectorate of England, and thrust from his positions in academia. Though continuing to write throughout the 70s Owen had, by 1673, settled into the pastorate of a joint church in London, that he and several other Puritans oversaw. He died as the “Prince of the Puritans” in 1683.

Turning now to consider The Mortification of Sin we must remember the context in which it developed. The work was first published in 1656, but it stemmed from the lectures Owen gave as Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. This has bearing on the content of the work. The discourse developed out of those tumultuous years of the 1750s and was originally composed for an audience of young men. Kelly Kapic explains the significance of this information:

One consequence of addressing this youthful audience seems to be that his reflections tend toward the concrete and practical, emphasizing the particular rather than lingering too long on the abstract. Here were young people who were beginning to experience the complexity of sin and self, and Owen was compelled to help.[10]

It seems probable that as Owen watched his students wrestle with sin he recalled his own internal conflict from years before. As these young men now came face to face with that spiritual depression, that he knew all too well, Owen sought to give them the help that he had most needed during his days of struggling. He used his lectures to stress the practical steps that they could take to fight sin. It is most likely this stress on the practical that leads some readers to conclude that Owen is nothing more than a legalist.[11] This reaction, though understandable, is not necessarily warranted. When readers take into consideration this context it can correct the assumptions they have about the practical emphasis of the discourse.

The context aside, however, the text itself, when closely examined, reveals a gospel-rich theology. Those two great theological foundations underpin the entirety of the work: (1) Know yourself, and (2) Know God. Though Owen spends a great amount of space instructing his hearers on self-examination, he never forgets to remind them of the importance of that second principle. Kapic comments, “Affirming the importance of honest introspection does not blind Owen to the fact that this exercise will lead a person to despair if it is not also paralleled with a study of the grace of God.”[12]

Owen does indeed teach, as the Bible does, that mortification of sin is a duty of man. So he writes, “The mortification of indwelling sin remaining in our mortal bodies, that it may not have life and power to bring forth the works or deeds of the flesh, is the constant duty of believers.”[13] The battle against sin in the flesh is not a suggestion; it is a required fight for every Christian. Furthermore, this battle must be waged daily, constantly. There is real obligation. The foundation of this statement, however, is found in God’s Holy Word. Owen is expositing Scripture, not waxing legalistically on the duty of man. The whole work is built off of Romans 8:13, “If you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body you shall live.”[14] Expounding on the text Owen says:

Indwelling sin is compared to a person, a living person, called, the “old man,” with his faculties and properties, his wisdom, craft, subtlety, strength; this, says the apostle, must be killed, put to death, mortified- that is, have its power, life, vigor, and strength to produce its effects taken away by the Spirit. It is, indeed, meritoriously, and by way of example, utterly mortified and slain by the cross of Christ; and the “old man” is thence said to be “crucified with Christ” (Rom. 6:6), and ourselves to be “dead” with him (Rom 6:8), and really initially in regeneration (Rom. 6:3-5), when a principle contrary to it and destructive to it (Gal. 5:17) is planted in our hearts; but the whole work is by degrees to be carried on toward perfection all our days.[15]

To suggest that Owen is being legalistic here is to misunderstand the nature of Biblical commands.[16] Paul clearly said, “Put to death the deeds of the flesh,” as an imperative. But Owen does not merely leave mortification at “duty,” he continues, as his Scriptural support does, to testify that the Spirit does the work through us. “The principal efficient cause of the performance of this duty is the Spirit…All other ways of mortification are vain, all helps leave us helpless; it must be done by the Spirit.”[17] Man cannot do this work, only the believer and only by the Spirit. “Mortification from a self-strength, carried on by ways of self-invention, unto the end of a self-righteousness, is the soul and substance of all false religion in the world.”[18]

In chapter three of his work Owen delineates the great fault of Roman Catholics in the pursuit of mortifying sin, it reveals the author’s intent to convey grace and not legalism in the discourse. He states that the Catholic Church fails to mortify sin because they use “ways and means…invented by them” and “were never appointed of God for that purpose.”[19] “Now, there is nothing in religion that has any efficacy for compassing an end, but it has it from God’s appointment of it to that purpose.” It appears that he is criticizing those attempts at self-mortification that are without the Spirit, and as such are in vain. And even when the Catholic does use the right means he again does so without the Spirit. He uses prayer, fasting, watching, and meditation, but “subordinate to the Spirit and faith, they look on them to do it by virtue of the work wrought.”[20] The discourse, however, is not a treatise against Roman Catholics; it is a discourse on the defeat of sin by the gospel, and there is to be found the central argument against those who insist on a legalistic interpretation of the text. Owen’s means for mortification is not “duty,” but “gospel grace.”

At the root of legalism is confusion over the doctrine of sanctification. It fails to grasp, what Owen did, that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are Biblically compatible. So he writes, “[The Holy Spirit] does not so work our mortification in us as not to keep it still an act of our obedience. The Holy Ghost works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience.”[21] Those who would accuse Owen of being legalistic in his presentation of man’s duty, miss the numerous comments he makes throughout the work that remind his readers that God must do the work of mortification through them. This “reminder” comes particularly in two ways: (1) Through references to the Spirit as the means, and (2) Through the Gospel. It is these “reminders” that make The Mortification of Sin a balanced teaching of the doctrine of sanctification.[22]

Speaking of Owen’s contribution to the study of sanctification Kelly Kapic writes:

There are two extremes often found in the church when dealing with [questions concerning sanctification]. On the one hand, there are those who seem to believe that we are saved by grace and sanctified by works: here grace is problematically reduced to the initial work of salvation. On the other hand, in an effort to avoid “works righteousness,” others tend to collapse justification and sanctification; the danger here is that the biblical call to active, faithful obedience by the believer can be nullified, and inappropriate passivity can set in. Rather than these two extremes, Owen follows the more traditional Reformed perspective that upholds another model of sanctification. True and lasting resistance to sin comes not through will power and self-improvement but through the Spirit who empowers believers with a knowledge and love of God.[23]

Owen’s theology is not legalism, it is, in fact, the Biblical, balanced, view of the Christian life that expects man to do his duty, and anticipates fruit from the Spirit’s work through him. Some of the way in which Owen speaks of the Spirit was discussed above, but here we zero in slightly more on his pneumatology.

Owen made great contributions to the protestant understanding of the Holy Spirit, not all of which we can consider here, but he was particularly helpful in expounding upon the role of the Spirit in sanctification. In The Mortification of Sin Owen offers two justifications for his assertion that the Spirit is the one who mortifies sin. (1) The Father promised to believers the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit for their sanctification. Owen finds scriptural support for this conviction as well, he writes:

The taking away of the stony heart- that is, the stubborn, proud, rebellious, unbelieving heart- is in general the work of mortification that we treat of. Now this is still promised to be done by the spirit, “I will give my Spirit, and take away the stony heart” (Ezek. 11:19;36:26), and by the Spirit of God is this work wrought when all means fail (Isa. 57:17-18).[24]

(2) Sanctification is a gift from Christ that is communicated through the Spirit.[25] Owen states, “All communications of supplies and relief, in the beginnings, increasings, actings of any grace whatsoever, from [Christ], are by the Spirit, by whom he alone works in and upon believers.”[26] In view of this pneumatology it seems unreasonable to credit legalism to Owen. There is duty in Owen’s theology, just as there is in Scripture, but it is a duty motivated by grace and accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Dr. Michael Haykin agrees when he writes:

For Owen…the believer has a duty to be constantly mortifying, or “putting to death,” the sin that still indwells his mortal frame. But equally important for Owen was the fact that such a duty is only possible in the strength that the Holy Spirit supplies, for he alone is “sufficient for this work.”[27]

The Biblical view of sanctification, that is of the mortification of sin, includes both duty and grace. To attempt to mortify sin without one or the other is to fail at the task. And Holy Spirit-empowered-duty avoids the pitfalls of both passivity and legalism.

Through references to the Spirit, like the ones listed above, Owen reminds his readers of the gospel-rich theology he holds. But it is in the second means of reminding them, that readers will find the greatest defense against critics: Owen’s use of the Gospel, itself. If the concept of Spirit-empowered-duty does not sway his accusers then perhaps the amazing manner in which Owen speaks of the cross will.

The gospel is the centerpiece of Owen’s theology of mortification. The death of Christ, not the duty of man, is the immediate cause of our sanctified hearts and lives. Owen expresses this truth mostly at the end of the book, but he sprinkles the gospel message throughout the whole of the content. Readers can see it if the presumed legalism of the author does not blind them. So Owen writes in chapter 4:

Adoption and justification, not mortification, are the immediate causes of life, vigor, and comfort. In the ways instituted by God to give us life, vigor, courage, and consolation, mortification is not one of the immediate causes of it. They are privileges of our adoption made known to our souls that give us immediately these things.[28]

The blessings of sanctification, those blessings of a healthy spiritual life, are not results of mortifying sin, but of being justified by Christ. It is these kinds of caveats that demonstrate Owen’s resistance to “work’s righteousness” and self-preservation in the faith. It seems likely that Owen knew some would be prone to take these practical principles and run fast, feeling secure in their salvation, all the way to hell. Again, he qualifies this practical advice with continued reminders of the gospel: “There is no death of sin without the death of Christ.”[29]

The author continues this work with a rather specific and lengthy list of practical guides to the mortification of sin. He says we should meditate on the guilt of sin, think of its danger and evil, that we should wait on God, and that we should consider our natural tempers.[30] But all these steps are “preparatory to the work aimed at…[and not]…such as will effect it.”[31] When Owen finally approaches, in the last chapter, directions for the work o mortification itself he has only one: set faith at work on Christ for the killing of your sin.[32] Here the richness of the gospel is brought forth from his pen.

What is the source of our mortification? Is it Self-improvement or personal striving? Not according to Owen:

How shall faith act itself on Christ for [the killing of your sin]…By faith fill your soul with a due consideration of that provision which is laid up in Jesus Christ for this end and purpose, that all your lusts, this very lust wherewith you are entangled, may be mortified.[33]

It is Jesus Christ’s provision as “Prince and Savior,” not man’s work, that is the end of our sinning. Anyone, by this point, still clinging to the interpretation of The Mortification of Sin as legalism need only read a few lines further to be hit with another blow of John Owen’s gospel-rich theology. Continuing his discussion of how faith acts itself on Christ for the mortifying of sin Owen says:

Let, then, your soul by faith be exercised with such thoughts and apprehensions as these: I am a poor, weak creature; unstable as water, I cannot excel. This corruption is too hard for me, and is at the very door of ruining my soul; and what to do I know not. My soul is becoming as parched ground and an habitation of dragons. I have made promises and broken them; vows and engagements have been as a thing of naught. Many persuasions have I had that I had got the victory and should be delivered, but I am deceived; so that I plainly see, that without some eminent succor and assistance, I am lost, and shall be prevailed on to an utter relinquishment of god. But yet, though this be my state and condition, let the hands that hang down be lifted up, and the feeble knees be strengthened. Behold, the Lord Christ, that has all fullness of grace in his heart [John 1:16], all fullness of power in his hand [Matt 28:18], he is able to slay all these his enemies. There is sufficient provision in him for my relief and assistance. He can take my drooping, dying soul and make me more than a conqueror [Rom. 8:37].[34]

Owen would lay waste to all boasts of self-promotion and prideful work’s righteousness. The poor weak creature has nothing to offer God and is indeed desolate and on the brink of ruin. Only Christ’s provision is his salvation. This is pure gospel teaching that Owen advocates. The mortification of sin is the work of the Spirit, accessible only through the death and resurrection of Christ. Legalism leaves man with the weight of his sin still bearing down upon him, but Owen declares that the gospel of Jesus frees us from that burden:

Let faith look on Christ in the gospel as he is set forth dying and crucified for us. Look on him under the weight of our sins, praying, bleeding, dying; bring him in that condition into your heart by faith; apply his blood so shed to your corruptions. Do this daily. [35]

Owen would have his audience know themselves. Know their hearts, their weaknesses and distempers. He would urge them to know their sins and their guilt because of sin. Yet amidst this duty Owen would urge his audience to know God. Know his mercy and grace, know his precious Son crucified. Yes mortification is required of the Christian. And yes we are responsible to work out our salvation. But if we do so with the gospel, then the Spirit of Christ works in us and through us for our sanctification. This gospel-rich theology is the foundation of all mortification and with that knowledge readers are free to read The Mortification of Sin with hope for their own sanctification.

The significance of this discussion certainly has manifold benefits. For starters it preserves the honest interpretation of Owen’s classic work on sin. Beyond this point it reveals to us more of who this great Puritan theologian was. He was not the hard, bitter, stoic, prude, who as Dean of Christ Church, Oxford made strict rules for the performance of religion. Rather John Owen is the brilliant, sensitive, and pastoral theologian who writes comfort his audience with the gospel of grace in Christ Jesus. And, furthermore, he writes out of the storehouse of his own depression and his own victory through this gospel. At the larger level this discussion reveals fresh evidence that the Puritans were not the killjoys of the seventeenth century. They were pastors, theologians, Christians, and men who struggled with the very same issues that men struggle with today, and they found hope and, yes even, joy in the gospel.

[1] See Joel Beeke & Randal J. Pederson, Meet The Puritans. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2006. xiv.
[2] See R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. United Kingdom: Paternoster, 1997.
[3] John Owen, Sin & Temptation. ed. James M. Houston. Portland: Multnomah, 1983. xviii.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603-1689. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. 87.
[7] Owen would later in life try to discover the identity of this man, but to no avail.
[8] Andrew Thompson, The Life of Dr. Owen. In The Works of John Owen. Vol. 1. 7th Printing. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000. xxx-xxxi
[9] Meet the Puritans. 458-459.
[10] Kelly Kapic and Justin Taylor, Overcoming Sin & Temptation: Three Classic Works of John Owen. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006. 25.
[11] The “readers” to whom I refer as sensing legalism in this work are both general and specific. This paper aims to prevent others from making the same mistakes that I initially made, when first considering this work in early 2002. I refer to them and myself with that word “readers.” I am also seeking here to correct the mistakes of 19th century critics who assed the Puritans as prudes and legalists, though I am not less acquainted with their works.
[12] Ibid. 31.
[13] John Owen, The Mortification of Sin. In Justin Taylor & Kelly Kapic, Overcoming Sin & Temptation: Three Classic Works by John Owen. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006. 49.
[14] Quoted in the text. 45.
[15] Ibid. 48-49.
[16] Readers would do well to note the amount of Scripture that Owen references throughout the work.
[17] Ibid. 47.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid. 58-59.
[20] Ibid. 59.
[21] The quote continues, “He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitating of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself.” Ibid. 62.
[22] For more concerning Owen on sanctification see Sinclair Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987.
[23] Ibid. 32-33.
[24] Ibid. 60.
[25]I am indebted to Michael Haykin, for this analysis. See, Haykin, Michael A.G., “Spirituality: John Owen on the Holy Spirit and the Mortification of Sin.” Evangelical Times (Nov. 1999), [journal on-line], accessed 14 April 2007; available from http://www.evangelicaltimes.org/articles/nov%2099/nov99a06.htm; Internet.
[26]Kapic and Taylor, 60.
[27] Michael Haykin, “Spirituality: John Owen on the Holy Spirit and the Mortification of Sin.”
[28] Kapic and Taylor, 64.
[29] Ibid. 79.
[30] Owen shows sensitivity here in noting that sin will look different for each man, owing to their own natural tendencies and character.
[31] Ibid. 131.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.132.
[35] Ibid. 138.

Bound to Be Friends: Slavery and Friendship in the Lives and Thoughts of James P. Boyce and John A. Broadus

2006-12-08T10:26:00.000-08:00

The years 1861-1865 were times of intense division. They saw not only the disunity of the United States, as the South broke from the North, but these years saw divisions between religious denominations as well. Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists all divided over the issues surrounding the War Between the States. Among Baptists the division affected everything from seminary education to mission work. The split between Northern and Southern Baptists was not the only dividing line over the issue of slavery, for there were distinct positions held within Southern Baptists as well, even among the faculty of their leading seminary. Yet it is significant that the differing views held by the faculty did not spell disaster for the fledgling seminary. John Albert Broadus and James Petigru Boyce disagreed on the virtue of slavery, and yet their friendship remained firm to the end of their lives.

In 1858 a nomination committee of The Southern Baptist Convention had appointed Boyce and Broadus, along with Basil Manly Jr. and E.T. Winkler, to serve as professors for the new seminary. Both Winkler and Manly declined, however, and Boyce and Broadus stood alone to serve the Seminary. Their affections for one another could have only increased upon this event. They had much in common to solidify their friendship. Both were scholars and theologians, as well as preachers.[1] Both were Southerners through and through, and even when the tensions increased between the states both Boyce and Broadus remained loyal to the South. Neither was either man in favor of the cessation. Writing to is brother-in-law Boyce said:

I have been all along in favor of resistance, by demanding first new guarantees, and if these were not granted, then forming a Southern Confederacy…I know I am cautious about taking any step without arranging for the consequences.[2]

Likewise Broadus writes to Miss Cornelia Taliaferro saying:

Very many people here are as much opposed to a dissolution of the Union as you or I, but there can be little doubt that a majority of the voters in the State would be in favor of seceding with any other state.[3]

Both men were concerned about rash moves from their fellow Southerners. Yet the nature of their resistance was quite distinct. Without any qualms Boyce declared to his sister, “It is as a pro-slavery man that I would preserve the Union.”[4] Broadus on the other hand expresses no sympathies for slavery; rather he joins the secession because he believes it is his duty as a citizen of Virginia.[5] He writes:

I may be believed, perhaps, when it is understood that I was most earnestly opposed to the action of the state in seceding, and deeply regret it now. I have at this hour no sympathy with secession, though of course it would be worse than idle to speak against it now, and though, equally of course, I mean to do my duty as a citizen here.[6]

Boyce’s advocacy for slavery can be seen not only in his expressed sentiment that he was an “ultra pro-slavery man,”[7] but also in his identification with the faults of the institution itself. Writing to His brother-in-law and friend H.A. Tupper, Boyce states:

I believe I see in all this the end of slavery. I believe we are cutting its throat, curtailing its domain. And I have been, and am, an ultra pro-slavery man. Yet I bow to what God will do. I feel that our sins as to this institution have cursed us, - that the Negroes have not been cared for in their marital and religious relations as they should be; and I fear God is going to sweep it away, after having left it thus long to show us how great we might be, were we to act as we ought in this matter.[8]

Boyce had been a long time advocate of Christian love and charity towards slaves. Tom Nettles points out, “When J.P. Boyce served as pastor at Columbia, South Carolina, he faithfully instructed the slaves of the community in Christian truth and ‘fundamental duties of a Christian life’.”[9] In his biography of the man Broadus recalls, “A wealthy and highly educated young minister was fitly employed in such labor for the benefit of the slaves.”[10] Many Southerners had raised concerns for the slaves. P.H. Mell, J.L. Dagg, and E.T. Winkler had a vision for ministry among Southern slaves, including both evangelism and social needs. The “sins” which Boyce identified in the institution, however, appear so minuscule in the larger picture that they mar his genuine care. That care for their marriages, and encouragement in spiritual matters was sufficient ministry among the slaves only affirms the “ultra pro-slavery” character of the theologian. Broadus did not always do a better job of affirming the full humanity of Negroes. He had, on one occasion, referred to them as “lesser human beings.” His post-war sentiments, however, bear the fullest description of his position. In a funeral sermon preached for the Confederate dead Broadus said:

I verily believe that it is worth all our dreadful financial losses, all the sufferings of the long and frightful conflict, yea, and the blood of our precious dead, to have [the questions concerning slavery] behind us forever.[11]

To preach to a Confederate crowd about the loss of their sons, husbands, and brothers saying that their deaths were worth the price to see the end of slavery convinces one of the convictions of the preacher.

Both men were true Southerners, but while Dr. Boyce tended to romanticize the institution, his colleague bore no sentimentality toward it. Broadus was, in this respect, much like that great Southern General Robert E. Lee, who though he had slaves longed for the day when he did not. The letter of Broadus’ own servant to him bears some of the marks of the relationship they shared. We read:

My Dear Master:
As I feel like writing a few lines, and to show you that I think of you very often, I take the present opportunity of doing so. I am quite well now, thank the Lord, and we are all so far as I know, and I hope when these lines reach you that you and yours may be quite well. I heard from Mr. Saint Clair’s yesterday- all well. My dear master, I hear much of the coming election. I hope that Mr. Lincoln or no such man may ever take his seat in the presidential chair. I do most sincerely hope that the Union may be preserved.[12]

The end of the letter records that the servant, “Uncle Dick” as he was known, was “wanting to go up to see” his wife but was unable, but hoped “to go soon to visit her”, and even to “live nearer her.” These lines lead us to consider the amount of freedom Broadus permitted his slaves. The ability to freely[13] choose to go visit and even live nearer his wife was unique to Uncle Dick.

The distinction between the men’s views on slavery is often hard to pick out. Both men served the Confederacy with preaching throughout the war. Boyce was a chaplain for the 16th South Carolina Infantry, and Broadus preached for various Generals, including General Lee and General Jackson, and rode along with several infantries for an extended period of time.[14] Boyce was a former student of the great Northern Baptist statesman Francis Wayland, who was strongly opposed to the institution of slavery.[15] Boyce had, always, a great affection for his mentor and he must have been influenced some by the man’s opinions on the incompatibility of Christianity and slavery. Boyce’s concerns about the “sins” of slavery may suggest the influence of his mentor in the face of such a prejudiced culture. But it is difficult for a 21st century observer to comprehend just how much pressure Southern culture applied to a man to convince him that God had ordained slavery.[16]

Broadus too was influenced by the Southern slave-owner culture. His comments that Negroes were “a lesser degree of human being” reveal as much. But a post-war article in the Louisville Courier Journal evidence one of the most insightful remarks about Africans (though still somewhat tarnished with prejudice). Broadus writes:

We must not forget that the Negroes differ widely among themselves, having come from different races in Africa, and having had very different relations to the white people while held in slavery, many of them are greatly superior to others in character, but the great mass of them belong to a very low grade of humanity. We have to deal with them as best we can, while a large number of other white people stand off at a distance and scold us. Not a few of our fellow-citizens at the north feel and act very nobly about the matter; but the number is sadly great who do nothing and seem to care nothing but to find fault.[17]

In Broadus’ mind the Negroes were not to be treated simply as a race, a collection of people, but as individuals with distinct personalities and from distinct backgrounds.

Determining Broadus’ precise opinion on the institution of slavery is not simple,[18] and becomes complicated when one recognizes the general context of Broadus’ writings. He writes as a Christian among a highly polite and refined Southern culture. Southern Christian thought on slavery was often critical of the violence and torture done by Southern slave-owners, while at the same time being fully in favor of the institution (Boyce being evidence). But it is particularly in his post-war comments and writings that one finds support for Broadus as an anti-slavery Southerner. In both the funeral sermon for the Confederate dead and the Courier Journal article from1893 we find such clues. More support is uncovered in the biography of James Petigru Boyce that Broadus penned in that same year. Speaking of Dr. Boyce’s, and other Christian’s, involvement in evangelizing the slaves Broadus states:

While events were rapidly moving towards the great and awful conflict of ten years later, numerous ministers throughout the South, chiefly Baptist and Methodist, were faithfully laboring to convert and instruct the vast multitude of colored people among whom they found themselves called to the work of the ministry. By no means all was done that ought to have been done; when and where has this been the case about anything? But thousands and ten thousands of Christian men and women did feel the burden of these lowly souls laid upon themselves, did toil faithfully and often with great sacrifice to bring them to the Saviour, and lovingly to guide their weak and ignorant steps in the paths of Christian life.[19]

And now that the long conflict is long past, and we are facing the most remarkable problem that any civilized nation was ever called to attempt, - the problem of slowly and patiently lifting these people up to all they can reach, - it were well if mutual misjudgments could be laid aside, if the faithful work of many Christians in those trying years could be on all sides appreciated, and the whole undertaking before us could be estimated in part by its best results, and not simply by its worst difficulties.[20]

Recognizing the obvious condescension of the author and setting that temporarily aside readers can also identify a complete submission to the dissolution of slavery and a desire to move on freely to the new relationships resulting from it. Broadus willingly confessed that these were not “black demons, as some who hated them then and now would have us believe.” No these “were and are simply black men.”[21]

The support only builds as one reads Broadus’ reflections on the then popular book Uncle Tom’s Cabin; a book which the preacher says was “deeply impressed with the real and supposed evils of slavery,”[22] and a book that was “exceedingly well written, having some passages of rarely equaled power, and being altogether, as a far as I can judge, a very remarkable book.”[23]

The differences are evident in their writings and personal thoughts if not clearly stated by both parties. Boyce’s clear vocalization of ultra pro-slavery and the complete absence of favorable comments on the institution by Broadus are significant when accompanied with the weight of the latter’s other comments. The most amazing thing about this exploration in Southern Baptist studies, however, is that their differences did not dissolve their friendship. Speaking of the legacy that Broadus left behind as a friend, historian Tom Nettles writes:
Broadus also gained great admiration for the sincere attention he gave to friendships. Throughout his life, even from childhood, he believed friendship to be the most cherished human gift to be given or received. Broadus loved and appreciated all sorts of people.[24]

As best that this author can tell the correspondence between Boyce and Broadus never touched on the issue of slavery. Perhaps this was out of consideration for their friendship, or perhaps their focus was entirely devoted to the “life work” which they were doing in the establishment of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In either case they remained friends until death. Upon deciding to join the faculty of the Seminary Broadus wrote to his friend:

Do not fear that I shall change my mind and, my dear Boyce, suffer me to say, that few personal considerations about the matter are so attractive to me as the prospect of being associated in a great work with you. I rejoice in a warm and mutual friendship now, and I trust we shall ere long learn to love each other as brothers. Pardon me for just saying what I feel…[25]
Their friendship was left untainted by the slavery issue, while the world around them, so it seemed, was marred by it. If John Broadus felt that he was both “prayed for” and “cursed”[26] by Northerners after the war, then he must have delighted to know that in the heart of his friend he was a “dear.” At the closing of his memorial for Boyce Broadus writes:

O brother beloved, true yokefellow through years of toil, best and dearest friend, sweet shall be thy memory till we meet again.[27]

The Battle Between the States rent the nation in twain, divided Baptists in two, and yet, by the grace of God, never did such for the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. So that even after the war they could jointly affirm that they were committed to die themselves before the seminary did. Though James P. Boyce and John A. Broadus viewed slavery through different lenses, they were, in the end, bound to be friends.

[1]Though history tells us that Broadus far exceeded his friend in preaching.

[2]John A. Broadus, “Memoirs of James Pettigru Boyce.” Selected Works of John A. Broadus. 4. (Cape Coral: Founders, 2001). 184-185.

[3]A.T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Society, 1901). 177.

[4]Broadus, 185.

[5]For further reading on Broadus’ devotion and loyalty to the South see Tom Nettles, Baptists: Beginnings in America. (Ross-Shire: Christian Focus, 2005). 299.

[6]Robertson, 181.
[7]Quoted in John Wesley Brinsfield Jr., The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains. (Macon: Mercer UP, 2005). 13.

[8]Broadus, 185.

[9]Nettles, 345.

[10]Quoted in Nettles, 345.

[11]Ibid. 299-300.
[12]Robertson, 177.

[13]Many slaves were permitted only to visit their wives on special occasions, as long as they were not too far apart. The freedom of Uncle Dick to simply go when he had time, and even greater to move nearer her, is almost unheard of, even among those slaves who belonged to good men.

[14]Many men urged Broadus to become a full chaplain in the Confederacy, but the preacher’s health did not permit him to make such a commitment. “Stonewall” Jackson wrote to a friend of Broadus’ saying, “Write to him by all means and beg him to come. Tell him that he never had a better opportunity of preaching the gospel than he would have right now in these camps.” Upon hearing that Broadus was to come Jackson is quoted as saying, “That is good; very good. I am so glad of that. And when Doctor Broadus comes you must bring him to see me. I want him to preach at my headquarters, and I wish to help him in his work all I can.” Quoted in Robertson, 199.

[15]See Francis Wayland, Elements of Moral Science.

[16]See John L. Dagg, The Elements of Moral Science. (Charleston: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1859); and P.H. Mell, Slavery: A Treatise, Showing that Slavery is Neither a Moral, Political, nor Social Evil. (Penfield: Printed by Benj. Brantley, 1844).
[17]Quoted from “A Sermon on Lynch, Law, and Raping: Preached by Rev. E.K. Love, D.D. at1st. African Baptist Church, Savannah, Ga., of which he is pastor, November 5th, 1893.” (Augusta: Georgia Baptist Print, 1894). 11.

[18]Some would suggest entirely impossible. To such critics I acquiesce that complete certainty is impossible, but, I argue, that a historian may, with humility, infer that Broadus was anti-slavery from his post-war statements about both the War and former slaves.

[19]Broadus, 91.

[20]Ibid. 92. Tome Nettles speaking of this quote from Broadus says, “With all of its errors (and even with the continuing paternalism and implicit condescension of Broadus’ statement), the relationship [between slaves and masters] nevertheless did produce some positive results for eternal good.” (Nettles, 348).
[21]Quoted in Nettles, 349. The full quote, like many others, does carry the tint of prejudice, but it is important to let the egalitarianism of it be as equally evident, so I have here only quoted those parts which point to Broadus’ affirmation of the humanity of the slaves.

[22]Broadus, 91.

[23]Clyde E. Fant, and William Pinson. 20 Centuries of Great Preaching. 5. (Waco: Word Books, 1976). 47.

[24]Nettles, 317.

[25]Robertson, 159.

[26]Paul Harvey, “Yankee Faith and Southern Redemption: White Southern Baptist Ministers, 1850-90” in Religion and the American Civil War. eds. Randall Miller, Harry Stout, Charles Reagan Wilson. (New York: Oxford, 1998). 176.

[27]Quoted in Nettles, 319.

Ezekiel 34 In Light of the Three Horizons of Scripture

2006-12-08T10:21:00.000-08:00

Ezekiel chapter 34 stands in stark contrast to the all too often painted picture of God as harsh and unloving in the Old Testament. This divinely inspired chapter serves as a gracious warming cloak for the cold judgment of God that permeates the preceding chapters. D.L. Moody saw this same comfort evident in the chapter. He writes:

Notice the “I wills” of the Lord God on behalf of His sheep. The shepherd and the sheep:-
v. 11 I will search them and seek them out.
v. 12 I will deliver them.
v. 13 I will bring them out.
v. 13 I will gather them together.
v. 13 I will bring them in.
v. 14 I will feed them.
v. 15 I will cause them to lie down.
v. 16 I will bind up the broken.
v. 16 I will strengthen the sick.
There are a good many lean sheep in God’s fold, but none in His pasture.[1]

Ezekiel 34 must have been a breath of fresh air to its immediate recipients, but it should call us to praise as well. By studying this text in light of the three horizons of Scripture we will be able to discern just how it plays such a significant role in the lives of so many from such distinct periods in history.

When I speak of the three horizons of Scripture I am using a technical term that identifies the different levels at which we read and interpret the Bible. The textual horizon is the first level. At this horizon we are seeking to understand what the author intended to convey in the immediate context of that passage and to his original audience. This means we must pay attention to the background, the setting, and the situation of those whom he is addressing. The second level seeks to place a specific text within the larger context of the testament or covenant which it falls under. Passages in the Old Testament fall under the old covenant and those in the New under the new covenant. This distinction helps to determine at what point in God’s redemptive plan the events of the passage are taking place. The final horizon is labeled the canonical. This horizon takes into account a passages place in the whole canon of Scripture. While there is some overlap here between the epochal and canonical the significant distinction is that in the Canonical horizon we are identifying a passages relation to the cross specifically. All of scripture is pointing us to the cross and so it is through the lens of the New Testament that we must read the Old. That being said let us begin looking at Ezekiel 34 on all three of these horizons.

We begin with the textual horizon, that is the immediate context of the passage. Here we are seeking to discern what the author intended to convey, and thus what God intended to convey through that author, to his original audience. In this passage Ezekiel is declaring a prophesy of judgment against the rulers of Israel. They are the careless and self-indulgent shepherds of verses 1-10.

The prophet is speaking out against the wickedness of Judah, and warning them of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The northern kingdom of Israel had been exiled to Babylon in 597 B.C., and Judah would soon join them in being exiled from the land. It is part of God’s punishment on Judah. So in verses 21-33 of chapter 33 we read of Jerusalem’s destruction, even the desolation of the temple. But chapter 34 is the silver lining in the black sky. It is hope for those who had lost what they saw as the center of God’s covenant with His people: the temple. It was the promise of future restoration, the promise of God’s communion with His sheep, and the deliverance from captivity. The intent of the author was to offer hope and encouragement to a people who had been swept away into exile. It was to quell the fear that God had abandoned them, and to re-assure them of the promise of a king from the Davidic line who would rescue them from their captors.

As we move into the epochal horizon we can note that there is a fair amount of overlap (both with the textual and the canonical horizon). Before delineating the obvious overlaps, however, let’s set up the larger epochal horizon. Patrick Fairbairn gives a good help here when he writes:

This passage evidently points, both as to its subject, and the language it employs, to a quite similar and earlier prophecy of Jeremiah (chap. xxiii. 1-6), where, in like manner, the false shepherds are denounced and judged, that the way might be opened up for the appearance of the Lord’s true shepherd. In both prophecies alike, what is meant by the shepherd is manifestly not priests or prophets, but kings and rulers…[2]

Here is one of the great foci of the passage: the promise of a King. Fairbairn rightly connects this passage with that of Jeremiah 23:1-6. In both passages there is the promise of a future “shepherd,” that is a King, who will rescue God’s people and usher in a time of peace and of security. Both passages are set in the larger context of the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah: God’s anointed one.

Dr. Daniel I. Block notes the larger context of the messianic prophecies in his commentary on Ezekiel. He writes:

The shepherd will be David. Although this ruler is explicitly identified as David only twice outside this book, Ezekiel’s identification of the divinely installed king as David is based on a long-standing prophetic tradition. On the one hand, the 8th-century prophet Hosea had looked forward to the day when the children of Israel would “return and seek Yahweh their God and David their King.” On the other hand, Ezekiel’s diction is closer to Jer. 30:8-10, which also combines the appointment of David with the anticipated restoration of the nation. There is no thought in these prophecies of the resurrection of the historical king, as some kind of David [revived]. Ezekiel’s use of the singular “shepherd,” and his emphasis on … “one,” also preclude the restoration of the dynasty in the abstract, that is, simply a series of kings. He envisions a single person, who may embody the dynasty but who occupies the throne himself.[3]

Dr. Block has noted that the messiah, or the “divinely installed King,” as David had a long-standing tradition in Israel’s prophetic history. He gives evidence in the examples of Hosea and Jeremiah. His comments stress, as well, the centrality of David in this passage.
In their sins the people of Judah had broken the Davidic Covenant, and as a result God had abandoned His dwelling place among them, in the temple on Mt. Zion.[4] At stake in their disobedience was the fulfillment of God’s promise to David: that one of his descendants would reign on his throne forever. Such a danger must have undoubtedly been in the back of the minds of the people of Judah as they foresaw Jerusalem laid waste and as they were shuttled off to a foreign land.

With such a background, then, it becomes evident why God revealed to the people that this “true shepherd” would be David. The prophecy was to be a boost to their confidence in God’s trustworthiness. He had not forgotten, nor abandoned, His covenant with David. This true shepherd was to be of the Davidic line, he was to be the anointed of God, the Messiah, just as 2 Samuel 7:1-17 says. For our purposes in this discussion we could simply look to verses 12-13:
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

The immediate context of that passage is referring to David’s son Solomon. But as one reads the history of Solomon you find a man far short of God’s standard, a man who divides the kingdom in half, and who eventually dies, leaving the nation wondering who is this anointed son of David that was to come and establish an eternal throne? They continued to wait for his appearing.

The image of the king as a shepherd of the sheep of Israel has two underlying notions to it. This is where we will see some of that overlap I mentioned a moment ago. The connection between David and this “true shepherd” who is the future king of Israel is all the more relevant when we grasp that David himself was at one time a shepherd. By calling this new king a shepherd the prophet is immediately connecting him with the Davidic dynasty, without saying so specifically.

The second connection is between this “true shepherd” and God Himself. There are several other places in Scripture where God refers to Himself as a shepherd. Genesis 49:24 is one example, but Lamar Cooper is probably right when he identifies Psalm 23 as the best known example. Cooper writes:

David provided insight not only into God’s role as “Shepherd” but also into the responsibility of kings to be rightly related to God. The king was to be the undershepherd and God the true King and Shepherd. Psalm 23 was David’s personal commitment to this principle. “The Lord is my Shepherd” (Ps. 23:1) was a personal declaration that he, David the king, had a King/Shepherd, who was Yahweh.[5]

The whole of Ezekiel chapter 34 re-enforces this connection with the powerful and comforting “I will” statements of God. Verse 11 reads, “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.” God is the shepherd of Ezekiel 34, it He who will seek out His sheep. He will rescue, gather, feed, bind up, strengthen, seek, and cause to lie down. Yahweh, God, is the shepherd and none other.

Through the “Redemptive-Historical” lens we can see that Ezekiel 34 is a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah. The promise to David of a descendant who would possess a special favor with God was apprehended by the whole nation and they waited anxiously for the appearing of this Davidic king. The exile, however, dashed their hopes and left them not only without a king, but without a land for a king to rule over. It is from this point on that the messianic promise takes on the form of the prophetic. The prediction of the coming king assures the people that God has not forgotten and will still keep His promise to David. Ezekiel 34 is right in line with these prophecies as the true shepherd of Israel will bring the people back into their own land, put them at rest, and rule over them as God’s appointed representative.

As we move into the final horizon of Scripture, the canonical, we find ourselves wrestling with the connection between the “true Shepherd” and the Lord God Himself. How are these two connected? How can God say, “I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country” (34:13), and still also say, “And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd” (34:23)? Who is going to feed God’s lambs, David or the Lord Himself? The answer to this mild dilemma is resolved in the person of Christ Jesus. For the answer is “both.”

If the chapter as a whole falls in line with the long-standing prophetic traditions pointing to the Messiah, then it points to the man whom we know to be that Messiah. Not David himself, not Solomon, not Hezekiah, but Jesus Christ. In Jesus we find both the descendant of David and the divine being perfectly present. It is, through Christ, both God and David who feed the sheep. Hear the words that our savior uses to describe His own ministry to God’s sheep, the resemblance to Ezekiel 34 is unparalleled:

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. (John 10:14-18)

Note that Jesus calls Himself the “good shepherd,” in obvious contrast to the evil shepherds. Those evil shepherds of Ezekiel 34 who fatten themselves up while the sheep starve. This “good shepherd” is in stark contrast to the hired hands who “sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (John 10:12-13).

Viewing scripture along this third and final horizon allows us to go back and read Ezekiel 34 from this side of the cross. What Ezekiel and those of his time saw only in shadow we see in more full light: that Jesus is the Messiah, the true shepherd of God’s sheep. With the words “I am the good shepherd” Jesus resolves the dilemma of how both God and David can tend the lambs. There is only “one shepherd,” and that is Christ, the individual in whom reside both divinity and humanity. He is the God-man, and that is why He is the true shepherd.
In the canonical horizon of scripture we see the beautiful picture of God’s redemptive plan revealed. The true shepherd was not meant to redeem Israel from physical captivity and enslavement, but from spiritual bondage to sin and death. This the shepherd does by laying down His life for the sheep. Ezekiel 34 with its description of restoration, redemption, security, and the covenant of peace points us to the cross of Christ where all these promises find fulfillment. The prophet Ezekiel declares that God will “make with [the sheep] a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.” The question we must ask is how, how will God make this covenant of peace with them?

Covenants were made with the shedding of blood and in them God binds Himself to do something for man. What more beautiful picture do we have of God binding Himself to man, and a covenant being made with the shedding of blood than at the cross? It is at the cross, where the true shepherd laid down His life for the sheep, that we see a covenant of peace established. Here is the fulfillment of what Ezekiel says, “They shall no more be a prey to the nations, nor shall the beasts of the land devour them. They shall dwell securely, and none shall make them afraid” (v. 28). And it is echoed in Jesus’ own sentiments in John 10. There He says:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. (vv. 27-30)

As Ezekiel predicted so Jesus promises: security for the sheep within the folds of God. No wild beast, foreign nation, or scheme of man and Satan can snatch them from the Father’s hand.
Does Ezekiel 34 make you rejoice friends? Do you see in the text the future promise of our restoration, our salvation, our peace and security? This is a text that was intended to give great comfort to a people in physical slavery, to remind them of the hope to come in the messiah. It was a text that pointed toward the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies that had been declared throughout Israel’s history at different times. But God, in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty, included this text in our Bibles so that we would see His plan to redeem us from of old.

God has had a plan to bring sheep who are not of Israel into His folds for a long time, indeed before the foundations of the world even. And all throughout history He has been revealing that plan. As we read Ezekiel 34 we see that nothing would deter God from seeing His plan to full fruition. Let us pause for a moment, then, and consider what astounding grace is displayed here. God inspired chapter 34 of Ezekiel to emphasize the surety of His plan to redeem a sinful, wretched, and offensive people like us. How amazing that we should be called the sheep of God at all, let alone that God should give us this chapter to show how throughout history He was bringing all this to completion in the death of His Son. Let Ezekiel 34 take root in your heart and compel you to rejoice friends.

[1]D.L. Moody, Notes from My Bible. Quoted in William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985). 1061.
[2]Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863).
[3]Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 297-298.
[4]See I.M. Duguid, “Ezekiel.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. ed. Graeme Goldsworthy and D.A. Carson. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000). 230.
[5]Lamar Eugene Cooper, The New American Commentary. Vol. 17. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994). 301.

Contrasting Theologies of Justification: Martin Luther and The Council of Trent

2006-10-23T15:25:00.000-07:00

In October of 1517 Martin Luther had no intention of breaking with the established church. When he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses for discussion to the church door in Wittenberg he was concerned primarily with the practice of selling indulgences. Over the course of the Reformation, however, Luther came to see the point of breaking with the Roman Catholic Church was not simply over indulgences, but over the larger issue of soteriology. For Luther the larger banner of the Reformation was “Justification by Faith Alone,” and it was on this point that he and the church clashed. A contrast of their positions on the role of works in justification follows, as a means to identify the distinguishing marks of Lutheran[1] justification.

Justification by faith alone was a theme which Luther could find in almost any passage of Scripture. In a sermon on the Good Samaritan, in 1536, Luther, speaking of the two parts of Scripture that he saw, said:

I experience indeed that God’s law is holy, right and good, but it is my death…Therefore another part is added, the Gospel, which speaks of consolation and teaches salvation, and whence we are to obtain it, so that the law may be satisfied…Thus when we now come before God the Father and are asked: whether we have also believed and loved God, and have wholly fulfilled the law; then the Samaritan will step forth, Christ the Lord, who carries us lying on his beast, and say: Alas, Father! Although they have not wholly fulfilled thy law, yet I have done so, let this be to their benefit because they believed in me. Thus all saints must do, however holy and pious they may be, they must lay on Christ’s shoulders.[2]

Here was the great distinction between the Reformer’s theology of justification and that of the established church. Luther had no place for works in his soteriology. He wrote, “Good works do not make a man good, but a good man does good works.” [3] The Roman Catholic Church, however, was not convinced of Luther’s position and protested it with great ardor.

The formal response of the church to the reformation came in 1545 at the Council of Trent. The Council made no ambiguous statements about their position on justification. Man was justified before God by both faith and good works, and faith, furthermore, was a progressive work. Chapter IX reveals plainly the reaction the church had to the reformer’s view of justification, they titled this chapter: Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics. It reads:

But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.[4]

It is important to note that this is an argument against Luther and the Reformers. Observe that word “alone”. The document insists that no one is saved by his “confidence…of the remission of his sins…alone.” Had such a statement come from Calvin we could conclude that this was an argument for continuous faith and repentance, and a living out of the Christian life.[5] From a Catholic document, however, it must be understood in light of their broader theological foundation. Faith alone without works may have been a tenet of Reformed and Lutheran theology, but no one, according to the Council of Trent, was saved who rested on this faith alone. They refer to their contrary contemporaries as “heretics” and “schismatics”. And it repeatedly, though falsely, assumes that this new justification doctrine depends on the assurance of the person that he is saved, in other words dependent on “faith alone,” as they mischaracterize it.

The Council of Trent repeatedly defines justification by stating what it is not. In the Canons on Justification we read several of these assertions. Canon VII reads:

If anyone saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the most earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.[6]

If the denial that works dispose one for grace, that is merit one grace, is considered heretical, then it seems rather obvious that the embrace of such teaching would be acceptable. The Canons continue with further revealing comments, such as:

Canon IX: If anyone saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification…let him be anathema.[7]

Canon XI: If anyone saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them…let him be anathema.[8]

The word “co-operate” in Canon IX, and “inherent” are key to understanding the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. It is not that the Catholic Church teaches justification by works; this is a simplistic and erroneous understanding. For the church clearly understands the importance of faith. R.C. Sproul stated correctly when he said that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, “Faith is necessary for justification…but not sufficient.”[9] The word “co-operate” reveals that faith must be accompanied by both the sacraments, and good deeds (see Chapter V, Chapter VI, and Canon XXIV). The word “inherent” points to the Roman Catholic churches denial of total depravity. While the church willingly acknowledges the sinful nature of man, it denies that man’s free will is lost. “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished…let him be anathema.”[10] Inherent within man is an ability for man to dispose himself towards the grace of God, to prepare himself for justification. This is quite distinct from Luther’s theology.

Luther’s teachings on justification are most clearly laid out in his work The Freedom of a Christian (1520). In the address he writes, “faith alone, without works, justifies, frees, and saves.”[11] Again Luther distinguishes between the two parts of scripture and identifies, in this distinction, how justification must be by faith alone.

Here we must point out that the entire Scripture of God is divided into two parts:

commandments and promises…The commandments show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it. They are intended to teach man to know himself, that through them he may recognize his inability to do good and may despair of his own ability…Then, being truly humbled and reduced to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself nothing whereby he may be justified and saved. Here the second part of Scripture comes to our aid, namely, the promises of God…Thus the promises of God give what the commandments of God demand and fulfil [sic] what the law prescribes…It is clear, then, that a Christian has all that he needs in faith and needs no works to justify him.[12]

There was no work that man was capable of doing to please God, Luther points out. It is in believing the promises of God alone that man finds himself, like Abraham, credited with righteousness, that is justified.

The great distinction between the two doctrines came down to an issue of glory for Luther. God must get the glory, he determined, for all of salvation. Preaching from Galatians 3, in a sermon on New Years Day, Luther warned against the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of justification, saying:

Now if God confers his grace because of their works, their careful preparation, Christ must be without significance. What need have they of Christ if they can obtain grace in their own name and by their works? And this doctrine they teach openly; indeed, they defend it with their utmost power and with the Pope’s bulls, condemning a contrary teaching as they very worst heresy. Therefore I have warned, and still warn, all men that the Pope and the universities have cast Christ and the New Testament farther out of the world than ever did the Jews or Turks. Hence the Pope is the true Antichrist, and his high schools are the devil’s own taverns and brothels. What does Christ signify if by effort of my own human nature I can obtain God’s grace? Or, having grace, what more will I desire?[13]

Luther saw the inconsistency in the Catholic Church’s position, and rejected it with a verbal violence like few others had or have since. He did this because he saw what was at stake, not only true salvation, but the very glory of God. The base level of their divergent views came to this: who gets the glory for salvation?

Luther could speak with experience on this subject. In the monastery he had wrestled with the question: How does one become right with God? When he found in the Scriptures that one is justified by faith alone, he determined to defend it with all his might. He had worked and failed to achieve assurance of salvation. “If ever a man got to heaven by his monkary it was I,” he stated. But that monkary left him deflated and despairing, only faith in Christ’s work on his behalf was a sure guarantee for salvation. This Luther vocalized with all his heart; works were no avail only believe Christ. While the Council of Trent espoused faith and works, Luther shouted Justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, plus nothing!

[1] I will use the term Lutheran throughout this paper to refer to the theology of the man himself, Martin Luther. The Lutheran church over the course of history has rejected some of its founder’s doctrines and I do not claim to represent their current teachings.
[2] The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Vol. 3. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). 34.
[3] From Luther’s On the Freedom of a Christian. Quoted in Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1950). 178.
[4] The Cannons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumnical Council of Trent. Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848). 36-37.
[5] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers. (Nashville: Broadman, 1988). 224-228.
[6] Ibid. 45.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 46.
[9] R.C. Sproul “The Importance of Preaching on Justification,” an address delivered at the Together for the Gospel Conference. Delivered April 27, 2006 at the Gault House in Louisville, KY.
[10] Council of Trent. Canon V. 45.
[11] Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian.” In The European Reformations Sourcebook. Ed. Carter Lindberg. (Malden: Blackwell, 2000). 39.
[12] Ibid. 39-40.
[13] Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Vol. 3. 283-84.

Who is the Prodigal Son?

2006-10-08T05:56:00.000-07:00

It is one of the most famous stories in the entire Bible, right up there with Noah and Moses, and only second to the Garden of Eden and the Cross. The Prodigal Son has been borrowed by a number of English authors, and re-told for a number of purposes. But who is the “son” in this account? There are two main interpretations of the parable that Jesus tells: 1) The Prodigal Son is a believer who has for a period of time hardened his heart and runaway from God; and 2) The Prodigal Son is an un-believer who is coming to faith within the story. The differences here are significant and will certainly have implications for ones view of salvation and sanctification. So, which is it? That is the aim of this paper.

Arguments for the Son as a Believer
The story of the Prodigal Son has great sentimental value to many Christians. For in the story they see a God who forgives sins, even when Christians themselves have wandered far from God. There is the notion that God always welcomes them back, no matter what. Such an interpretation is based, primarily, on a view of sanctification that does not assert the necessity of fruit in the Christian life. In this view, anyone who professes salvation in Christ is saved regardless of whether his or her life ever evidences a change. There are others, however, who do not hold to this understanding of sanctification and yet still support this interpretation of the Prodigal Son. Let’s look at the textual evidence they offer.

The first defense offered for this theory is that the Prodigal is the son of the Father. We are not speaking of a stranger, or a hired hand, or a distant relative, but of the immediate son of the Father. This connection would necessitate that the Prodigal is part of the family. If the Father is God, and no one debates this, then it seems that the Prodigal is in the Father’s family, as a son. Furthermore the two previous parables that Jesus tells indicate that the lost sheep is of the flock, and the lost coin belongs to the widow. There is present, in the stories, a relationship of possession: The Father’s Son, the Shepherd’s Sheep, and the Widow’s Coin. Such an interpretation is the one held by the editors and commentators of The New Oxford Annotated Bible. They write, “The parable illustrates God’s grace towards those who rebel and return.”[1] But the interpretation has a few holes.

For starters, the concept of the carnal Christian is not found in scripture. Lewis Sperry Chafer asserts that “the added demand that the unsaved must dedicate themselves to do God’s will in their daily life, as well as to believe upon Christ [is a] confusing intrusion into the doctrine that salvation is conditioned alone upon believing.”[2] His assertion, however, misses the point. It is not simply that the regenerate heart must dedicate itself to do God’s will daily, but, in fact, the regenerate heart will desire to dedicate itself to do God’s will daily. This is confirmed by Paul’s words to the Colossians, who were once “hostile in mind” (1: 21) towards God, but now have “faith in Christ Jesus” (1:3). The heart longs for God once it has been awakened. It is not an issue of placing the burden of obedience on man; obedience is the rightful response to the God whom the redeemed man loves.[3] There are a multitude of other passages that add weight to the argument that good works and obedience are the fruit of genuine conversion (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:6; 1 John 3:9-10; John 14:15, 23; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 2:19).[4]

Secondly, however, is the issue of the textual argument. At first glance this defense seems reasonable. The Prodigal Son may be viewed as a Christian since he is admittedly referred to as the son of the Father, who represents God. This is a viable interpretation of the passage. Provided that one is not simply trying to assert a doctrine of Carnal Christianity, which is elsewhere refuted, this interpretation can be accepted. But, as I aim to show in the next part, it does not follow the best hermeneutic and fails to explain two key phrases in the passage.

Arguments for the Prodigal Son as Unbeliever
Both sides of the argument agree that the main point of the parable is the merciful forgiveness of God. The divergent views arise, however, over the details of the parable. The difficult task in interpreting parables is not to press the analogy too far. In the early church the common practice was to interpret parables allegorically. So Robert Stein writes, “Tertullian… allegorized the parable of the prodigal son…as follows: The elder son represented the Jew who is envious of God’s offer of salvation to the Gentile; the father is God; the younger son is the Christian; the property is the wisdom and natural ability to know God which man possesses as his birthright; the citizen in the far country is the devil; the pigs are demons; the robe is the sonship lost by Adam through his transgression; the ring is Christian baptism; the celebration is the Lord’s Supper; and the fatted calf slain for the celebration is the Savior at the Lord’s Supper.”[5] This is obviously over the top, for none of these connections are made elsewhere in Scripture, nor does the text indicate them.

The keys to good interpretation of parables is multi-faceted, but one important principle is to maintain the distinction between the two types of details in the story. “The task is to distinguish between ‘local color’ (details not meant to carry spiritual meaning) and theologically loaded details (those which do have allegorical significance).”[6] In the parable of the Prodigal Son the relationship between the father and the son is part of the local color. To focus on the Father/Son relationship as the basis for the interpretation of the parable is to over emphasize it. There are a number of alternative arguments that may be derived from this same focus, such as: 1) Jesus is the Son and God is the Father. The Son’s leaving the Father and going into the far county refers to the Cross. The return the celebration represent Christ’s ascension, while the robe, the ring, and the other gifts given to the returned son symbolize His restored position at the right hand of God and the redeemed saints.[7] 2) That the son is all people, since we are all God’s children, and the return to God, and the Father’s forgiveness, are simply evidence of God’s unconditional love for all of humanity, whether they are Christian or not. Needless to say not all the interpretations are right. There is a way, however, to challenge them based on a reading of the two other noteworthy phrases in the text.

The interpretation of the Son as a backslid believer fails to grapple with two key expressions in the text: “‘For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.” The two key expressions here “dead and alive” and “lost and found” are of great significance. Here we have two phrases that Jesus has used elsewhere to identify the spiritual state, not of believers, but of non-believers.

The beginning of the chapter, v. 1-2, identifies the context of the parable. Tax collectors and sinners are drawing near and the Pharisees and scribes are annoyed by this, they “grumble” about it. In light of their grumbling Jesus tells three parables, according to Luke. First, the Parable of the Lost Sheep, second the Parable of the Lost Coin, and then the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In light of the context there is reason to assume certain correlations between the parable and reality, such as: Father = God, Son = sinners coming to God, and the Older Brother = The Pharisees. It also seems logical to conclude that Jesus is referring to spiritual matters in the parable, not simply physical relation. Thus, when we apply a good hermeneutic to the parable we conclude that the Prodigal Son is, not a Christian who was spiritually dead and is now alive (or spiritually lost and now found), but a non-believer coming to God, whom the Father willing forgives and loves. This hermeneutic identifies the obvious connections in the text, maintains the focus of the parable, and adequately applies it to reality (i.e. God welcomes all sinners who repent and turn to Him).

Conclusion
The Prodigal Son is indeed the most beloved parable of the Bible. Yet love for this parable is most commonly connected to the wrong interpretation mentioned above. It seems to me, however, that the correct interpretation amplifies the attractiveness of this parable. It is not simply the Christian, the one who has repented and placed faith in Christ, whom God loves. It is also the wretch, the sinner, the vile “tax collector,” who comes covered in mud and pig filth that the Father loves. It is a testimony to the truth that the Father gladly welcomes all sinners who come to Him, no matter how “dirty” they are. The passage is not meant to tell us anything specific about salvation, but it clearly identifies the love and forgiveness of God in the event of conversion, and this is a truth that we can certainly love.

[1] The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 127, n. 15.
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993). 384.
[3] This is not to say that the redeemed man never sins, nor that he always desires God and obeys Him. There is a distinction which the Bible makes between being Unregenerate, and still struggling with sin. Cf. Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). 106-111.
[4] For further reading see John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005); The Gospel According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Ernest C. Reisinger, Lord & Christ: The Implications of Lordship for Faith and Life. (Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).
[5] Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. (Louisville: WJK, 1994). 45.
[6] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991). 237.
[7] This is an actual interpretation I read from one pastor. There are a number of theological difficulties with this interpretation, however, that go far beyond mere hermeneutics.

Religion and Rationality in the First American Gothic Novel: Charles Brockden Brown's Confrontation with Calvinism on the Fictional Plain

2006-09-15T13:42:00.001-07:00

Post-Puritan America was a completely different world, in many respects, to that of America prior to the Revolution. Now America was free from English rule. Now colonies had been settled and cities were founded. Now the focus was not to be a “city on a hill,” but to be a free republic. The Revolution brought about the creation and fruition of many new ideas, and along with that result the end of other ones.

John Murrin, professor of history at Princeton University, writes, “By the late eighteenth century, the churches were no longer the only official spokesmen for public values. They had rivals” (Noll ed., Religion and American Politics, 26). One of these rivals was classical liberalism; a philosophy that said, “society will be much better off if individuals are left free to pursue their self-interests with minimal governmental restraint” (27). This was certainly a philosophy at odds with the church, which believed that man was totally depraved and corrupt and needed discipline and God’s grace. The spokesmen for this new philosophy were John Locke in America, and David Hume and John Stuart Mill in Europe, the latter both being atheists. Humanism and the principles of the Enlightenment were now waging war against religion.

In the early days of settlement that old world religion, Calvinism, was the dominate force. America, at its founding, was full of Calvinist Protestants. Loraine Boettner writes, “It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution … 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed” (382). American Historian Bancroft records, in his multi-volume History of the U.S., that the Pilgrim Fathers were “Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system” (qtd. in Boettner, 463). By the death of Jonathan Edwards in 1758, however, Calvinism was on a rapid decline. Mark Noll comments, “By the second half of the eighteenth century, some theologians and popular preachers turned away from what seemed a rigid exclusivism to a more merciful and encompassing universalism” (A Documentary History of Religion in America to 1877, 252). Universalism, Unitarianism, and deism broke forth onto the scene to challenge the orthodox views of historic Calvinism. Men like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, and Thomas Paine, began to teach rationalism over religion. Adams writing to Jefferson in 1813 said, “Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our witts; might scare us to death; might induce us to lie; to say that we believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary” (qtd. in A Documentary History, 269). Where men like Jonathan Edwards saw religion and reason as friends, others were now professing a dichotomy.

This is the culture background in which the first American Gothic novelist, Charles Brockden Brown, lived and wrote. He was born in 1777 to Quaker parents just outside of Philadelphia. Though his family had a religious background, being connected to the George Fox heresy that started Quakerism in North America, he would grow away from this past. By 1798 both Brown and America had come to stand at odds with their Puritan past, and it is during this year that we find the novel Wieland, a work that expresses the growing battle between the rational and the religious.

That Brown’s theme in this novel is religion can be identified from the very outset of the work. In the very opening of the work we are brought face to face with the religious zeal of the Senior Wieland. He is a convert to the Huguenot sect known as the Camissards, a group possessing some Calvinistic tendencies. The manner in which he becomes a convert as well reveals some of the criticisms that Brown has against religion.

Upon finding a book that detailed the beliefs and history of the Camissards the older Wieland begins to study and become enraptured by it. We read:

“He now supplied himself with candles, and employed his nocturnal and Sunday hours in studying this book. It, of course, abounded with allusions to the Bible. All its conclusions were deduced from the sacred text. This was the fountain, beyond which it was unnecessary to trace the stream of religious truth; but it was his duty to trace it thus far” (Brown, 8).

Brown continues with the narrative, “Ideas foreign to this were sedulously excluded. To suffer their intrusion was a crime against the Divine Majesty inexpiable but by days and weeks of the keenest agonies” (9).

From the very beginning religion stands as crucial to the plot of the work. Not only that, however, we see also this underlining theme that Brown is writing about: the irrationalism of religion. Senior Wieland saw no need for examining more closely the truths of the Bible; he took them at face value without doubt or questioning. Furthermore he avoided all contrary thoughts and considered them a dangerous sin that could only be forgiven through weeks of self-inflicted pain. Brown’s point is made clear: religious fanaticism leads to illogic.

As the plot progresses we are confronted with more evidence for this contrast between the rational and religious. After the death of their parents both the Wieland children are taken in by an aunt and are raised upon the foundations and principles of the Enlightenment. Clara informs her readers, “Our education had been modeled by no religious standard. We were left to the guidance of our own understanding, and the casual impressions which society might make upon us” (Brown, 21). Theodore, the younger Wieland, resembled his father in many ways, “but the mind of the son was enriched by science, and embellished with literature” (22). The temple too bears the marks of this change. It was “no longer assigned to its ancient use” (22). It is, instead, now a place for discussion and revelry among the circle of friends at Mettigen, “a place of resort in the evenings of summer” (22). It is filled with a harpsichord, a pedestal, and a bust of Cicero, as one author notes, “Enlightenment trappings that symbolize a rejection of the austere Protestantism” (Gilmore, 107). Religion has been displaced in the Wieland family just as it was being displaced in the public square in the time of the author.

Throughout the whole development and acceptance of the Constitution in the early republic, religion was being displaced. Murrin again notes, “The Revolution…liberated an important group of men from the constraints of orthodoxy long enough for them to draft the constitutions and bills of rights at both the state and federal levels” (35). The New England minister Timothy Dwight knew this as well, when he said in 1812, “We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of God” (qtd. in Religion and American Politics, 34). Jefferson’s godlessness further pulled people in different directions when he became president. His words of “wisdom” to his nephew clearly represent this, “one should read the Bible as one would any other book, accepting what is edifying and rejecting what is fantastic” (qtd. in Religion and American Politics, 32). Entering into a friendship with the Wieland children are Catherine, who becomes Theodore’s wife, and her brother Pleyel, who represents the voice of reason in the work. Clara’s comparison of the two boys further exemplifies the battle that Brown is pointing to:

My brother and [Pleyel] were endowed with the same attachment to the Latin writers; and Pleyel was not behind his friend in his knowledge of the history and metaphysics of religion. Their creeds, however, were in many respects opposite. Where one discovered only confirmations of his faith, the other could find nothing but reasons for doubt. Moral necessity, and Calvinistic inspiration, were the props on which my brother thought proper to repose. Pleyel was the champion of intellectual liberty, and rejected all guidance but that of his reason (Brown, 23).

The quote clearly contrasts faith with “intellectual liberty” and “Calvinistic inspiration” with “reason”.

Even at these early stages in his life we find the younger Wieland, like the senior, becoming focused with the specifics of religion. His father’s conversion made him a private devout and even compelled him for some time to be a missionary to the Native Americans (an element that Brown probably developed from having read of The Diary of David Brainerd, an actual Calvinist missionary to the Indians). The senior Wieland, however, does not fulfill this mission and for it, he believes, God will punish him. Clara reports the details just prior to his bizarre death; she writes:

When he deigned to be communicative, he hinted that his peace of mind was flown, in consequence of deviation from his duty. A command had been laid upon him, which he had delayed to perform. He felt as if a certain period of hesitation and reluctance had been allowed him, but that this period was passed (12).

This death would bear heavily upon the children. Clara says, speaking of herself, “The impressions that were then made upon me, can never be effaced” (17-18). For Theodore the event was even more traumatic. “His father’s death was always regarded by him as flowing from a direct and supernatural decree. It visited his meditations oftener than it did mine. The traces which it left were more gloomy and permanent” (33). That he saw his father’s death as a divine judgment has great significance to the plot, for Theodore’s fear of a similar fate begins to altar the state of his mind.

Clara also has a role in revealing the dichotomy of religion and reason. She is no mere objective observer, not simply the storyteller. Within Clara’s own mind readers find an internal battle between these two elements. She is struggling with the acceptance of the supernatural. From the very moment of her father’s death she wrestles with the possibility of God’s intervening in human affairs. She writes:

Was this the penalty of disobedience? This the stroke of a vindictive and invisible hand? Is it a fresh proof that the Divine Ruler interferes in human affairs, mediates an end, selects and commissions his agents, and enforces, by unequivocal sanctions, submission to his will? Or, was it merely the irregular expansion of the fluid that imparts warmth to our heart and blood, caused by the fatigue of the preceding day, or flowing by established laws, from the condition of his thoughts (18)?

This struggle continues. When she finds out that Pleyel, the voice of reason, has now heard voices, which she herself has heard, she writes:

I am at a loss to describe the sensations that affected me. I am not fearful of shadows. The tales of apparitions and enchantments did not possess that power over my belief which could even render them interesting. I saw nothing in them but ignorance and folly, and was a stranger even to that terror which is pleasing. But this incident was different from any that I had ever before known. Here were proofs of a sensible and intelligent existence, which could not be denied. Here was information obtained and imparted by means unquestionably super-human (42-43).

She had always been skeptical of the miraculous, but she is now wrestling with the plausibility of what is being presented to her. Her mind longs to accept the logical but for moments the religious seems to be logical. The development of this character is a key representative of the state of America during Brown’s life. America was caught between the Christianity and “intellectual liberty”. Murrin testifies to this state, “Jefferson and Madison along with George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and nearly all of the Founding Fathers claimed to be Christians; but, by virtually any standard of doctrinal orthodoxy, hardly any of them was” (29). Their confession did not match the Confession of the church, nor did it match that one of the Bible. The displacement was happening but there were some nagging feelings to deal with; thus Deism was a way to compromise religion to fit more comfortably with the complete autonomy of man. God could exist, but He was not a being to intervene in the affairs of man.
It is not entirely clear that these were the convictions of Charles Brockden Brown, but his personal letters reveal a hint at what he thought of religion, and Christianity in particular.

Sidney J. Krause, in her article “Charles Brockden Brown and the Philadelphia Germans,” quotes from one of Brown’s personal letters, in it he says, “I really think Christianity, that is, the belief of the divinity of Christ and future retribution, have been pernicious to mankind” (88). Despite his religious affiliation as a child growing up in Quaker Pennsylvania, Brown had developed a bias against Christianity. Just two years before this publication he found proof for that “pernicious” nature of Christianity.

James Yates, an Irishman from New York, was reported, in 1796, to have slaughtered his wife, four children, and attempted twice to murder his sister all on religious grounds. The Yates account is the “authentic case” which Brown refers to in his advertisement. It was the basis for the character of Theodore Wieland, who does exactly as his real life counterpart did. The parallel is undeniably obvious. Both men kill wives and children (even the same number of children), and make two unsuccessful attempts to kill their sisters; and both confessed to be serving their deity by doing so. It is debated as to whether or not the Yates murders were an actual historical event, but there were real enough for Brown. They confirmed his fears about religion, “[Christianity has] created war and engendered hatred, [and entailed] inexpressible calamities on mankind” (qtd. in Krause, 88).

Brown was not alone in his fears. Though perhaps not as many were directly targeting Christianity, many were targeting Calvinism and others were targeting the various Protestants sects thriving in areas like Philadelphia (Brown’s place of residence). During and after the war Quakerism was under great suspicion. Because of their religious convictions the Quakers did not condone the war and refused to support it. This put them under hard criticism and some even accused them of being spies for the British or the French. Germantown in Pennsylvania welcomed a British victory at the early stages of the war and for that they had been labeled “subversive”. Fear of religious sects in particular was growing. Brown expresses that fear clearly when he makes the plot revolve around a German family living in Philadelphia, and converts of a Protestant sect. His intention is to expose the dangers of religious fanaticism, and this he does most vividly in that climatic action of the younger Wieland.

Clara records her brother’s own personal testimony concerning the murders. Wieland prays to his God aloud, saying, “Have I not sufficiently attested my faith and my obedience? She that is gone [Catherine, his wife], they that have perished [his children], were linked with my soul by ties which only thy command would have broken…” (143). These actions are a long way from “love thy neighbor as thyself,” but Brown cares very little that this is an extremist and un-Orthodox belief. The point is not the brand of religion but the distortion of his thoughts that belief in it has caused.

In drawing conclusions about Wieland’s mental state, however, it is necessary to deal with the character Carwin. Carwin plays the role, rather indirectly, of the instigator in these affairs. His ventriloquism has sparked the confidence in supernatural voices in Theodore. Thus to deal with Theodore’s insanity one must begin with Carwin’s trickery.

Brown composes what he believes is a conceivable cause to Theodore’s hearing the voice of God. Through means of Carwin’s ventriloquism Wieland begins to believe that he is hearing voice and eventually one of those voices is the very voice of God. Carwin, of course, did not intend to drive the young man mad, or to cause him to kill his family. He says, “Great heaven! What have I done? I think I know the extent of my offences. I have acted, but my actions have possibly effected more than I designed,” and, “I intended no ill” (Brown, 181). Despite his intentions, however, Wieland has been driven mad by the mysterious occurrences at Mettigen. Yet while these deeds may have been sparked by Carwin’s trickery, they have their roots in Wieland’s own fanaticism and religious zeal. Were he not so compelled to stand upon the foundations of “Calvinistic inspiration” he might have properly deduced the cause of these voices. If not he would at least have considered more properly the slaughtering of innocent individuals.
It was the constant remembrance of his father’s death, and the fear that should he not be an obedient servant to the deity he would meet with the same fate, that led him to do that heinous act. He murdered his wife and children as a sacrifice, like Abraham would have murdered Isaac. His mind, however, in all of this was not well.

For a moment he is restored to sanity, Clara says, “Did my ears truly report these sounds? If I did not err, my brother was restored to just perceptions. He knew himself to have been betrayed to the murder of his wife and children, to have been the victim of infernal artifice…” (208). Wieland himself confesses, “I was indeed deceived” (209). This moment, however, does not last and soon he has a re-lapse to insanity. “Clara, thy death must come. This minister is evil, but he from whom his commission was received is God. Submit then with all thy wonted resignation to a decree that cannot be reversed or resisted” (209). If the author of this work wished to show the capability of religion to distort the faculties of reason and judgment he has done so in this one scene. Even upon hearing a confession from Carwin’s own lips, “it is too true…The contrivance was mine” (203), he still returns to the notion of divine mandate. In such a scene Brown argues relentlessly that religion has serious and damaging effects on the capacity for the brain to function rationally. Even after explanations, revelations of trickery, and personal confessions Theodore still is not fully convinced. God has ordained the murdering of his sister, regardless of Carwin’s involvement, and so Wieland aims to fulfill his duty to that greater being and to slay the one he loves. It is illogic at the highest and most dangerous degree.

Krause argues in her analysis that Brown’s reference to German religious wars further exemplifies his fear of the immigrants now on the verge of dominating the population in Philadelphia. These references, however, also offer support to the interpretation that Brown was writing to caution America about religious fanaticism. After discovering that there is land in Lusatia, Germany, which has now fallen to Theodore through primogeniture, Pleyel begins attempting to convince the younger Wieland to take hold of this land. Clara explains: “The Prussian Wars had destroyed those persons whose right to these estates precluded my brother’s” (36). According to Krause the war in question here is the Seven Years War. A battle which pitted mostly Germans and English Protestants against French Catholics; a religious war. This religious war took the lives of several members of Wieland’s extended family just as his own religious convictions would take the lives of the members of his immediate family. For Brown religion’s ability to “engender hatred” and to “create war” was supported from a historical standpoint.

The evidence could continue, but the weightiness of this argument seems sufficiently represented. For Charles Brockden Brown religion was the illogic that led to destruction. History proved it, events in the surrounding Philadelphia and New York demonstrated it, and his novel warned against it. Calvinism specifically and religion in general was the real horror of this gothic novel, and Brown wrote to strike a fear in his readers. If Jonathan Edwards was attempting to “preach hell into his” audience, Brown was trying to reason it out of them.

Pilate's Postmodern Question: A Paper in Speculative Historical/Contextual Reconstructive Anlysis

2006-09-13T19:53:00.000-07:00

“What is truth?” Such a question is probably assumed by most people today to come from that young postmodernist. That person who denies objectivity, denies the overarching metanarrative of life. That person who believes in only stories, only interpretations, not in truth.[1] But the question, however, did not come first from the postmodernists of our age; it came from the “postmodernist” of Jesus’ age. It was the question of Pontius Pilate to our Savior. A closer look at Pilate’s postmodern question, however, does reveal something to us about his Postmodernist descendants today; it is, therefore, worth our investigation.

The year was A.D. 33. Pilate had been warned, presumably, about the man Jesus and the Jewish authority’s reaction to him and his teachings. It was probably not until the evening of Friday April 3rd , however, that he was affected by it. The Jewish Sanhedrin had brought the man Jesus of Nazareth before the governor to be put to death. Pilate, however, sought to give Jesus a confidential hearing first. Taking his cue from Scripture Paul L. Maier has written a historical fiction piece on Pilate, he records their exchange as thus:

“Are you king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “How do you plead?”
Jesus looked up at him. “Do you ask this of your own accord, or did others tell it to you concerning me?”
“What! Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have brought you before me. What have you done?”
“My kingship is not of this world. If it were, my followers would fight to defend me. But my authority as king comes from elsewhere.”
“So? You are a king, then?”
“It is as you say, that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.”
“A kingship of truth, you say?” Pilate asked quizzically. “What is truth?”
What was truth indeed, Pilate reflected. As a child he had believed in the mythological gods and goddesses, only to repudiate them as a thinking adult. Truth used to be the word of Sejanus, yet Sejanus was a liar. Once he could swear by the nobility of Rome, but that city murdered innocent children and flung them into the Tiber. Truth was Roman state, yet now the Senate itself could not trust the princeps, nor he the Senate.[2]

The exchange, though somewhat fictional, does reveal something important to us about Pilate: his skepticism. The story that Maier has written describes a Pilate who has become disenchanted with the Glory of Rome. Though history records for us that Pilate was, in truth, a vicious and cruel man,[3] there may be some plausibility to Maier’s assessment. In considering what compelled Pilate to initially hand Jesus over to Herod Antipas, H.W. Hoehner suggests that it may be connected to the failures of Pilate’s mentor Senjanus.

If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33, the removal of Pilate’s mentor Sejanus, and his failure to ingratiate himself with the emperor, may have broken Pilate’s backbone and left him fighting for political survival. He might then have handed Jesus over to Herod Antipas in order to prevent Herod from making another unfavorable report to Tiberius as he had done within the last few months…Herod Antipas took no action and handed Jesus back to Pilate so that Pilate could gain no advantage, for Herod also had been a friend of Sejanus.[4]

The man Sejanus was the sole commander of the Praetorian Guard during the reign of Emperor Tiberius, but his greed and thirst for more power led him to plot against the emperor, who upon discovering the plot had Sejanus put to death in A.D. 31. After Sejanus’ arrest Tiberius began a further investigation of the conspiracy. The investigation would have, undoubtedly, put Pilate on edge, since he himself was a friend of Sejanus. Perhaps it was for this reason that he sent Jesus to Herod, to avoid making the wrong decision, and drawing the attention to himself, and to avoid upsetting Herod (whom he had already done so, by killing a group of Galileans over whom Herod governed, cf. Luke 13:1). Whether or not Pilate was ever “enchanted” with Rome and was now “disenchanted,” cannot be stated, but a skepticism connected with the fall of Sejanus may be conceivable.

Expediency was most likely the motivation of Pilate’s actions. Again Hoehner writes, “Pilate is described by his contemporary Philo, and later by Josephus, as being one who was greedy, inflexible, cruel, and who resorted to robbery and oppression.”[5] He was a pragmatic man; for him truth was what achieved the desired results. If killing and stealing brought him what he desired, then it was right. It’s a life philosophy that is echoed in our modern expression, “The end justifies the means.” He had done things in his term that brought a great deal of condemnation down upon him, from Herod Antipas, Herod’s sons, from the Emperor himself, and from the Jews of Palestine as well. Many riots and slaughters were the result of Pilate’s pragmatism.

Now with the fall of Sejanus, and the investigation nipping at his heels, Pilate’s expediency only increased. Perhaps he gave Jesus, a Galilean, over to Herod to save his own skin. Perhaps he conceded to the Jews demands for Jesus’ crucifixion because some were shouting, “If you release this man you are no friends of Caesar’s,” a rumor, no matter how absurd, which Pilate could not risk. For a man such as this truth has no reference. The commentators of the ESV Reformation Study Bible write, “Truth does not matter to those who, like Pilate, are motivated by expediency.”[6]

There have been a number of interpretations of Pilate’s response to Jesus: “What is truth?” So D.A. Carson assesses the question as “curt and cynical,” and furthermore that Pilate “abruptly turns away, either because he is convinced there is no answer, or, more likely, because he does not want to hear it.”[7] Herman Ridderbos passingly qualifies the reaction as Pilate “shrugging his shoulders.”[8] R. Kent Hughes assesses that involved in the response is more emotional distress on the part of Pilate.

“What is truth?” Pilate asked (v.38). It is important to grasp the tone of these famous words. I think Francis Bacon misunderstood when he wrote, “‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.” Pilate was not joking. He was sarcastic perhaps, but unsmiling, and whatever his exterior countenance, he was confused and despairing…in that moment he was arrested by his wife’s spiritual premonition and the mystical authority of Christ. But we know he did not truly want an answer because he did not wait for one.[9]

While one may rightly wonder where Hughes discovers the intricacies of the internal struggle of Pilate, he does share some interpretation with the author of this paper. He continues:

He was a materialist, hungrily pursuing the fantasies of power, celebrity status, and sensual satisfaction…Pilate exemplifies the modern man. On the simplest level, his is the cry of the modern world. Television in Hong Kong, Bangkok, or Chicago is all the same- materialism and sensuality. I recall a Philippine commercial given in sonorous tone urging Filipinos to watch Dallas, saying it was relevant to the common challenges in Philippine life. With his “What is truth?” Pilate stood transparent before Christ, as does the whole world.[10]

With real candor Hughes has brought us to the real manner in which Pilate’s question is a bridge between two different worlds. The postmodernists of today find a great similarity in their pursuits and those of Pilate’s. The question of truth is not so much an epistemological question, if it were Pilate would have stayed to hear Jesus’ response, but the verse reads, “Pilate said to him ‘What is truth?’ After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews…” No the question was not about knowledge. Hughes may be right in supposing that there was some real genuine distress in Pilate’s soul, as there undoubtedly is for a number of postmodernists, but the true nature of the reaction was a verbal attack. Pilate was not really inquiring about the nature of true reality, he was re-acting against the notion of objective authority; such is also the case for postmodernism in our own age.

Man, in all ages, rejects the notion of an objective authority which has the right to tell him what to do and how to live. The postmodernist has attempted to resolve this issue by simply disposing with the notion of objectivity. Pilate was a man, as has been stated, of pragmatism, materialism, and self-promotion. As everything came tumbling down around him, perhaps even the thought of arrest, trial, and death confronted him, he was afraid. His political career was turning into a sham, and his power and authority were almost dwindled away, if ever a there was a time for his expediency it was now. Jesus responses shook Pilate on, undoubtedly, multiple levels, and his reaction was a firm resistance to any notion of objectivity, of judgment.

Pilate was a modern man in many ways. His question is shockingly similar both in construct and grammar, and in veiled meaning to that of the postmodernist in 2006. But there is a lesson to learn for us today. Christ before Pilate spoke of His spiritual kingdom. He had been handed over to be crucified just as He had predicted, He was raised from the dead, just as he predicted, and now we await the fulfillment of his other great prediction: His Second Coming. Christ has shown again and again that there is objectivity, and He is that objective authority and judge. To resist truth now, like Pilate then, is to wrestle with the coming King. What is truth? Christ is truth, and we will all one day see it clearly.

[1] Which of course is a self-contradictory belief.
[2] Paul L. Maier, Pontius Pilate. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968).219-220.
[3] Philo, Legaio ad Gaium. 299-305. Josephus, Antiquities. 55-89.
[4] H.W. Hoehner, “Pontius Pilate.” The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed. Joel B. Green, Scott McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992). 616.
[5] Ibid. 615.
[6] ed. R.C. Sproul, The Reformation Study Bible. (Lake Mary: Ligonier, 2005). 1549. fn. 18:38.
[7] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). 595.
[8] Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). 596.
[9] R. Kent Hughes, John: That You May Believe. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999). 426.
[10] Ibid.

An Unsung Hero: A Biographical Sketch of Francis Dunlevy, an Early Baptist Leader in Ohio

2006-09-08T16:05:00.000-07:00

Not every godly man will be remembered. Of course this is true because many are simply average men who serve the Lord in their day-to-day lives and not anything even coming close to a Martin Luther or a Jonathan Edwards. Thankfully none of these men are ever to be forgotten by God, a great joy to those of us who are average and less than average. But there are some men from our history who should be recovered for what they can teach us. Particularly in Baptist life there has been a resurgence of interest, and many have been working hard to uncover our roots and key figures from our past. Most of these individuals come from the New England areas, or from the Southern states (or from our English Baptist forebears), but for the Ohioan too there is a Baptist hero. It is this great early Baptist leader in Southern Ohio that serves as the subject of this article.

The great Baptist preacher, and statesman, Francis Wayland was once asked why it was that the Baptists had such success in establishing churches on the American frontier. His answer: “Because they do not ask for permission.” Wayland was noting an important feature of Baptist polity. Baptists adhere to congregational rule, which means, among other things, that no bishop or pope, or institution must give us permission to establish churches and organize congregations. While the Presbyterians and Congregationalists were back east deciding on where and how to establish churches on the expanding western frontier, the Methodists and the Baptists forged ahead to meet the religious needs of those pioneering the trail. As Americans moved west they were matched in pace by Baptists.

The early colonialists had landed on the eastern coast, settling first in Virginia and then in Massachusetts and Connecticut, but it did not take long for mild expansion to begin. Early on these moves were the result of religious conflicts within the already existing communities. The first three colonies were led by strict Presbyterians and any divergence from that system of theology was considered illegal and subversive. It was not as though they were being legalists, or even unnecessarily dogmatic. I do not want to paint a picture of vicious Presbyterianism, though in any study of Baptist life there will be some degree of this. The colonists were Puritans who had come over to America from England, fleeing religious persecution, this fact most readily recognize (and it is what makes their dogmatism so ironic). Yet they were not simply coming to set up a community of free religion, but coming to set up a “City on a hill,” which they hoped would be a beacon light to their brothers in England as to what the true church was. To this end they could not tolerate deviation. So they imprisoned, fined, and even expelled both Baptists and Quakers from their communities. The latter of these two groups established a separate colony in Western New Jersey to practice their religion in peace; following in their footsteps was the Quaker covert from England, William Penn, who established the religiously free state of Pennsylvania.

By the time of Jonathan Edwards’ death in 1759 Baptists had already had a rich history in the U.S. They had been bold defenders of the “purest faith,” and had suffered for the faithful obedience to God’s word. Both Quakers and Baptists received harsh persecution from the rest of the colonialists, though not all. In 1651 Obadiah Holmes and John Clarke were arrested and severely beaten for simply being Baptists in Massachusetts. It was a rich history indeed. Baptist separatism in America life begins with a man by the name of Roger Williams. It was in the late 1630s when Williams, after enduring the hardships of persecution himself, left the Puritan colonies and moved North to establish the town of Providence, Rhode Island, so named because he believed God had providentially led him there. Historian Justo L. Gonzalez speaks plainly about Baptist growth in early America:

The Baptist movement spread throughout the colonies, even though its followers were persecuted in several of them. Entire congregations were expelled from Massachusetts. This did not suffice to stop the supposed contagion, which reached some of the most prestigious members of that society- including the president of Harvard. Slowly, as religious tolerance became more common, Baptist groups surfaced in every colony.[1]

As Baptists moved across the nation they eventually found their way to Ohio; in fact, Ohio was settled long before the major movement of expansion westward, in 1788 near Marietta. Two main groups furthered the Ohio settling: 1) The Welsh, and 2) the German. The former was owing most likely to the work of Baptist minister Morgan John Rhys. Rhys was a Welshman who in 1794, after establishing a “Beulah Land” in Ebensburgh in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, set up sister colonies in Central and Southwestern Ohio. It was led, in the late 18th century, by Ezekiel Hughes and Edward Bebb, and founded near the newly formed town of Cincinnati. Many of its members eventually continued the westward progression and settled in the fertile Miami Valley.[2] It was in this area of the Miami Valley that we come upon our subject.

Francis Dunlevy had come to Ohio in 1792, around the same time as the Welsh settlers from Pennsylvania. He was not Welsh, however. His ancestors were Spanish Protestants who fled to France during the Catholic persecutions. His father, Anthony, was born in Ireland and from there would make his way to the New World, settling in Virginia around 1745. It was here, in Winchester, that young Francis was born, on a cool morning in 1761. He was the son of Anthony Dunlevy and Hannah White, and the eldest of four sons and four daughters to that couple. It seems that the couple had a strong spirituality in their home. Little may be discovered about the specifics of that god-centered home, but Anthony’s grandson tells us that he was a “zealous and rigid Presbyterian.”[3] The persecutions which his own family had suffered, just two generations prior to his birth, convicted him to be all the more serious about the faith for which his fathers had risked their lives. Hannah White was no the less zealous for the Christian faith, for she was descended from the Scottish Covenanters, a sorely oppressed protestant people throughout the 17th century, many of whom fled to North America. It was their desire that young Francis, being the fist born, should go to school and be trained for the ministry. This was their intention but in 1776 revolution broke out and the war took precedence over all other life in colonial America. At the age of fourteen, Francis joined in the fray.

Anthony had previously decided to move his family from Winchester to twest of the Allegheny Mountains, it was 1772 and at the time such a location was considered Western Virginia. The drawing of the Mason Dixon Line, however, placed the family in Pennsylvania and quite mortified the Dunleavys; they were not Pennsylvanians, they were Virginians! Their new home not only removed them from Virginia, the home of their hearts, but it placed them right on the frontier settlement throughout the Revolutionary War. Repeated invasions from Indians meant that every able-bodied man and boy was to serve in either longer or shorter campaigns. Francis was not old enough that he was yet required to serve in the military, but when his neighbor, who had a family to look after, was called to serve, Francis offered to go in his stead. It was a genuine act of kindness form so young a man. But Francis was not only kind; he was also a skilled soldier.

He had been raised in the backwoods and knew well how to fire a gun, and, according to reports, he handled hardships with steadfastness. Such skill earned him the privilege of serving in five other campaigns from the years 1776 to 1782. At Crawford’s Defeat in 1782 he and two other men found themselves on the far Western flank of the conflict. A.H. Dunlevy reports:
[He] was engaged in conflict with the Indians until dark, [and] when the army retreated, he was left with but one or two more, to make their way, as best they could, from Sandusky plains to Pittsburg, [sic] through an Indian country. As the Indians, in large numbers, pursued Crawford’s retreating army, it was impossible fore those separated to join the army, as the enemies’ forces intercepted them.[4]

Young Francis’ military record is impressive. He helped build Fort McIntosh, the first fort on the Northwest side of the Ohio River; and also assisted in erecting the first block-house at Mt. Pleasant. Far more impressive for the Christian, however, will be the record of Christian faithfulness that Francis Dunlevy left behind.

Finally peace came to rest upon the nation in 1783, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Schools eventually opened back up and Francis finally pursued the education his parents had envisioned for him, joining Dickson College in that year to prepare for the ministry. He was an excellent student, and possessed an acute ability to learn. He made rapid progress as a student, specifically in the sciences, and was eligible for graduation earlier than the normal undergraduate program allowed, but he declined the diploma. “My term has been too short,” he said. His son tells us he had no desire for titles and so he remained at Dickson for possibly a whole second term.[5] Upon graduation he returned to Winchester to attend divinity school. His professor here would be not only his uncle, but one of the nation’s most highly esteemed theologians, James Hodge. Speaking before Congress, John Randolph is known to have said of Hodge that since his death he had never heard the gospel preached in its purity.[6]

While at divinity school Francis devoted himself to the faithful study of the scriptures. He poured over the words of the Bible for several hours a day and in so doing two important changes occurred in his life. Nothing is known of the time of his conversion, or even how old he was when he came to saving faith. But beyond that event the following two events were the most significant in his spiritual life. First, it was while studying the Bible that Francis was almost at once confronted by the absence of teaching on both paedobaptism and sprinkling. He had grown up as a Presbyterian and all through the years that he was under his father he was told that immersion was fully denied in the New Testament. He could not escape, however, what was right before his eyes. It seemed that the Acts of the Apostles never once commended the former, but in practice fully advocated the “dreaded Baptist view”. Dunlevy was the type of man who when confronted with the truth was resolved, no matter what, to take the right recourse. He was compelled, his son tells us, by his conscience to become a Baptist. This first change in theology horrified his parents and younger siblings, who, undoubtedly, tried to persuade him of the former position, but Dunlevy knew what he had read and could not be moved. The decision affected his relations for a short while but after time the wounds seemed to have healed and eventually Francis even joined his family as they left Virginia for Kentucky.

The second great theological shift in Dunlevy’s life came as he studied more closely the particulars of the pastoral office. The description of the office was so high and so serious that it somewhat scared Dunlevy. Like that young monk, Martin Luther, who had been so afraid to offer the cup at his first mass, for God was holy and just and he was nothing more than a pigmy, so Dunlevy felt himself quite unworthy for the pastorate. “He became convinced that unless called of God, as was Aaron, he ought not to officiate in holy things.”[7] Dunlevy, giving a second major blow to his parents, abandoned his plans for preaching, and took to becoming a teacher. He believed that he did not posses either the gifts or the calling to be a pastor and again felt compelled by right conscience that he could not do the ministry.

His classical school in Virginia became of some acclaim, producing several distinguished scholars and future lawyers. He remained a teacher there until in 1790 he moved with his father’s family to Washington, Kentucky. The land which his father bought there was sold to him falsely and after a short period the family was forced to return to Virginia, and for the first time in his life Dunlevy separated from them; he remained to find a new residence. His reasons for doing so were fully impacted by the issues of slavery, which were increasingly coming to the foreground of American life.

By 1776 the Quakers expunged their communities of all those who insisted on holding slaves. A few years later at the Christmas Conference of 1784 the American Methodist society was founded, making them officially distinct from the Anglican Methodists (who had originally planted the churches in America), and it maintained that no members were permitted to hold slaves. Joining the likes of these two groups were a number of Baptists. Dunlevy had for sometime felt strong convictions about the immorality of slavery, and when the ordinance of 1787 outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory Dunlevy was resolved to settle within its bounds. In looking for a school Francis was driven towards Columbia near Cincinnati. Here, with the help of a fellow by the name of John Reily, Dunlevy opened the first good school in Butler County.

He had exceptional skills as a scholar. I have already mentioned with what rapid speed he was able to accomplish his undergraduate studies. Knowing this about him it seems only right that the people of Ohio would call on him to serve. He was twice a member of the legislature of Ohio, and even served on the committee to write the first constitution of that state when it was admitted to the union in 1803. Following this he was a member of the first state legislature and eventually became the presiding judge for the court of common pleas, an office he held for fourteen years. He took his job very seriously, and though he had to cross two major rivers, he never missed court, in all of fourteen years, more than once. In fact, so dedicated was he to his job, that he never hesitated to simply swim the rivers, even at major flood seasons. Records tell us that he was quite an exquisite swimmer and while others wouldn’t dare to cross the rivers in flood season, Dunlevy never hesitated to swim across.

After his term as presiding judge came to a close Dunlevy continued in the legal realm as a lawyer. For more than ten years he made a name for himself as a lawyer, even taking cases in the surrounding areas of Columbia. All of these facts point to an honorable man, but none in particular warrant his recovery for Ohio Baptists. Why talk about Francis Dunlevy? The significance of Francis Dunlevy for Ohio Baptists is found in the last eight years of the man’s life. After retiring from the business of the courts Dunlevy spent his days mostly in the chair in his den reading, he had an “unconquerable love of books,” mostly religious in nature and, primarily, the Bible. The man’s knowledge of the scriptures was stellar. He had an astute memory and could, in any conversation, call to his mind a passage of scripture, which spoke to the issue being discussed. He studied and read from both an English translation and a Latin, which he was very fond of reading. The man’s knowledge of theology and, Scripture in particular, made it easy for him to detect the slightest inaccuracies in a man’s preaching or a Christian’s confession.

Upon his arrival to Ohio in 1792 he immediately joined up with the Baptist Church of Columbia and later moved his membership to the Baptist church in Lebanon. At the latter he stood as a gentle but firm defender for the missionary enterprise. As I have said, Dunlevy had a profundity in the Scriptures, and this helped him to identify certain theological movements. So in 1801-02 he assessed the “New Light” revivals of Kentucky as a form of Shakerism and warned his friends of it. In the anti-missionary movement, which was sweeping Baptist life on both sides of the Atlantic, Francis warned his congregation that it was nothing more than antinomianism.

Hyper-Calvinism, as it would later come to be called, was a major problem for churches during the 18th and early 19th centuries. C.H. Spurgeon faced it in England and vigorously opposed it from his pulpit and in his writings. Dunlevy was prepared to do the same from the pew of his local church. The particular nature of this brand of theology was to state that the sovereignty of God required no responsibility from man. It was the overemphasis of one doctrine to the exclusion of another. In acknowledging God’s electing love, and His overarching sovereignty, many Christians denied the need for evangelism and obedience on their part. If God predestined men for salvation then why should they share the gospel? As time progressed evangelism not only began to be questioned, but eventually began to be denied as a present day church duty. Anti-missionary hymns were written and a new theology of missions was raised up. This theology stated that Christ had told the disciples to spread the gospel, but now that they were gone that stage of Christian development was over. Dunlevy was not convinced. Not only was this going against the testimony of Scripture, but also this new theology of missions was against the very practice of historic Baptists.

Traditionally Baptist, both on the larger global scale and in the context of Ohio alone, were missionary minded Christians. Furthermore, it was not only historic Baptist who opposed the new anti-missionary movement, but just a few years prior to this occasion in Lebanon, Ohio, The Particular Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen was founded (1792) in England. Thanks to the work of William Carey, Andrew Fuller, and Samuel Pearce, Baptist missionary work was begun. By 1814 the missionary enterprise had hit home even more dramatically. Adoniram Judson had set sail for Burma in 1812 as a Congregationalist, but along the way both he and his wife, Anne, had become Baptists. Judson, and his friend Luther Rice, appealed to American Baptists for support in missions. In 1814 it was a pressing issue for even Baptists in Ohio. Of course not being as famous as these men Dunlevy would be ignored in the birthing of Baptist missions, yet, for Ohioans, he was, as their contemporary, an early preserver of missions in the Baptist denomination.

The church at Lebanon, however, responded with division. There were members in the church who were strongly opposed to missions and refused to concede to it. In 1836 the church split. Francis Dunlevy made one final appeal to those splintered members, his son summarizes:
He warned the advocates of this anti-mission movement of the destructive consequences upon them as a Christian denomination. He told them that he had seen a similar stand taken by Baptist churches in Virginia, fifty years before that time, and the result was that in twenty years, or less, those churches had become almost extinct and that the same consequences would as surely befall those churches who adopted these anti-missionary sentiments.[8]
In 1818 the Miami Association, the organization of Baptist which Dunlevy was part of, revised their position of missions and promoted the propagation of the gospel on the foreign mission field. Dunlevy’s voice was heard in broader Ohio, if not in his own church. The Association, however, divided too in 1836 over the issue of missions, and became two groups: The Miami Association in favor of Missions, and the Anti-Mission Association. Dunlevy’s prediction, however, came true eventually, and the Anti-Mission Association dissolved and disappeared, along with most of its 10 churches.

Not only did Dunlevy protest the advance of antinomianism and Hyper-Calvinism, but he also opposed the advance of Arminianism. Arminianism was spreading across denominations and had its impact on American Evangelical Baptists. Of course it was not until years later that it came to dominate Baptist life in America, but still Dunlevy knew it when he saw it. In the church at Lebanon, he maintained a firm balance and attempted to help the church do the same. As a Calvinist, “firm and unyielding,”[9] he would not bend to any notion of man’s capability to save himself. He was willing to acknowledge the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, but never did he confess that salvation was ultimately or even finally up to man’s deciding. His work in the church at Lebanon is significant, not simply because he represents a faithful guardian of genuine Biblical Reformed theology, but more so because it proved him worthy to be a leader in Ohio Baptist life.

Owing to his vast knowledge of Scripture and theology, and his strict adherence to both the doctrines of grace and evangelism (two aspects of theology often thought to be incompatible today) Dunlevy was welcomed as a member of the conference for the establishment of the Miami Association of Baptists. When the Association was formed in 1797 Dunlevy had not yet been through the controversies at Lebanon, but it is significant to note that after arriving in only 1792 it did not take long for Dunlevy to establish himself as a leader. When called upon to help draft the articles of faith for the body in early 1805, Dunlevy was already an influential man in Ohio Baptist life. The History of this Association is important, though more than I can deal with in this article, but as the first organization of Baptist Churches in Ohio, composed of the first Baptist churches in Ohio, it set the standard for the future of Ohio Baptist Life. In this regard we should remember Francis Dunlevy, and thank God for him.

Where would Ohio Baptists be without this man? We wrestle today with the same issue that tore the Church at Lebanon apart. God is sovereign, we acknowledge this, and so we know that Ohio Baptists would have survived without Francis Dunlevy. Yet we acknowledge, like Dunlevy himself (and contra the anti-mission group) that God works through means. He predestines the end, yes, but He predestines the means to that end too. Francis Dunlevy was God’s chosen instrument to build a solid foundation for Baptist life in Ohio, for this reason we thank God for such a bold, Biblical, and astute man. Ohio Baptists need to remember Francis Dunlevy and his work, not because He is simply a good man, but because God has used Him in a profound way to lay the groundwork for our labors in Ohio. Remember Francis Dunlevy, friends.

To the end of his days Dunlevy retained his mental faculties. Even as death approached him he was aware of it and expressed his knowledge in a calm and godly demeanor.

For forty years I have never had any fears of death; and the day of judgment has long appeared to me as the most glorious feature in the moral government of God. Then and there all seeming mysteries in God’s providence will be made so plain that all will acknowledge the justice as well as mercy of his administration. Then the truth, about which men differ so much here, will be made clear. The innocent and oppressed, too, however calumny and abuse have been headed upon them here, shall be cleared from every unjust imputation, and the wrong-doer, of every grade, stand convicted in his own conscience, and in the eyes of an assembled world. [10]

His son states that he fell asleep “in Jesus as quietly as he had ever taken his natural rest.” This is a man indeed to be remembered.

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity. Vol. 2. (New York: Harper Collins, 1985). 226.
[2] Anne Kelly Knowles, Calvinists Incorporated: Welsh Immigration on Ohio’s Industrial Frontier. (Chicago: UP, 1997). 18.
[3] A.H. Dunlevy, History of the Miami Baptist Association. 1869. 147.
[4] Dulevy, 148.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 150.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. 152.

New Shades of Theology?: An Analysis of Bruce Ware's Compatibilist Middle Knowledge

2006-08-24T15:20:00.000-07:00

“There is nothing new under the son,” said Solomon. Perhaps since Solomon lived in ancient Israel we are tempted to think that while there was nothing new for him, we’ve got lots of new stuff in our day. Thousands of years have passed since Solomon, and a lot has changed and a lot has been developed, so there must be something new. Well, whether or not there is anything at all new in the world I won’t attempt to answer here, but in terms of theological ideas there seems to be only a re-hashing of old ideas with slight variations for the present day. Such is the case, it seems, with the notion of “Compatibilist Middle Knowledge.” The doctrine of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge is, in its language, an altered form of an old heresy, but in its definition it is simply the same as the Orthodox Reformed doctrine of God’s omniscience; a doctrine that is old on two levels.

Defining Our Terms
Any critical analysis of a doctrine must begin with a basic understanding of the terms. Let’s start here by denoting what Compatibilism, and Middle Knowledge are. Afterwards we’ll explain how they work together to form the doctrine of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge, and conclude with an analysis of the doctrine and interaction with one of the primary sources on this teaching.

Compatibilism deals with the relationship between human freedom and divine sovereignty. Of course not all Compatibilism treats these two subjects. Some atheists offer the theory as a unifier for predeterminate naturalism and human freedom. But in the theological world it is a reference to the compatibility of human freedom and divine sovereignty. The Bible teaches both that God is sovereign, and that man is responsible for his free choices, the question remains, then, for theologians to assess how this can be possible. How can God be sovereign over all the world, and yet hold man responsible for what he does? To answer this question two major views have been proposed:[1]

1) Arminianism suggests that God, in creating human beings with a free will, voluntarily gave up some of His sovereignty. God did not want to create a race of robots who were simply compelled to love and serve Him because He had pre-determined that they would. Rather, He wanted a people who could freely express true love and devotion by having the power to choose either to love God, or reject God. This view of freedom is known as “libertarian freedom.” Libertarian Freedom states that “given the conditions preceding any voluntary decision, more than one decision must be possible- the person making the decision must be in a position to chose differently.”[2] Or as Bruce Ware Words it, “at the very moment of choice, we are free in making that choice if (and only if) in the choosing what we do, we could have chosen otherwise.”[3]

2) The alternate view is that of Calvinism. Calvinists believe both that God is sovereign and that man has a free will. There is a common misconception among people that Calvinists are fatalistic and that they deny human freedom; there is no such validity to that claim, however.[4] To resolve the apparent conflict between human freedom and divine sovereignty Calvinists propose the theory of Compatibilist freedom. Compatibilist Freedom states that we are free to choose what we want but that our choices are always limited by our desires. That is we chose what we most desire. Jonathan Edwards called it the freedom of inclination; we are free to choose what (and only what) we are most inclined towards. I will explore below how this plays itself out in the divine sovereignty/human responsibility debate, but for now let it suffice to say that Compatibilist freedom makes compatible God’s control over everything and my freedom of choice.

Middle Knowledge is a slightly more technical issue, but I will try to make it as accessible as possible. Middle Knowledge started with the teachings of Luis de Molina in the Post-Reformation period. Molina was a Jesuit priest, and to counter-act the “heretical teachings,” that is the doctrine of God’s exhaustive sovereignty over human free choices, he offered Molinism. Dr. Bruce Ware, professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explains it in further detail for us. He writes:

Molina…argued that God has three logical moments of knowledge prior to creating the universe. God not only possesses knowledge of what could be, i.e., knowledge of all bare possibilities and logical necessities (what Molina calls “natural knowledge”), and knowledge of what will be, i.e., knowledge of all future actualities, or exact and detailed knowledge of the way the world, when created, will be (what Molina calls “free knowledge”), but importantly, God also possesses knowledge of what would be if circumstances were different from what they in fact will be in the actual world, i.e., knowledge of those possible states of affairs which would have become actual had circumstances other than those in the real world obtained (what Molina calls “middle knowledge”).[5]

If that doesn’t make sense, perhaps William Lane Craig’s lay out of the three types might be easier to grasp. In his book The Only Wise God Craig distinguishes the three forms of God’s knowledge as such:

1. Natural Knowledge: God’s knowledge of all possible worlds. The content of this knowledge is essential to God.
2. Middle Knowledge: God’s knowledge of what every possible free creature would do under any possible set of circumstances and, hence, knowledge of those possible worlds which God can make actual. The content of this knowledge is not essential to God…
3. Free Knowledge: God’s knowledge of the actual world. The content of this knowledge is not essential to God.[6]

Middle knowledge, then, is God’s knowledge of all the possible results from all the possible free decisions of all the possible free creatures, in all the possible situations. Now how do these two terms fit together? That is an important issue, and at the heart of this analysis.

Originally Molina argued for Middle Knowledge because he wanted to contend for both Libertarian Free Will and God’s Divine Sovereignty. By the application of Middle Knowledge Molina could allow God to foresee human free-choices and thereby maintain his divine sovereign control by working His will in light of that future free choice. But there are some advocates of Middle Knowledge today who wish to redeem this theory from the Libertarians, so they have adapted it into a Compatibilist form. Here’s how one proponent explains the problems with the libertarian model:

The problem for traditional Molinism, with its commitment to libertarian freedom, is that since there is no necessary connection between knowledge of each state of affairs and knowledge of what the agent would in fact choose in each different setting, God could not know the agent’s choice by knowing the circumstances.[7]

This assessment expresses one of the major critiques of general middle knowledge in a libertarian model. If human free choices are not determined by inclinations, then the surrounding influences upon a person cannot make their free decision certain, therefore making it impossible for God to know what that future decision will be. Despite Molina’s attempts, Middle Knowledge does not render libertarian freedom and divine sovereignty compatible. Here’s the adaptation offered by one advocate of the Compatibilist model:

What is different about this understanding of middle knowledge is that since freedom means that we always do what we most want, and since what we “most want” is shaped by the set of factors and circumstances that eventually give rise to one desire that stands above all others, therefore God can know the circumstances giving rise to our highest desires, and by knowing these, He can know the choice that we would make, given those particular circumstances.[8]

In the Compatibilist model, God gets to His desired end by creating the world with all the influences upon us that would cause us to freely choose and do what we wanted, but which was also in perfect concordance with His desired result. So, we see, Compatibilist Middle Knowledge reconciles both God’s sovereignty and human free will. Now that we’ve defined and explained our terms, however, it becomes necessary to evaluate the doctrine.

Evaluating the Doctrine
Dr. Bruce Ware, professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been one of the most recent advocates of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge. In his book God’s Greater Glory he explains:

One of the most perplexing questions that those in the Reformed tradition endeavor to address is just how God’s permission of evil functions in light of his eternal decree by which he ordains all that will come to be…It has occurred to me over the past several years that one promising answer to this question may be provided if a modified version of Luis de Molina’s notion of middle knowledge were incorporated, here, within a fundamentally Reformed and compatibilist model of divine providence.[9]

Dr. Ware appeals to 1 Samuel 23:8-14 for his belief in middle knowledge, a common text held up by proponents of all forms of this theory. The text reads:

And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” Then said David, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “ Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD Said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men…departed from Keilah…And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.[10]

The passage is the most commonly sited among advocates of middle knowledge, whether of the libertarian or compatibilist model. Dr. Ware, is right when he states, “1 Samuel 23 indicates that when God told David that Saul will come down and that the men of Keilah will surrender him into the hand of Saul, we know that this actually means, ‘If you stay here, these things will happen’ (i.e., this was an implicitly conditional divine prediction).”[11] This is obviously an example of God’s knowing what will take place under a specific possible situation. It appears very much to be exactly what Dr. Ware is claiming in Middle Knowledge. Another textual example Dr. Ware sites is Exodus 13:17:

When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.”[12]

Again Dr. Ware is so certain that this passage speaks of God’s middle knowledge that he states, “Here we have a clear and indisputable case where God used middle knowledge of what Israel would do under other circumstances in order to regulate what they would in fact choose to do.”[13] It certainly does appear to be a convincing citation; I am, however, now going to dispute with Dr. Ware’s understanding of it.

It is not that the author is wrong in his understanding that God knew how the Israelites would behave under a certain set of circumstances; he is correct in asserting this. If he is guilty of anything in his textual citations it may be perhaps he has an overly literal interpretation,[14] but he correctly understands what God is foreseeing about possible conditions. My qualm with Dr. Ware’s citations, however, has to do with his application of the term “Middle Knowledge” specifically to the generally accepted interpretation.

The traditional Reformed view of God’s knowledge agrees with much of what Dr. Ware has established. So Charles Hodge, great Princeton professor in the 19th Century, writes:

The knowledge of God is not only all-comprehending, but it is intuitive and immutable. He knows all things as they are, being as being, phenomena as phenomena, the possible as possible, the actual as actual, the necessary as necessary, the free as free, the past as past, the present as present, the future as future. Although all things are ever present in his view, yet He sees them as successive in time. The vast procession of events, thoughts, feelings, and acts, stands open to his view.[15]

Hodge holds to, as does Ware, both knowledge of the possible and knowledge of the actual. John Frame adds to this, saying that Reformed theologians believe that “God does know what every free creature would do in every possible circumstance…Indeed, God in Scripture often speaks of what would happen in conditions other than those that actually occur.”[16] But, he adds, and this is where we would disagree with Ware, “From a Reformed point of view, however, it is difficult to see why this kind of divine knowledge must be isolated as a third kind of knowledge.”[17] The issue comes down to narrowing the definitions. Note that natural knowledge states God “knows all the possible worlds,” while middle knowledge states, “God knows all the results that could come from those possible worlds being made actual.” What is the distinction for? Why is this narrow and nuanced understanding necessary. Even Ware himself recognizes the closeness of the two terms. He states, “One can think of middle knowledge as a subset of natural knowledge. That is, natural knowledge- knowledge of what could be- envisions all possibilities and all necessary truths.”[18]In a course lecture on the doctrine of God professor Stephen Wellum also confesses that the proposal offered by compatibilist middle knowledge is not that different from the traditional Reformed thought.

In regard to ‘middle knowledge’ the question has never been whether there is a conditional connection between future events, a connection known and willed by God. Rather what is rejected is the view of middle knowledge that incorporates libertarian freedom that is independent of God’s will and decree…So is it really necessary to isolate middle knowledge…from natural knowledge…and free knowledge? Is not middle knowledge tied to God’s necessary knowledge since it is God who knows what creatures and what creaturely actions are possible, simply because he knows himself.[19]

So why does Dr. Ware decide to make the distinction? What is his motivation? In his critique of middle knowledge in general Travis James Campbell has noted, “[William Lane] Craig has argued that middle knowledge may very well serve as the rapprochement between Calvinists and Arminians.”[20] We can see how compatibilist middle knowledge, quite possibly, could serve as a bridge between Arminians and Calvinists. It combines the middle knowledge theory, first advocated by Arminians, and the compatibilism of Calvinists. Such a comment needs to be taken into consideration when one notes the theological system to which Dr. Ware adheres. He is, himself, somewhat of a bridge between Calvinists and Arminians in so far as he holds to the system known as Amyrauldianism. This particular reform of traditional Calvinism is sometimes called “Four-Point Calvinism.” It agrees with the traditionalists on four of the five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. The point of contention between the groups is over the fifth point: Limited atonement. Contra Calvin and the Reformers, Amyrauldianism adheres to a doctrine of “universal atonement,” that is that Christ’s death on the cross atoned for the sins of all men, but that only those who repent and believe are elect and thus receive forgiveness. The possibility of maintaining both a Reformed theology proper and an Arminian soteriology is made feasible through Compatibilist middle knowledge.

Let it be clarified here that this is not the exact confession of Dr. Ware concerning his motivations, merely my observation. I do not know the exact reasoning behind Dr. Ware’s move to include a third form of God’s knowledge, but it seems completely unwarranted in purely theological terms. To further critique Dr. Ware on this position one would need to investigate his motivations, and then seek as well to de-bunk his theory of “universal atonement,” something beyond the scope of this paper. But in conclusion it should be stated that despite Dr. Ware’s insistence on the “clear and indisputable” appearance of Middle Knowledge within Scripture, there remains no need for this distinction. It appears entirely un-helpful and un-necessary to use Molina’s theory, even in an adapted form.

Conclusion
Dr. Ware is an esteemed and admired theologian, a man whose work has been much appreciated and applauded.[21] And though he would offer his doctrine of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge as a new way to deal with the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, it truly is not new at all.[22] Not only is it the reformulation of an old heresy, such that it is no longer heretical (and we are grateful for that), but in its full definition it is no different than the traditional Reformed theology. Nuanced though it may be, Dr. Ware has, in fact, not really offered us anything new under the sun.

[1] There exists more than three resolutions on this issue. Open Theism, a recent trend in theology, simply denies that God knows the future and therefore isn’t actually sovereign at all. See Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), and John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2001).
[2] David Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1996). 26.
[3] Bruce Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004). 63. Ware is not supporting this view in his work, he is merely stating it as its supporters would state it.
[4] The reader should dismiss any criticism of Calvinism that they read which begins by asserting that Calvinists (or Reformed types) deny human responsibility. An example of such a criticism would be Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1999).
[5] Ware, 110. Author’s emphasis.
[6] Quoted in John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2002). 501.
[7] Ware, 113.
[8] Ibid. 114-115.
[9] Ibid. 110.
[10] Quoted by the author on page 116.
[11] Ibid. 117.
[12] Quoted by the author on page 124.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Such seems to be the case with his interpretation of Matthew 11:21-24 (p. 118). In some cases passages where God is speaking of what could happen under a different set of influencing factors there is the possibility for anthropomorphic language. God is speaking of what he sees could happen as though He were a man, in order that we might understand. Not all are straight-forward, divine predictions. John Frame writes, “These passages, of course, are not intended to make technical theological points about God’s eternal knowledge. Perhaps we should not insist upon precisely literal interpretations. But granting the previous arguments of this book, it is plain that God, governing all things by His eternal decree, knows what each thing is capable of and what would result from any alteration of His plan” (Doctrine of God. 502).
[15] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 3rd printing- 2003). I.897.
[16] Frame, 502.
[17] Ibid. 503.
[18] Ware, 110-111.
[19] Class handouts for 27360:The Doctrine of God at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, January, 2006. .112
[20] Travis James Campbell, “Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique.” 6. http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Middle_Knowledge.pdf viewed on August 24, 2006.
[21] See God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001); Their God is Too Small. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003); Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005); and Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).
[22] Among others who have experimented with it or who adhered to it are Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). 385, and John M. Frame notes several others including Gomarus, Walaeus, Crocius, and Alstead (The Doctrine of God. n. 71. p. 502).

Romans 1:3-4 and the Eternal Sonship of Christ

2006-08-03T12:12:00.000-07:00

God is one, God is three; God is one, God is three. Say it enough times and it may make your head spin. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a complex issue, yet it is not without practical importance in the Christian life.[1] Despite what some may say it is not a tertiary doctrine. We cannot grasp all of the dimensions of the Trinity, but we must defend it as the clear presentation God gives us of Himself. For if God declares that He is one, and He is three, than this is the God whom we must worship and adore, none other will suffice. Throughout the history of the church the Trinitarian God has not always been accepted, and contention over the subject has almost always revolved around the issue of the nature of the Son of God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but this expression, while necessary and accepted as orthodox, needs further clarification to avoid the common heresies of church history and contemporary theology. As some have sought to deny the Trinitarian nature of God they have appealed to both logic and the Bible to do so. Extensive work has been done to show that the Bible does indeed teach the Divine Trinity[2], but there are still some passages that give us trouble. Romans 1:4, for example, has had a history of misinterpretation, and the present accepted reading calls the distinct nature of the triune God into question. I am contending here, however, that this verse wholly supports the distinct personhood and eternality of the Son of God as a member of the Godhead.

The Question of Eternal Sonship
Often when we think of Jesus Christ as the Son of God we think of Him in His earthly form, His likeness to man. We think of Him in the body, walking on the earth, healing, walking on water, and especially of His dying on the cross. We will even acknowledge, and rightfully so, that after the resurrection Jesus Christ maintains his divine Sonship. Yet rarely do we think of the Christ as the Son of God in His pre-existent state, but this too is crucial to maintaining a thoroughly orthodox view of our triune God. The question of Eternal Sonship has to do with what theologians call the “Eternal Generation of the Son.” If the subject seems a bit weighty to you at first, I urge you to bear with the argument, for it does have great significance for the Christian faith.

The question of eternal sonship is significant because it preserves the distinctions of the persons of the Trinity and prevents us from falling into the heresies of Modalism[3] and Sabellianism[4], and a host of other theological errors. The doctrine of Eternal Generation declares that the Son of God was the Son from all eternity, that He has always been begotten of the Father. It claims that the Sonship and Fatherhood of God (and parenthetically The Holy Spirit-ness), respectively, are part of the very nature of the Godhead. Theologians have labeled this as the ontological Trinity, that is the Trinitarian nature inherent in God’s being (ontology). Scripture indicates the ontological trinity in a number of ways, many evidencing Christ’s role as Son before his incarnation. For example it describes the ontological trinity in the act of election, creation, and the sending of the Son into the Word. Each act is a description of the Father and the Son (and sometimes the Holy Spirit) before the Son’s incarnation.[5] Yet there are still some scholars today who will appeal to the Bible to deny the pre-existence of the Son, most turn to the epistles of Paul.

The Trouble with Romans 1:4
Pauline Christology is significant, for the letters of Paul compose the majority of the New Testament. In arguing against the doctrine of eternal generation most will turn to the book of Colossians, where Paul writes of Christ in terms of the “firstborn of all creation.” Since this verse has, however, been amply dealt with, and a defense against this heresy offered, I want to turn to another equally troubling passage: Romans 1:4.

The particular difficulty of this passage, in relation to eternal generation, is its apparent linking of divine sonship with the resurrection. The “linking” suggests that Jesus became the Son of God as a result of His resurrection, a troubling issue for anyone who holds to the eternality of Christ. D.R. Bauer comments that this is, and has been, an accepted interpretation of the divinity of Jesus among some scholars. He writes:

Many scholars have argued that this was the original understanding of the divine sonship of Jesus and that the early church gradually pushed the inauguration of Jesus’ status as the Son of God back to the Transfiguration, then to the baptism, and finally to either virginal conception or pre-existence.[6]

The link between the resurrection and the divine sonship are the pressing issue of this text and a variety of interpretations have arisen to explain the “link”. Two interpretations stand out in particular as significant, but before we survey them a quick outline of the text might be helpful.

Outline of Romans 1:1-7
The main focus of this passage is the Gospel. The theme of Romans continues to be debated, but one thing is evident, Paul writes clearly about the Gospel throughout the letter, and, in fact, he centers on in the salutation. So the letter begins:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was [appointed][7] to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.[8]

Paul lists here three aspects of this gospel message which he was set apart for. 1) That it is the Gospel of God; 2) That is was Promised Beforehand; and 3) That it is Concerning God’s Son. Verses 3 and 4 are the most important to our focus on eternal generation. Quoting Douglas Moo, Dr. Thomas Schreiner lays out the structure of these passages to help us see their connection to one another.
Verse 3 Verse 4

Who has Come Who was Appointed

From the Seed of David Son of God in Power

According to the Flesh According to the Spirit of Holiness

From the Resurrection of the Dead[9]

The parallelism of the two clauses identifies a contrast that is at the heart of the Romans 1 debate. Now I will zero in on the two major interpretations.

The Romans Debate
The first interpretation identifies the contrast as one between Jesus’ human and divine nature. So the parallel expressions “according to the flesh,” and “according to the Spirit of Holiness” refer to the human nature and the divine nature respectively. In verse 4 the Greek word translated as “appointed” should really be translated as “declare” or “show”.[10] This interpretation has, as my friend Greg said, a noble pedigree. It was the accepted understanding of Chrysostom, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and Robert Haldane. So Charles Hodge writes:

In Romans 1:2-5, the Apostle says that the gospel concerns the Son of God, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, who, as to his human nature is the Son of David, but as to his divine nature, is the Son of God. Here also the two natures and one person of the Redeemer are clearly asserted.[11]

This seems like an acceptable interpretation, but, as is noted by the common translation of the Greek word “Oristhentos”[12] as “appointed,” it is no longer presently accepted. Tom Schreiner writes:

The first interpretation is almost universally rejected today. The assigning of an improbable meaning to the word [“orizein”] shows its inadequacy. This word does not mean “to declare” or “to show.” In the [New Testament] it consistently means “appoint,” “determine,” or “fix”.[13]

So it would seem that a more accurate translation of the Greek does not allow for an interpretation in which the resurrection “showed” Jesus to be, what He all along was, the Son of God. The link between the resurrection and divine Sonship is not accurately resolved here.

The Second interpretation takes aim at the “link” by offering a different distinction. Paul is not here distinguishing between the tow natures of the Christ, but between two stages of the ministry of Christ. On earth, pre-resurrection, Jesus was the son of David in the flesh. But post-resurrection He was the Son of God in power. So, it would appear, by virtue of His “resurrection from the dead” Jesus was “appointed the Son of God in power.” Stated simply like this, such an interpretation should raise up immediate red flags for Protestants who hold to the eternality of the Son.

Romans 1:4 and Adoptionism
During the closing decades of the second century several theological heresies about the divinity of Jesus arose. One was Modalism which blurred the lines between the three persons of the trinity. In an attempt to defend the monotheism of the Bible , Noetus of Smyrna began teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all simply roles that the one God played, not distinct persons of the one Godhead. Along with Modalism, however, came the teachings of Adoptionism. Both Adoptionism and Modalism are placed under the umbrella label of Monarchianism; J.N.D. Kelly explains why.

The classification of both as forms of Monarchianism stems from the assumption that, despite different starting-points and motives, they were united by a concern for the divine unity, or monarchia. This supposition goes back at least as far as Novatian (c. 250), who interpreted Adoptionism and Modalism as misguided attempts to salvage the Bible dogma that God is one.[14]

Adoptionism is the view that Jesus was a “mere man.” That is to say that up until His baptism Jesus was ordinary. At His baptism, however, God “adopted” Jesus to be His Son. Even at this point, however, Jesus was not divine. He could perform miracles and lived a righteous life, but it was not until after His resurrection from the dead that Christ became the “Son of God in power”. Thus it becomes apparent that the presently accepted interpretation of this passage could be perceived as adoptionistic. Wayne Grudem gives an important note on Adoptionism when he writes:

Adoptionism never gained the force of a movement in the way Arianism did, but there were people who held adoptionist views from time to time in the early church, though their views were never accepted as orthodox. Many modern people who think of Jesus as a great man and someone especially empowered by God, but not really divine, would fall into the adoptionist category.[15]

The realization that many may believe this presently by default makes it all the more pressing that we wrestle with the text of Romans 1:4 and defend the Bible against the heresy of Adoptionism. One way in which we can avoid this heresy is to note the subject of the entire passage is the Son. So, as Douglas Moo words it, “It is the Son who is appointed Son.”[16] Paul’s own language states that the Gospel is concerning God’s “own Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was appointed to be the Son of God in power…” The Son of God is descended from David, and the Son of God is appointed to b the Son of God in power. Paul clearly has in mind here a pre-existent Christ. Moo states that the “appointment” has to do with a change, not in essence, but in function.[17] An interpretation dealing with a change in function and not in essence, brings us closer to a compatibility with Eternal Generation, but there is one more phrase that proves my original assertion.

Romans 1:4 and Pre-Existent Son
No other phrase in this passage is as crucial to the preservation of the Pre-Existence of the Son as is the phrase “in power.” Two words change everything. These two simple words indicate that Jesus was not made the Son of God by virtue of His resurrection from the dead, but that He was made Son of God “in power” by virtue of His resurrection. Tom Schreiner explains:

The appointment of Jesus being described here is his appointment as the messianic king. IN order to make this point clear an explanation of the phrase [Son of God in power] is necessary. The title [Son of God] in verse 3 is a reference not to Jesus’ deity but to his messianic kingship as the descendant of David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7…). In addition, most commentators rightly argue that the words [in power] modify [Son of God]. The joining of the words [in power] to [Son of God] signals that Jesus did not become the Son of God or the Messiah at His resurrection. When He lived on earth, He was the Son of God as the seed of David (v. 3). Upon His resurrection, however, he was enthroned as the messianic king.[18]

The new dimension was not His sonship but His heavenly installation as God’s Son by virtue of His Davidic Sonship. In other words, the Song reigned with the Father from all eternity, but as a result of His incarnation and atoning work He was appointed to be the Son of God as one who was now both God and man.[19]

This phrase “in power,” then, stands out as quite significant for affirming the eternal Sonship of Christ in this passage.[20] There is a debate surrounding these words, however, and it would be important for us to take a look at it at this point.

It is generally accepted that verses 3-4 of Romans 1 are a Pre-Pauline hymn or creed that the apostle is quoting. Both the parallelism of the passage along with the inclusion of several themes not common to Paul’s writings has led to this conclusion.[21] There are, however, several diverse views on what this Pre-Pauline creed looked like. Some believe that the creed originated among Jewish Christians and was in fact a confession of an adoptionistic theology. Therefore, they contend, it lacked the phrase “in power,” which was a Pauline addition meant to express that Jesus had been the Son of God all along. If Paul did add this phrase to an early Christian creed, it may be somewhat troubling, though if one affirms Paul’s apostolic authority it may not make any difference. Paul, since he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, had every right to correct those early Christians who had misunderstood who Jesus was. I am, however, more inclined to agree with Moo when he states plainly, “Methodologically, it is necessary at least to maintain that whatever Paul quotes, he himself affirms.”[22]

Not all agree, however, that these two verses necessitate a Pauline quotation of an older creed. In fact, Vern Poythress, among others, has offered an alternative to this view, and contends, plausibly, that the entire passage is originally a Pauline confession.[23] In any case, however, it would be foolish to base our interpretation of this text on the belief that Paul was quoting an older tradition. It is an interesting debate, but since there is no evidence in support of it and the hypothesis itself is purely speculative, then we must deal with the text as it is and base our interpretation of it on the context of the passage and the background of the corpus of Paul’s letters.

In the context we must concede that Paul does state Christ is appointed to be the Son of God by virtue of His resurrection. But, as was explained above, this does not necessitate an adoptionistic interpretation. For the Bible as a whole presents its Christology in two ways: (1) Jesus is Lord by virtue of who He is- the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity; and (2) Jesus is Lord by virtue of what He does- the messianic work. This passage, in particular, is focusing on the second of these two Biblical emphases. This assertion about the “appointment” of Jesus to the Son of God has parallels in other places within the canon of Scripture. Paul most likely has these references in mind. Let’s look at one that stands out as significant to this discussion: Psalm 2:7-9.

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Here is a verse that is speaking of God’s “anointed one,” a phrase that is synonymous with “messiah.” It is generally accepted that Paul is referencing this verse and connecting it to Jesus, something he had already done in Pisidian Antioch (see Acts 13:33). The Psalm is addressing the appointment and adoption of the seed of David to the Son of God as the Messianic King. Jesus was already the Son of God in His divine nature, but by virtue of His resurrection, because of it, He now has the right to be the Son of God as the Messianic King. So Tom Schreiner qualifies that “The title [Son of God] in verse 3 is a reference not to Jesus’ deity but to His messianic kingship as the descendant of David.”[24] The emphasis of Romans 1:3-4 is on Jesus’ resurrection which designates Him the Son of God in the second of the two Christological expressions of the New Testament (that is “Jesus is Lord by virtue of what He does).

Conclusion
Adoptionists would love for us to believe that the Bible denies the eternal Sonship of Christ, and some would appeal to passages such as our focus here, Romans 1:4. But what we have seen from this examination is not that Adoptionism is true, but rather that this verse only further emphasizes the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus. He is Lord, Son of God, both because of who He is and because of what He does. He is God’s Son by eternal generation, and God’s Son by appointment as the Messiah. What an amazing Savior we have.

So perhaps you are a still wondering why this matters. That’s a fair question. The answer is simple. This discussion matters because at stake is the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Elsewhere I have written on the practical importance of this doctrine for worship and for salvation. And if it is true that this doctrine matters, if it is true that God has presented himself in Scripture as being three persons than we must believe it. If we allow the adoptionist theory to take this text away from us then we have called God a liar, we have denied the trinity, and we have called our very salvation into question. This discussion matters because in it we are striving to defend the Biblical Doctrine that God is one, and God is three.

Bibliography:
Allen, L.C. “The Old Testament Background of (pro) orizein in the New Testament .”
New Testament Studies. 17:104-8.

Beasley-Murray, P. “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of
Jesus.” Tyndale Bulletin 31:147-54.

Bruce, F.F. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994).

Calvin, John. Acts 14-28, Romans 1-16. Calvin’s Commentaries. 19. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2003).

Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 1.

Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8. (Dallas: Word, 1998).

_____. “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith.” Journal
of Theological Studies. n.s. 43:1-22.

_____. “Jesus –Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1.3-4.” Journal of
Theological Studies. n.s. 24:40-68.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002).

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. II. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).

Jewett, R. “Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Missions: Romans 1:1-17 + 15:14-
16:24.” Pp. 89-108 in Pauline Theology, vol. 3: Romans. Ed. by D.M. Hay and E.
E. Johnson. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. (Peabody: Prince, 2003).

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
(Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004).

MacArthur, John F. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 1-8. (Chicago:
Moody, 1991).

Moo, Douglas. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to
the Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

Poythress, Vern. “Is Romans 1:3-4 a Pauline Confession After All?” Expository Times.
87:180-83.

Schreiner, Thomas. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).

Warfield, B.B. Bible Doctrines. The Works of B.B. Warfield. 2. (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2003).

Wright, N.T. “Messiah and the People of God.” Unpublished Dissertation at Oxford in
1978.

[1] Cf. David Dunham, “The Heart and the Head: Gregory of Nazianzus and the Connection between Theology and Worship,” and “A Trinitarian Theology”.
[2] See any conservative Systematic Theology. See also Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2004).
[3] A heresy that declares there are not three persons in the one Godhead, but rather that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three “masks” or “roles” which the one God plays.
[4] This heresy, a second and third century heresy, is pre-cursor of Modalism with the distinctive feature that each mode occurred historically successive (for the modalist the roles are simultaneous, “each a kind of aspect or revelation of God.” Cf. John Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2002). 689).
[5] Cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1994). 250-251.
[6] D.R. Bauer, “The Son of God.” in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed. Joel Green, Scott McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992). 771.
[7] I have translated the Greek word “orizein” as “appointed” because it is a more accurate translation than the ESV, NIV, or NASB give. These modern translations, along with the KJV translate the word as “declared” which proposes some problems, as I will show, for good interpretation.
[8] All English translations are quoted from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.
[9] Thomas Schreiner, The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). 39.
[10] The Greek verb o`risqe,ntoj is an aorist passive genitive masculine singular participle. It literally means “to mark off by boundaries,” or “to determine”.
[11] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. II. (Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, re-print 2003). 385.
[12] I am using the transliterated form of the Greek words to allow those who do not read Greek characters to continue following along in the argument (For original Greek word in Koine see foot note 7).
[13] Schreiner, 42.
[14] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. (Peabody: Prince, re-print 2003). 115-16.
[15] Grudem, 246.
[16] Douglas Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).48.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Schreiner, 42.
[19] Ibid. 39.
[20] Let me add here that there is no question about the eternality of Christ. The whole New Testament canon makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is God and has existed for all eternity (cf. John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:15-16; 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Heb. 1:8; 1 John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; for an examination of these passages see John Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002). 644-685). I am speaking here only in terms of this passage. In order to prove the eternality of the Son in Romans 1:3-4 it seems that this passage needs the expression “in power”.
[21] “Among the reasons for this [belief in a Pre-Pauline creed] are the participial constructions, the parallelism of the two clauses, the utilization of hapax legomena, and theological themes that are uncommon in Paul, such as the reference to the Davidic Sonship of Jesus” (Schreiner, 39-40).
[22] Moo, 46. Following this quote Moo sites Wright, “Messiah and the People of God” This is N.T. Wrights unpublished, 1978 Oxford dissertation on Paul.
[23] Vern Poythress, “Is Romans 1:3-4 a Pauline Confession After All?” Expository Times 87:180-83.
[24] Schreiner, 42.

Theology At The Movies

2006-06-28T11:50:00.000-07:00

A practical area in which many Christians face legalism is in the area of entertainment in general and movies in specific. It might be helpful then, for the sake of our souls and the glory of God, if we study how theology should play out with entertainment. Are movies “of the devil”? Does it endorse the sins of Hollywood to see a film? Does God have a place in the cinema? These and many other questions are a part of what we will tackle as we consider Theology at the Movies.

Why Movies?
Since the popularity of movies exploded in the 1920s up to the present, the cinema has become, arguably, the most popular expression of the worldviews of various generations, groups, and individuals. Despite what many contend all art, even movies, has a message to share, and the fact that millions of people go to the movies each year makes it one of the largest forms of mass media[1]. This is why when considering the influence of entertainment we must zero in on movies, for various “messages” are reaching millions of people.

Theologian and professor John M. Frame wisely writes, “It is simply false to claim that art has nothing to do with ‘messages.’ Indeed, we are living in a time in which the messages of art are becoming more and more explicit.”[2] This is most noticeable in the genre of political films, such as Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and the more recent (2006) American Dreamz, but we will deal more with this later. So if you ask, “why deal with the subject of movies,” the answer, simply put, is that movies and television are among the most influential sources of media in the world, and deserve a Biblical analysis. But if, as Frame writes, “The worldview is the most important issue in film,” then we should begin by asking specifically what is a worldview.

What’s in a World?
If you live long enough every person will come to a point where they have to ask, either consciously or more indirectly, the seven[3] most basic question of human existence. James W. Sire lists the seven most basic questions in this way:
1. What is prime reality- the really real?
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
4. What happens to a person at death?
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history?[4]

If we stated those questions in more specific terms they might be said to be questions about: God, the world, humans, death, knowledge, morality, and history; or in philosophical terms we could say: metaphysics, external reality, humanity, death, epistemology, ethics, and history. In any case the answers to these seven basic elements make up a worldview. A worldview, then, may be stated as “a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”[5] A worldview, in short, is a philosophical system through which we filter all of life. Education, theology, science, love, politics all these things and more are affected by one’s own worldview.

Most people are not even aware that hey have a worldview or can they articulate it in formal terms, but the answers which they give to these seven basic questions reveals that they do indeed have one. Examples of worldviews would be Naturalism or Scientific Humanism, Deism, Feminism, Modernism and Postmodernism, and even Christianity. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of worldviews in existence today, the most important point to grasp about this, however, is that everyone has one.

A worldview is not the same thing as a formal philosophy; otherwise, it would be only for professional philosophers. Even ordinary people have a set of convictions about how reality functions and how they should live. Because we are made in God’s image, we all seek to make sense of life. Some convictions are conscious, while others are unconscious, but together they form a more or less consistent picture of reality.[6]

Nancy Pearcey explains the origins of the word “worldview” in her book Total Truth. She writes:

The term worldview is a translation of the German world Weltanschauung, which means a way of looking at the world (Welt= world; schauen= to look). German Romanticism developed the idea that cultures are complex wholes, where a certain outlook on life, or spirit of the age, is expressed across the board- in art, literature, and social institutions as well as in formal philosophy. The best way to understand the products of any culture, then, is to grasp the underlying worldview being expressed. But, of course, cultures change over the course of history, and thus the original use of the term worldview conveyed relativism.

The word was later introduced into Christian circles through Dutch neo-Calvinist thinkers such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd. They argued that Christians cannot counter the spirit of the age in which they live unless they develop an equally comprehensive biblical worldview- an outlook on life that gives rise to distinctively Christian forms of culture- with the important qualification that it is not merely the relativistic belief of a particular culture but is based on the very Word of God, true for all times and places.[7]

With this in mind let’s turn our attention now to discussing how movies convey a worldview.

The Motion Pictures and Their Messages
It’s easy to get caught up in the stimulation of the movies and forget that each film is saying something about the world we live in. It is a popular expression of our culture’s ideologies. So writes Russ Moore, Vice President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, about the culture in general:

Christians should ask why culture resonates with the Superman mythology of a hero from beyond the stars who rescues humanity from itself. We should ask why country music singer Toby Keith sings about the unity-in-diversity he longs for in his song “I Love This Bar.” We should ask why, as the City Journal’s Harry Stein points out, trashy talk shows such as “The Jerry Spring Show” always end with a “moral lesson for the day,” despite the fact that the rest of the broadcast has dismissed the very idea of moral absolutes. Why do gangster-rap hip-hop artists sing so much about their rage against an absent father?[8]

All around us our culture is answering these seven basic questions, and they are offering to us a worldview. Movies are not exempt from this truth. For every film that we see there is a message being proclaimed. Some are very easy to discern while others are much more subtle, but nothing is neutral or sheer entertainment in motion pictures. So how do Motion Pictures share their messages? I have listed here five particular ways that we would do well to note.

First, films convey a message through imagery. This is the point that Gene Edward Veith examines in his article “Message Movies.” Paraphrasing Thom Parham, Veith writes, “Films work metaphorically. Language can communicate with clear propositions, but film communicates instead with symbols.” Then adding his own commentary he says, “What carries the message [in movies] is a good story. And the message is indirect, inherent in the film’s emotional impact.”[9]

Movies are a medium of visual stimulation, which explains why some poor stories can still do well in the box office. The imagery on the screen, the way that the plot plays out has as much to do with the message as anything else. Even something as basic as scenery can play a part in the delivering of a message. Let’s look at an example: the Academy Award winning “Brokeback Mountain.” Writing about the films projection of hatred for the Biblical family Dr. Mark Coppenger says:

“Brokeback Mountain” was billed a gay love story, but the movie was actually a hate story, dripping with contempt for conventional, moral life. Normally, these two utterly implausible homosexual cowboys were forced to suffer the squalor of bland or kitschy quarters, disappointing wives, creepy in-laws, wearisome children, thuggish bosses and dreary work back in town, but their spirits soared as they ascended the high country with rushing brooks, big skies, snow capped peaks, lush mountain meadows and crisp, clean air. Alas, after soulful hugs, etc., these Marlboro Men were forced to once again assumer their places in the sad world of heterosexual marriage, gainful employment, and civic responsibility, a world disparaged by director Ang Lee.[10]

According to Coppenger the director of this controversial film uses beautiful scenes to express his own idea of the beauty and freedom of homosexuality. It is not the heterosexual scenes that are depicted with “rushing brooks, big skies, snow capped peaks,” etc. it is the homosexual scenes. Not all films convey their messages this way, but it is important to note that nothing is neutral, aesthetics included.

Secondly, films spread their messages by means of story. This of course is the most basic means of the message. It takes no effort to see how the storyline of a movie like “Brokeback Mountain” contains a message, a pro-homosexual message. But all movies, whether blatant or subtler, contain a message. So even the Dreamworks film “Over the Hedge” is a “genial poke at the conspicuous consumption habits of food and lawn-care obsessed suburbanites from the perspective of wide-eyed animals just trying to survive,”[11] writes Veith. The story is, of course, what all the imagery points to, what the dialogue explains, and what most clearly demonstrates the worldview of the film as a whole. Some will be harder to discern, such as Tim Burton’s “Big Fish,”[12] others are obvious, like the environmentalist film “Hoot.” As Brian Godawa, a Hollywood screenwriter, testifies, “The story is where it all begins and ends. The lighting, cinematography, directing, acting, visual style…all are profoundly a part of the process, but they all serve the story- because the story is king.”[13] In many cases it might be appropriate to say, not that he story carries the message, but that the story is the message.

Thirdly, films spread their message through dialogue. This is another obvious one, but deserves to be mentioned for the power of words. The subtlety of dialogue is such that one might never pick up on some of the messages conveyed in films. Few movie gowers thought of Pantheism when they heard Mufassa tell the young Simba, “When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected; the great circle of life.” But likewise when Christians hear phrases like this one from “Kingdom of Heaven” they should shutter: There will be a day when you will wish that you did a little evil to serve a greater good.

Fourthly, films convey messages through their identification of heroes. This is an important point to mention as more and more stars of films are actually anti-heroes or vigilantes. This is most obvious from the recent 2006 film “V for Vendetta.” Speaking of the graphic novel turned movie Gene Veith writes:

In Alan Moore’s Graphic Novel, V for Vendetta, the Guy Fawkes- masked protagonist is introduced in a section titled, “The Villain.” In the big-screen adaptation of Mr. Moore’s work, no such moral ambiguity exists. Originally conceived as an extreme, anarchistic response to an extreme, fascist government in the near future, V for Vendetta has been translated, with a terrorist hero at its center, into a vicious, thinly veiled attack on American conservatives and Christians.[14]

Other films, however, have taken this same approach of glorifying evil in a less palpable manner. Take for example a number of comedies whose “heroes” have been pragmatists who engage in all sorts of crimes to “win the day.” Examples of these are “Fun with Dick and Jane,” where Dick and Jane Harper take to larceny and deception to win back the pensions of those put out of employment by a company’s crash. Or “Runaway Jury,” based on the John Grisham novel, which has the heroes blackmailing a filthy jury consultant into early retirement. We must never suppose that the end justifies the means, as many of these characters put it themselves. A true hero sees no value in doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Finally, a movie may express a message through its overall composition. The entire layout of the movie, put together with its cinematography, music, acting, dialogue, etc., display an entire worldview. I mentioned how Disney’s “The Lion King” is a movie that revolves around the philosophy of Pantheism, but a close analysis of “Star Wars” reveals similar conclusions (though this film is more New Age). Take screenwriter Charlie Kauffman for example. Mr. Kauffman’s films are often expressions of his own nihilistic, or hopeless, faithless, and truthless, philosophy. His most popular film “Being John Malkovich” is a visual scene of the cold hopeless doctrines of this philosophy, the dialogue reveals this hopelessness, and the storyline itself is, to quote the film, a “metaphysical can of worms.”

These are just a few ways that movies express their messages. The list could, of course, be expanded, but this is sufficient for us to be discerning as we go to the movies. Now comes the all-important question: If movies convey worldviews, and some of these worldviews are not simply bad but completely destructive, should Christians even go to the movies? What should we think of those who do? These are important questions and take up the focus of the next section.

War of the Worldviews
Christians have long been known as those who boycott the movies. The cinema has been hailed by some as the SINema, and Hollywood as the Devil’s machine. As we saw in the last chapter, there are many who still hold to a belief that any Christian who goes to the movies is not only spiritually immature, but is in fact in sin. As I explained in chapter 8, this is legalism[15] and has no place in the Christian church; but can Christians, whose own worldview is so opposed to the general worldview of Hollywood, receive enjoyment and value from movies? I believe so.

Dave Swavely is right when he says, “No other issue has been the source of more friction between Christians in our media-soaked, pleasure-worshipping society, and no other issue has given rise to so many legalistic rules in an attempt to keep us from being contaminated by the world.”[16] But he adds these wise words of wisdom to that initial comment:

First, we need to understand that the Bible offers very few specific rules about this issue, if any, and therefore we should not expect to find easy answers that apply to everyone. It is mostly an individual matter of “the heart”- a term which in the Bible means our “inner man,” where we think, desire, worship, and make choices…What we take in our eyes and ears can certainly temp or influence us…but it cannot necessarily cause us to sin. So the response of our hearts to what we see and hear is the ultimate issue in morality.[17]

This statement cannot, of course, be taken to exempt those who make and produce certain kinds of films from being judged for their actions when the Lord returns, but it can safely be applied to those of us who view movies with discernment. Viewing a movie in and of itself may not be sinful, what our hearts desire, dwell upon, and endorse before, during and after that viewing, however, can be. As is the case with most sins, it is not simply the external action that matters, but the internal state of the heart.[18]

That being said it is safe to say that movies are not inherently sinful, they are a form of art, which is a creative form of expression instilled in man by God. Art is one way that humanity reflects its Creator. God in creating the world displayed His artistic abilities. Think about that for a moment. God was in no way obligated to make the world so aesthetically pleasing (beautiful sunsets, various races, colorful creatures in many shapes and sizes). In creating man in His own image, God has likewise instilled in man the gift and ability to be creative. So writes Brian Godawa:

The arts (of which movies are a part) are a God-given means of expressing our humanity. The creation of art, though flawed or imperfect, reflects the creativity and beauty of our Creator. To reject any form of art in toto [total] is to reject the imago Dei, the image of God in humanity. Even though we are fallen, with our art partaking of this fallenness, we are still created in the image of God, and therefore our creations continue to reflect our Maker. As Francis Schaeffer was fond of pointing out, that image comes through even if the artist tries to suppress it. This is so because all truth is, in one sense, God’s truth, no matter who is saying it, be he prophet, infidel or donkey.[19]

There is value in art, even in movies, because of the simple fact that they remind us of our Creator. And there are ways to find redemptive value even in art produced by unbelievers. So Dave Swavely reminds his readers of a verse from Ecclesiastes which reads, “For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God….”[20] Sinners “gather and collect” for God’s people. And, as Godawa has said, all truth is God’s truth, no matter who says it. The difficult task for movie gowers, then, is to be able to discern the truth in movies and to pull out what is of redemptive value and throw away that which is not. More on this is to come.

Art has two main functions: (1) The Utilitarian and (2) the Pleasure functions. At it’s utilitarian function art gives form and expression to the human experience. So Leland Ryken writes:

A rich confusion of awareness lies below the level of our consciousness. Artists reach into that confusion and give it an order. As we stand before a painting or listen to music or read a poem, we suddenly see our own experiences and insights projected onto the details of the work before us. Artists turn our pain into art so we can bear it. They turn our joys into art so we can prolong them.[21]

Under the pleasure function the arts simply celebrate life and bring great joy to audiences, an element of life which is also a desire of God for His children.[22] These two functions are found in all art, including movies, and in that regard we may take value from them.

Another great value of watching movies is related to the disciplines of evangelism and apologetics. As I have tried to express already in this chapter, movies are an enormous part of our culture. The millions of dollars spent at the movies, by production companies and fans alike, the celebrity worship, and sheer number of movies produced each year testify to this fact. To live in our culture is to live amongst a people obsessed with the cinema. Being able to communicate with this culture, then, will require at least a surface level awareness of its cultural language, influences, and current setting. Godawa helpfully articulates this point when he writes:

Not only do [movie haters] miss the positive values that do exist in many movies, but also those who would completely withdraw from culture because of its imperfection suffer a decreasing capacity to interact redemptively with that culture. They don’t understand the way people around them think because they are not familiar with the “language” those people are speaking or the culture they are consuming. A communication barrier results, and these cultural abstainers often end up in irrelevance and alienation from others. I call these artistic teetotalers cultural anorexics.[23]

One way to see clearly the redemptive value that movies can have is to take an example of a common type of story used in film, a type, interestingly enough, labeled by Brian Godawa as the “Christ Myth.”

The Christ Myth
The motion picture industry is in the business of storytelling; part of this task is selecting a particular form in which to convey that story. Among the lists of forms we find such things as parables, fables, allegories, and the myth. The myth is, I believe, a commonly used motif because of all that is involved in a myth. While Fairy stories are more complex than Disney reveals, they are fairly optimistic and upbeat. It is with the myth that we find tragedy, chaos, suffering, and events and aspects that threaten human life. It is this form that appeals most to the modern film because it is the most like our lives; it connects on an emotional level with the audience. In many ways movies today are, as Godawa says, modern myths. What is a myth? The noted educator and mythologist Joseph Campbell best articulated what a myth was. Former Campbell student Christopher Vogler writes:

What is a myth? For our purposes a myth is not the untruth or fanciful exaggeration of popular expression. A myth, as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, is a metaphor for a mystery beyond human comprehension. It is a comparison that helps us understand by analogy, some aspect of our mysterious selves. A myth, in this way of thinking, is not an untruth but a way of reaching a profound truth.[24]

It is important not to think of myth, here, as an untruth. Myth is a form of storytelling that, by means of analogy, brings an audience closer to the truth (or so it should. Of course some myths are false because the truth they are pointing to is false). In this light even Christianity is it self a myth. As C.S. Lewis wrote:

The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact…By becoming a fact, it does not cease to be a myth: that is the miracle…To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myths.[25]

Lewis’ point is merely that by embracing Christianity as fact we do not have to lose any of the beauty and creativity of the story. Godawa explains it perhaps in better language than Lewis:

We are creatures of story, created by a storytelling God, who created the very fabric of our reality in terms of His story. Rather than seeing our existence as a series of unconnected random events without purpose, storytelling brings meaning to our lives through the analogy of carefully crafted plot that reflects the loving sovereignty of the God of the Bible.[26]

As a myth Christianity contains one of the most beloved mythical genres: the Christ Myth[27]. While it may seem condescending it is probably necessary to point out the components of the Christ Myth. First, there are in this myth the common elements of every hero’s journey. The good guy overcoming great obstacles to achieve the best end, yet it brings with it, as Godawa points out, “unique concepts like subistutionary atonement and unmerited grace.”[28] This style has found re-duplication in several major motion pictures. Godawa, in his book Hollywood Worldviews, gives the positive example of “Green Mile” and the negative example of “Hannibal”. The most obvious example of a film using the Christ Myth, however, remains “The Matrix.”

This film gives the most obvious signs of identification with the Christ film. In a simple chart Godawa lays out all the parallels for his readers. He points out: Morpheus declares “the One” just as John the Baptist proclaimed the Christ. Neo is the New Adam. Trinity, the name of one character, is the Holy Spirit. The characters were at one time slaves to A.I., just as humanity is a slave to sin. Their waking up in the pod is representative of spiritual re-birth. Cypher is Judas. There is an Oracle, which is a synonym for prophet. Neo is “the One,” so is Christ. Neo is resurrected and even ascends, just like Christ. Likewise both return in a “Second Coming.” Zion is the name of the last human city, also the name of the Biblical Promised Land/Body of Christ.[29] Could the parallels be any more obvious? Some movies, then, can be redeemed through their expressions, however flawed, of the truth of Christ’s redemption of sinners.

Though this myth is a highly loved and appreciated myth among Christians, due to the disdain for Western culture that much of Hollywood has expressed, it is rarely used in such a full fashion in movies. There is another theme found in almost every movie, however, which brings good value with it but is less blatantly Christian: Redemption.

The Essence of Storytelling
If you were to ask me what every movie is essentially about I would have to conclude “redemption.” Redemption is the essence of all movies because it is the essence of all storytelling. It is the essence of all storytelling because redemption is that one thing we are all looking for in life. Most people have a realization that the world is not as it should be. People can quickly recognize the evil in the world (crime, violence, war, etc.), and if they are honest, within themselves. Such news is unsettling and so we look for something to set it right (i.e. salvation). The pursuit for redemption does not lead all people to Christ, though this is the only true redemption. Others have tried to create a savior in their false worldviews that satisfies this desire for wholeness and perfection without God and the Christ. So Existentialism offers salvation through means of “self-creation”. The universe is absurd, logic is a failure, and the only thing that makes us whole is the creation and definition of ourselves. Nihilism says nothing can save us and so they offer only abandonment and hopelessness (which is in itself their form of salvation). The point here being, of course, that we all seek salvation, and this is expressed at the popular level in film.

Brian Godawa explains the basic structure of storytelling, of course there are many complexed forms of this but I believe that at the most basic level this is at the heart of every good story. He writes:

A movie takes a hero with an inner flaw, who desires something and has a plan to get it. But he is blocked by an adversary until he almost fails but finally finds a solution. This process of goal, flaw, failure and self-revelation is the process of paradigm change or conversion in an individual.[30]

This basic structure of storytelling also happens to be the same basic structure of a Christian redemption. Again Godawa explains:

We, as individuals, have a goal for what we want in life to give us significance, fame, money, what have you. But Satan is our adversary, and our character flaw of sin keeps us from achieving that significance. We think that our control is our salvation, but we are wrong. We are the problem, not the solution. We get to the point in life where our constant attempts at achieving our goal are blocked to the point of apparent defeat. We get to the end of ourselves in a final confrontation when we realize that either we cannot achieve our misguided worldly goals or else we achieve them and realize they do not bring the significance we seek. And we finally have a self-revelation that what we wanted in life is not what we needed. Our alienation is caused by our own inner faults, our sins. We change our minds (repentance), which results in a changed life, our resolution. This is the common personal story of Christian conversion.[31]

Of course the Christian redemption has much more at stake and is much more meaningful than this paragraph explains, but Godawa is right in explaining that it has the same basic structure as the redemption stories found in most movies. Take for example movies like “Forest Gump,” “City Slickers,” “The Truman Show,” and “Chariots of Fire”. Each of these films presents a form of redemption, not all are Christian, in which the main character goes through these stages toward his salvation at the end of the film. In some films redemption may be rejected. This type of film is a tragedy and serves as a parable. In most, however, redemption is embraced and resolution is found. This is a basic element of all films and because of that there is an obvious way for Christians to find redemptive value in movies.

That is not to say, however, that all films that convey a message about redemption are distinctly Christian. Many are anti-Christian. Brian Godawa uses the example of “The Dead Poet’s Society” as a humanistic form of redemption.

In Dead Poets Society the redemption is asserted, by the schoolteacher Keating, that since we are food for the worms and there is no afterlife, we must “seize the day” by casting off social and moral restraint to find one’s self or potential.[32]

In this film the power for resolution lies within the self, and this is the common interpretation of redemption that films take today. Other examples of this humanistic framework are found in “Forest Gump,” “Babe,” and “Groundhog Day,” to name only a few. Nonetheless it is possible for Christians to see these films and while noting the misconception of redemption appreciate the films realization of the need for it. See how a film conveys its message of redemption and compare it with Scripture. See where it is right and where it is wrong. What does God’s word say about the type of redemption this film is attempting to teach? In this way we can be both practicing apologetics and growing in our understanding of Biblical salvation. This type of work is all part of what it means to find redeeming value in films; it is part of watching films actively and with discernment.

Active Viewing versus Passive Viewing
The big screen presents us with such images of intense action, drama, color, comedy, emotion, and special effects that often it is easy to simply be a spectator of movies. Perhaps the word “simply” makes you pause. I mean after all what else does one do with a movie besides watch it? Is there more to movie viewing than being a spectator? There is…much more.

If it is true, as I have tried to show above, that movies have messages, share worldviews, and express values, then no Christian can be a mere passive spectator in the viewing of films. If movies are the popular expressions of various philosophies then every time we watch a movie we are being bombarded with messages, therefore it becomes of paramount importance for Christians to watch them with discernment. That is what this section of the chapter is about: Viewing with Discernment, or as I call it, Active Viewing.

How can we discern what we are seeing and hearing in movies? How can we enjoy films, find redemptive value in them, and yet still avoid swallowing all the falsities that some films give out? There are a number of guiding principles laid out below that will help us all to do just that.

1) Aim to Glorify God. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whatever we do we are to do “all to the glory of God.” That word “all” is huge! This means no eating, no drinking, no playing, and no movie watching can be done ultimately to please ourselves. “All” means ALL things are to be done with the aim of bringing glory to God, exalting His name, and pleasing Him. This means that we watch movies with the intent of being edified. Perhaps that seems hard, but the rest of these principles will show how you can watch movies with the intent to be edified. The important point here is to realize that we cannot simply watch movies to pass the time or for sheer pleasure in and of itself, there must be the higher aim of communing with God through it.

2) Use Biblical Discernment. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” It’s important to let the Bible be the judge of what is and is not edifying and glorifying to God. Dave Swavely writes:

How can you apply these verses to the entertainment you enjoy? First, you need to know what the Bible says, and you need to evaluate what you see and hear on the basis of what the Bible says. All of it! …So when you watch, read, or listen to anything, Christian or non-Christian, your brain should be in gear, not in neutral. You need to be interacting with the material in the art form in a manner that is illustrated by the phrase “talking back to your TV.”[33]

Engaging in the art is a must for all those who wish to glorify God in their movie watching. Remembering the way in which movies convey worldviews (as I listed above) will help you to think critically about everything from scenery to dialogue, from hero types to final resolution. The understanding of basic story structures will help you to search out for the type of myth being used, is it a Christ myth, a naturalistic myth. It will enable you as well, to conclude what the redemption story is in the film. These are all part of engaging the art form and thinking Biblically. Your answers to those questions must then be compared with the text of Scripture and a final judgment of the films overall message may be made. This, of course, takes into consideration the art itself. Thinking critically about the message of the movie does not mean that we cannot appreciate its artistic presentation, even if the message it conveys is one we do not endorse. I can disagree whole heartedly with the New Age religion espoused in “Star Wars” while still appreciating its influence on the development of CGI animation, and acknowledging its cultural influence.

3) Expose Evil. Part of using Biblical discernment means exposing evil, acknowledging what is sin and not reveling in it. This is part of the dilemma of seeing films whose heroes are themselves the anti-hero. There are reasons to not see movies, and that is of the utmost importance to remember. In a moment I hope to address the issue of being cultural gluttons. The fact is that not all of the culture should be embraced. Films that devalue human life may have no redeemable value in them whatsoever. And other movies may just be so full of immorality and sin that whatever redeemable value is accessible in them is not worth seeking. We must acknowledge sin in the cinema and avoid the tendency to mindlessly or consciously endorse it with our laughter and applause, or even with our complete silence.

4) Be Aware of Your Weaknesses. Just as Joseph recognized the advances of Potiphar’s wife and fled, so we should flee from areas of temptation. Men, if you struggle with lust then it would be foolish to attend movies replete with nudity and sexuality. So writes Godawa, “As viewers we must be sensitive to our own weaknesses and negative propensities…we must be careful to draw personal lines that we will not cross, based upon what particular things affect us negatively when we are exposed to them in movies.”[34] Fight off your temptations by viewing movies with discretion.

5) Always Discuss. One of the most important steps to active viewing is discussion pre and post movie watching. Never let a movie pass by without serious contemplation and thoughtful engagement of the film. The best way to do this is by getting input from others. Again Godawa comments:

Two of the most frustrating replies to hear when asking people what they thought of a movie are “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it,” accompanied by an inability to explain why. But with an elementary understanding of the structure of storytelling, an informed moviegoer can watch a film and enjoy the story while also engaging his or her critical faculties to understand what the movie is trying to say about the way in which we ought or ought not to live.[35]

Discussion helps us avoid the generic “I liked it” or “it was good” expressions and discern what the film was really saying.

6) Make the Most Use Out of Your Time. Not all movies are created equal, therefore we must choose wisely what we spend our time watching. To be sure there are far more important things than movies to begin with. Reading, exercise, service, church, and family communication are far more important things to spend your time in. But when you have time to watch a movie choose wisely. Read up on a film, see what reviewers are saying, and don’t just pick films that look “cool.” It is here that a word about the cultural glutton is necessary.

To be sure the cultural anorexic, who avoids all culture because of its contamination with sin, has his problems (mostly in areas of evangelism and apologetics), but his counterpart is not without need of correction. The cultural glutton says that all culture is good and embraces all the latest popular films and appeals to evangelism and apologetics for justification. More often than not, however, as Godawa states it, “One person’s sense of exploitation may simply illustrate his own prudery, while another person’s tolerance may actually be her own indulgence in besetting sin.”[36] A blanket acceptance of all films, even with critical thinking, is not acceptable for Christians. There are far more important things that we need to be using our time on, and Paul wisely exhorts Christians to “redeem the time.” Christ will not be pleased to return and find us having spent our lives at Cinema 6.

And here, appeals to evangelism can only go so far. Many of these cultural gluttons will attempt to find justification for their indulgences in Acts 17:22. Here Paul stands before the Aeropagus and shares the gospel with these non-believers by means of their own poets. So, the defense often goes, Paul is using their own culture as a vehicle for evangelism. But, as Russ Moore writes, “Paul’s discourse on the Aeropagus is strikingly different from many Christian attempts to be relevant to popular culture.”[37] Paul’s use of the Athenian culture is not in an attempt to join them up with Christianity. “Yes, Paul quotes pagan poets, and yes, Paul takes note of the altar to the unknown god. But in neither case is he ‘building a bridge,’ at least not in the way pop evangelicalism wishes to do so….in the citations from the poets, Paul does not find some form of ‘redemptive analogy’ he can use among a people who do not acknowledge the authority of Scripture. To the contrary, he calls them to repentance on the basis of a Scripturally revealed storyline of humanity (17:26-27, 30-31).”[38] Our movie watching must avoid making movies idols, or simply more important than loving Jesus! No amount of text twisting can argue for movie-dominated lives.

Bring Your Briefcase
A dear friend of mine takes a bag full of books with him wherever he is going. He carries theology texts with him at work, in the car, on vacation, to visit family and friends. Why does he do this? He does it because he always likes to have resources at his fingertips from which he can pull to answer various questions and thereby be both apologetic and evangelistic. A continuously growing knowledge of the Bible remains his most effective and important tool in this task but there is an analogy in his example for all moviegoers.

Take your theology with you to the movies. No movie, nor any element of that movie, is neutral. Everything conveys a message, a worldview, that is true or false. Films contain elements that may be redeemable and minister to our souls, but they also contain elements that deceive us and manipulate our emotions. That is why we must engage the art and think critically about it. That is why our theology must accompany us at the movies, to help us discern what is good and bad, to glorify God and edify our souls while we live in the 21st century’s culture. “Avoidance of pop culture is not possible,” writes Moore, “especially among the unbelieving American populace we’re seeking to evangelize.”[39] And while it is possible to both love the cinema and hate the sin, it can only be done if you bring your theology with you.

The movies are a gift from God.[40] We may and should enjoy them, and since the Bible contains no rules against proper and moderate viewing we can have fun at the movies. So, buy your ticket, grab your popcorn, and don’t forget to leave a seat for your theology.

[1] Of course magazines, newspapers, and television most likely are larger forms of mass media, the celebration of films in recent decades makes it a noteworthy part of this group.
[2] John M. Frame, “Introduction.” Theology at the Movies. Available only online at www.frame-poythress.org/frame_books.htm
[3] I suggest here that there are seven basic questions about life, others would argue for more and some less. My list I have borrowed from James Sire in his book The Universe Next Door. (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2004). It seems that Ronald Nash might claim only five (Life’s Ultimate Questions. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999). 14-17) and Nancy Pearcey might suggest only a broad three (Total Truth. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004). 124). I am taking Sire’s view in part because I think it is more specific than the others, but I am not dogmatic about there being seven.
[4] Sire, The Universe Next Door. 20.
[5] Ibid. 17.
[6] Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity. 23.
[7] Ibid. 23-24.
[8] Russ Moore, “Pop Christianity & Pop Culture on Mars Hill,” The Tie. Spring 2006. 74:1. 5.
[9] Gene Edward Veith, “Message Movies.” World Magazine. September 3, 2005. 20:34.
[10] Mark T. Coppenger, “Love and Hate at the Movies.” The Tie. Spring 2006. 74:1. 12.
[11] Veith, “Creature Comfrots.” World Magazine. June 3, 2006. 21:22. 12.
[12] “Big Fish” is actually based on the novel by the same name by Daniel Wallace. It is hard to grasp, but when you do it is worth re-watching.
[13] Brian Godawa, Hollywood Worldviews. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002). 10.
[14] Veith, “V for Vile.” World Magazine. April 1, 2006. 21:13. 10.
[15] Dave Swavely’s book deals at greater length than I have on the issue of legalism in the area of entertainment. He even gives a critical exegesis of one legalist’s own text on pages 135-138. cf. Dave Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. (Philipsburg: P & R, 2005).
[16] Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. 131.
[17] Ibid. 132.
[18] Note, for example, the way Jesus speaks of sin in the Sermon on the Mount. Specifically sexual sins, which the Jewish leaders took to mean only the external act of sexual intercourse, and Jesus applies to even lust.
[19] Godawa, 13-14.
[20] Ecc. 2:26.
[21] Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination. (Colorado Springs: Shaw, 1989). 32.
[22] For further defense that God desires His children to have joy see John Piper, Desiring God. (Sisters: Multnomah, 2003).
[23] Godawa, 13.
[24] Ibid, 25-26.
[25] C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. ed. Walter Hooper. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). 66-67.
[26] Godawa, 32.
[27] Again, in using the word myth in reference to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, I am in no way saying that the Biblical account of Christ’s redemption is false, fabricated, containing any errors, historically unreliable, or even an allegory to some moral/philosophical truth. It is the factual death of Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh on the cross for the salvation of sinners. I embrace a fully orthodox soteriology.
[28] Ibid, 34.
[29] Ibid. 37.
[30] Ibid. 51.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid. 51.
[33] Swavely, 140.
[34] Godawa, 178.
[35] Ibid. 43.
[36] Ibid. 178.
[37] Moore, 4.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid. 5.
[40] For a more thorough articulation of the point that art is God’s gift to mankind see Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination. (Colorado Springs: Shaw, 1989).

The Heart and the Head: Gregory of Nazianzus and the Connection Between Theology and Worship

2006-06-26T05:48:00.000-07:00

There is a connection between the heart and the head that is often overlooked today. For some, theology is useless because it has no value for the Christian life[1]. For others, theology is significant for knowing God, but yet it still finds little application in the day to day[2]. Such a modern conception, however, finds no place in the writings of the ancient church father Gregory of Nazianzus, nor indeed in the Bible. Gregory understood well the connection between worship and theology, and his writings clearly demonstrate this. Gregory grounds this connection in two ways throughout his five Theological Orations: (1) By showing that theology itself is worship, and (2) by displaying how the knowledge of one doctrine (that of the Trinity) is essential to worshiping Christianly.

In his first theological oration Gregory begins by stating that the act of theological thinking and discussion is itself an act of worship, and, that being the case, it must not be done trivially. He compares the “philosophizing about God” with Moses’ going up to the Mount, and speaks of those who would be like Aaron the Priest. The comparisons, and the mention of priests and entering the presence of God, echo the expressions of worship in Exodus 24.[3] Worship is at the center of all theological pursuits. Theologian and professor Christopher Hall notes that “from the very outset of his theological orations, Gregory warns his audience that they and he are attempting a high and holy task.”[4] He continues:

Theology, while employing the mind, also involves the heart. A pure heart, one grounded in the worship of the church and a life of prayer, will produce clear and fruitful theological reflection. A murky heart and a dark mind, on the other hand, will produce a sick, thorny theology; it will offer no nourishment, only harm.[5]

This connection between the heart and the head lead Gregory to say, “Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the subject is not so cheap and low.”[6] Why is it not acceptable for all men to philosophize upon the subject of God? Gregory answers:

Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined, and are passed masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may safely say, not safe, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes upon the sun’s rays.[7]

Indeed, for Gregory, the theologian who wishes to pursue further the knowledge of God he “ought to be, as far as may be, pure, in order that light may be apprehended by light.”[8] All these comments direct us to think carefully about the matters of theological investigation, to be careful about how one ascertains various doctrines, including the doctrine of the trinity. For Gregory, discovering the nature of God requires that we receive His own special revelation. We cannot achieve a deep knowledge of God without God revealing Himself to us. Reason, he argues, fails to adequately provide us with a knowledge of God. Reason is a gift of God that certainly has its uses and is a great tool when used properly, but reason alone is not a means by which one may come to a full understanding of the divine. So Gregory writes:

With a small instrument we are undertaking a great work, when with merely human wisdom we pursue the knowledge of the Self-existent, and in company with, or not apart from, the senses, by which we are borne hither and thither, and led into error, we apply ourselves to the search after things which are only to be grasped by the mind, and we are unable by meeting bare realities with bare intellect to approximate somewhat more closely to the truth, and to mould the mind by its concepts.[9]

The mind’s natural act of reasoning is both part of what is needed to come to an understanding of God and yet is also part of what may lead us astray. Our reasoning is an important tool, Gregory is saying, yet it is not a flawless one. Yet, man is not without hope.

In his introduction to the Gregory’s theological orations one author comments, “God, out of compassion for our weakness, has been pleased to designate Himself in Holy Scripture by various names taken from material objects, or from moral virtues.”[10] This is where the discussion of a knowledge of God’s nature takes a turn. While it is true that it is “impossible for even the most exalted human reason fully to grasp the Nature of God”[11] God Himself has deemed it good to reveal Himself to us in the Scriptures. As Robert Letham has noted, “God has revealed himself to mankind, to Abraham, Isaiah, and Paul, so an apophatic approach is ruled out. [Gregory teaches that] our knowledge of God is true knowledge, but it is not direct knowledge of God’s essence.”[12] The human mind alone is not sufficient to know God, but thankfully God has revealed Himself in Scripture.

The revelation of God’s Trinitarian nature did not come all at once in Scripture, but it is seen throughout the whole scope of the canon. Gregory gives a splendid articulation to this point when he writes:

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further…with the Holy Spirit…[I]t was necessary that, increasing little by little, and, as David says, by ascensions from glory to glory, the full splendor of the Trinity should gradually shine forth.[13]

It is to the Scriptures that one must turn to do theology, and without the Bible not only do we come to a faulty, or a weak knowledge of God, but we also fail to worship God. In his first Theological Oration Gregory delineates this point thoroughly. His attack against the heretical Eunomian heresy in this first sermon aims at pointing out their faulty hermeneutic. Christopher Hall notes well the error that Gregory aims at undermining in this first oration.

Gregory’s attention appeared to focus on a radical Arian group known as the Eunomians. This group exalted their supposed ability to plumb rationally the depths of the divine being itself. The Eunomians believed they could clearly comprehend the divine essence and distinguish the relationships between Father, Son and Holy Spirit through the use of reason alone.[14]

It has already been mentioned why Gregory believed that reason alone was incapable of producing a knowledge of the divine essence[15], but if not reason what, then, may give man a knowledge of the holy? Hall continues:

In his first Theological Oration Gregory concentrates his attention on how the Eunomians read Scripture and do theology, rather than on their specific errors. It does not surprise him that they are making crucial errors, because their attitude from the beginning is faulty.[16]
The supposition that reason alone is adequate to form a conception of the essence of God is faulty, Gregory argues, because “in their study of God…they have forgotten who they are dealing with and have reduced God’s wonders and mysteries to the boundaries of their own rational capabilities.”[17]

At the heart of their heresy is a bad heart, Gregory says. The Eunomians come to wrong conclusions in their theology because they do not seek to worship God in their theology; rather they seek to exalt their abilities. Gregory is arguing here not simply for an admission of the inadequacy of reason, but for an honesty about the need for God’s self-revelation in Scripture. Hall points out the lack of a worshipful spirit in how the Eunomians pursued theology. “The Eunomians were a cocky, self-assured bunch, ready to use rational syllogisms to poke holes in the ideas of their opponents, but all the while blind to the drastic implications of their own theological methodology.”[18] Their hearts were in the wrong place, and their pride mutated their theology.

The first Theological Oration is the most in depth of Gregory’s writings on the connection between theology and worship. It strongly emphasizes that without a proper heart, without a devout spiritual life, one cannot and should not do theology. Many had, in fact, turned theology into a type of sport. Quoting from Jarslov Pelikan, Christopher Hall describes Gregory’s complaint against these individuals:

Pelikan notes Gregory’s complaint that “some devotees of theology” were “like the promoters of wrestling-bouts, in the theatres,” people whose “idle chatter about the dogmas of the faith,” in Gregory’s words, made “every square in the city buzz with their arguments.” The only remedy was a pure mind and heart and good, old fashioned study.[19]

This is what happens when one separates worship from theology; you end up with mere prattle and useless philosophizing. To maintain a biblical focus on discourse about God one must have a pure heart, one must love God, and one must seek to worship Him. Theology is affected by worship.

On the reverse side, however, we find the same connection. Not only is theology affected by worship, but worship is affected by theology, as well. Robert Letham is right when he writes, “Today most Western Christians are practical modalists. The usual way of referring to God is ‘God’ or, particularly at the popular level, ‘the Lord.’” Where is the Trinity in our Christianity? Do many of our worship songs reflect the God of the Bible, or could Jews, Muslims, and deists sing them as well? “It is worth contrasting this [absence of the Trinity from Western worship] with Gregory Nazianzen, the great Cappadocian of the fourth Century, who spoke of ‘my Trinity,’ saying, ‘When I say, ‘God,’ I mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’”[20] The true worship of God must acknowledge that He is Triune, and worship the full Godhead.

Gregory could hardly think of God without thinking of each of the three Persons of the one Godhead, and, likewise, could hardly think of one Person without thinking of the whole unity. So he says:

When we look at the Godhead…that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the persons in whom the Godhead dwells, and at those who tirelessly and with equal glory have their being from the first cause—there are three whom we worship.[21]

The theologian has a specific way of describing how this Trinitarian worship works. He knew that many of his opponents, even if they conceded that the Bible presents God as Triune, would still question whether or not all three Persons should be worshiped, he answers their doubts as follows:

But, [the doubter] says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to Him? Where is it written that we ought to worship Him, or to pray to Him, and whence have you derived this tenet of yours? …For the present it will suffice to say that it is the Spirit in Whom we worship, and in Whom we pray. For Scripture says, God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.[22]

It is by the Holy Spirit, through Christ the Son, and to the Father that the Christian worships. In the act of worship the Spirit is the one who generates this desire to worship God, and it is because of the Son’s death and resurrection and through His righteousness credited to us that we may approach God in worship. Thus all three Persons of the Godhead must be acknowledged in worship, or we do not have a distinctly Christian worship.

God has revealed Himself as Triune within scripture[23] and, according to him, to fail to affirm this in our worship is to fail to worship. Gregory is not shy in asserting his belief in the trinity:
This then is my position, with regard to these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me; to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom.[24]

Theology and worship, despite what many may say, cannot be separated. Gregory declares that only a worshipful spirit produces true theology, and only a true theology produces Biblical worship. Thus it may rightly be asserted, as Gregory would assert, that the heart and the head are connected.

[1] Donald Miller suggests this very plainly in his work Blue Like Jazz.
[2] Unfortunately this is how many academicians behave. This model also finds examples among Protestants who owned slaves.
[3] Gregory’s Second Theological Oration. ed. Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 289.
[4] Christopher Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: IVP, 2002. 56.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Schaff, 285.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 288.
[9] Ibid. 296.
[10] Ibid. 282.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2004). 158-159.
[13] Quoted in Letham, 33.
[14] Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: IVP, 1998. 69.
[15] Much of my thought on the place of logic in Gregory’s writing is owing to helpful articulation from both Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers and Frederick Norris, “Of Thorns and Roses: The Logic of Belief in Gregory Nazianzen.” Church History. 53. 455-464.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.70.
[20] Letham, 5-6.
[21] Quoted from Letham, 412.
[22] Schaff, 321.
[23] Gregory makes his case for this point in both the Theological Orations on the Son and his final one on the Holy Spirit.
[24] Ibid. 326-7.

A Theology Against Legalism

2006-06-16T19:21:00.000-07:00

They weren’t allowed to listen to music or watch television. Movies were strictly forbidden and school dances were out of the question. I often wondered how this family had come to such conclusions. Why were such things as music, dancing, movies, and the like evil things? Why were they banned? My initial analysis was simply that they were legalistic. They had set down rules and made regulations for things that the Bible never speaks about. They were living by some other standard, I thought. In recent years, however, I have come to see more clearly that this is not entirely fair, nor is it a true understanding of what legalism is. Legalism is a serious issue and one that each Christian encounters, both externally and internally. Therefore, we must know, understand, and counteract the doctrines of legalism.

What is Legalism?
C.J. Mahaney has helpfully clarified what legalism is in the following definition: Legalism is seeking to achieve forgiveness from God and acceptance by God through obedience to God.[1] It is basing our relationship with God on our own performance. This is such a crucial point to get because it turns legalism into something that is not merely “out there”, but quite probably “in here”. In other words this definition points out that legalism is something that all Christians struggle with. Let me show you how.

Legalism in Me
Do you ever feel God is more accessible because you read your Bible? Do you ever feel like you can’t go to God because you have sin in your life, you haven’t done a daily devotional, you haven’t prayed, or you yelled at your spouse? Do you ever feel like God looks on you more happily because you attended church, sang with a worshipful spirit, or wept over sin? This is essentially legalism. We are basing our relationship with God on something we ourselves have done. We are all prone to do these sorts of things, to believe these things. Suddenly the legalist is not merely that person who scorns wearing makeup, but it’s me. It’s no longer external, it’s internal. It’s no longer an issue for old churches or young believers, but a struggle for me. Suddenly I have to examine my own life to touch on spots where I am failing in my theology. John MacArthur is dead on when he writes that legalism is a threat today. He says:

Even in Evangelical churches there are many people whose assurance of salvation is based on their religious activities rather than faith alone in the all-sufficient Savior. They assume they are Christians because they read the Bible, pray, go to church, or perform other religious functions. They judge spirituality on the basis of external performance rather than internal love for Christ, hatred for sin, and a heart devoted to obedience.[2]

It’s easy to do and most of us are prone to it. Perhaps we don’t all associate our salvation so blatantly with our works, but rather we judge God’s accessibility based on these works. We say, or simply think, “God won’t hear me,” or “God won’t bless me if I don’t do ____,” and you can fill in the blank. The fundamental error involved here is a confusion of two important works of God: justification and sanctification.

When the Related Become Synonymous
Because the church often employs its own language to talk about certain ideas and doctrines it is easy for people to be confused about what these terms mean without a simple investigation. That is, I believe, what has happened with the terms “justification” and “sanctification”. In many ways the church has taken the term “salvation” and made it synonymous with both of these terms. When we mean to say that someone is “saved” we may say he is “justified.” But in reality “Justification” and “Sanctification” are sub-sets of the whole work of “Salvation”. All three of these terms are related but they are not synonymous. To be saved one must be “justified” and one must begin the process of “sanctification.” If you are “justified” then you will be growing in “sanctification”. It’s important to see the differences between justification and sanctification, for that is where the fundamental error leading to legalism begins. Mahaney gives a good list of these differences.

· Justification is being declared righteous. Sanctification is being made righteous- being conformed to the image of Christ.
· Justification is our position before God. Sanctification is our practice. You don’t practice justification! It happens once for all, upon conversion.
· Justification is objective- Christ’s work for us. Sanctification is subjective- Christ’s work within us.
· Justification is immediate and complete upon conversion. You will never be more justified than you are the first moment you trust in the Person and finished work of Christ. Sanctification is a process. You will be more sanctified as you continue in grace-motivated obedience.[3]

Understanding the distinction between these two works of the Spirit of God is
crucial to avoiding the error of legalism. Mahaney wisely writes, “Nearly every man and woman I’ve met who has struggled with legalism has had a faulty understanding of how justification and sanctification are related to each other, and how they’re distinct. We must distinguish between justifying grace and sanctifying grace, but never separate them.”[4] Do you adequately understand these two theological terms? A quick summary of them individually may be helpful here.

Changing Positions
The term “justification” is too important to leave open to various interpretations. It is, as Thomas Watson said, “the very hinge and pillar of Christianity.”[5] We must make sure that we fully understand what justification is as taught from scripture.

The Bible indicates that the term “justification” is a legal term. The common meaning of the Greek word, which we translate as “justification,” is “to declare righteous.”[6] Some verses make this abundantly clear by the way that they contrast “justification” with “condemnation”. So note Romans 8:33-34, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?” The contrast is between two types of declarations: (1) The Declaration of Guilty, and (2) The Declaration of NOT Guilty. This is the essence of justification. Wayne Grudem gives us a wonderful working definition: Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which He (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in His sight.[7]

Justification is a legal declaration made by God, and this is important to remember. For we are all guilty of one great sin: disobedience to God’s law. We are lawbreakers and God has every right, as the just judge of the universe, to condemn us for this crime. Yet, because of Christ’s death on the cross, all those who repent of this sin and confess Christ as Lord and Savior, can be declared not guilty. The only Son of God has bore the punishment that they deserved, and God now “justifies” them. It is a changing of positions on the grandest scale. Listen to how Paul describes this transition in Colossians 1:21-22.

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before Him.

Listen again to Paul’s words from his letter to the Ephesians:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

These two verses emphasize well the change of positions that occurs in the sinner when he is justified. The ground of this justification is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the cross in the place of sinners. The key to this justification is faith, and this is crucial to our discussion of legalism.

Justification by Faith Alone?
The great debate of the Protestant Reformation was over the issue of justification by faith alone. It was perversions of this doctrine that Luther most ardently opposed. The Catholic church, at that time, taught that one might attain justification via the sacraments. Justification is poured into the soul at an infant’s baptism, but the receiver must co-operate and assent to this. The individual is, then, justified if they keep themselves from mortal sin. If one commits a mortal sin that individual may be restored through penance. The works of satisfaction give the penitent sinner a merit that God acknowledges as worthy to grant the sinner restoration. What Luther was running into was a theology, which confessed that faith was necessary for justification, but not sufficient. It was the difference between faith and faith alone.[8]

Today we have similar problems, not only with Catholic theology but with Protestants as well. While many plainly profess justification by faith alone they do not live that way. Our actions and thoughts often reflect a belief that we are justified by something other than faith, and we often judge others by an external standard. But note what scripture clearly teaches about our justification.

And to one who does not work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Rom. 4:5)

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the Prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom. 3:21-22a)

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Rom. 3:28)

He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (Rom. 3:30b)

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5:1)

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

We must all come to grasp fully the truth that we are only justified by faith! Works have no place in the Biblical doctrine of justification. We are neither initially justified nor remain justified by our works, it is all by grace through faith. This is the most crucial step to grasp if we are to fight off the urge to be legalists, yet it is not the only step.

Growth is a Process
As I have already noted, most of us do not have the problem of defining our salvation by our works. For any good Protestant this is an obvious heresy. Yet in the area of our sanctification we often stumble into legalism. Dave Swavely notes the distinction:

The word [legalism] is used by Christians in connection with both justification and sanctification, two very different topics. When used in connection with justification, “legalism” usually means adding works to faith, or human merit to grace, as a condition for salvation. But when used in connection with sanctification (the Christian life after coming to salvation), the term usually has something to do with man-made traditions added to the Bible.[9]

It is often in this second area that Christians fall into the error of legalism: by adding man-made traditions to the Word of God. This creates a standard for spirituality which the Bible never mandates and which often leads to pride, sin, and disappointment. Let’s begin this part of the discussion, however, by nailing down exactly what “sanctification” is.
We’ve already seen what the differences are between “justification” and “sanctification” but let’s get some more detailed information. Wayne Grudem gives us a working definition for “sanctification.” He writes: Sanctification is a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives.[10]
It’s important to realize that our conversion is a full and complete change of heart. We once hated God and now we desire Him and love Him. This truth, however, does not negate the fact that we still live in a world of temptation and have sinful desires in us. To change this takes time, hard work, and the continuing outpouring of God’s grace. This is why we read Paul saying to the Roman Christians, who had “died to sin” (Rom. 6:2), that they should “let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions” (v. 12). And likewise, the apostle writes of the Corinthian Christians that while they are “beholding the glory of the Lord,” they are also “being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18).
These verses, and many others, teach that God’s work to conform us to the image of His dear Son is a process, it does not happen overnight and requires both our hard discipline and, ultimately, His triumphing grace to overcome sin. This is important for us to remember as we seek to avoid the error of legalism. There are two main pitfalls into that sin in the area of sanctification, so let’s look at them each individually.

Remember the Cross
The first pitfall we have already mentioned, it is the confusion of “sanctification” with “justification.” I won’t belabor discussion of this beyond what is necessary; I have already highlighted (thanks to C.J. Mahaney) what the differences are between the two doctrines. But let me add a few more comments to this discussion.
The chief fault of this association is that it makes necessary for salvation what God never required. Mahaney, again, gives a good summary of what needs to be said. He writes:
Now…here’s the mistake the legalist makes. He confuses his own ongoing participation in the process of sanctification with God’s finished work in justification. In other words, he thinks that godly practices and good works somehow contribute to his justification.[11]
We seem to struggle with the notion of having nothing to contribute to our salvation. We tend to want to “help God out,” or, less blasphemous, “to pull our own weight.” During the 3rd Century a heresy developed in Christendom known as Pelagianism, which embraced this innate tendency. The teachings of Pelagius, a British monk, argued for a meritorious salvation. Man was not corrupted with sin, but could, through hard work, save himself. Historian and theologian Timothy George summarizes well the distinctiveness of Pelagius’ teachings when he writes, “The law was the perfect rulebook and Jesus was the perfect rule keeper- nothing more. Salvation, like sin, is by imitation too.”[12] Under this type of teaching legalism would creep into a doctrine of justification. After Pelagianism itself was refuted and declared heretical, a new brand of the old teaching developed: Semi-Pelagianism. In many ways this same teaching is still in existence today and may be even more disastrous. 19th Century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge once jokingly said that he did not fear the ghost of Pelagius, but the ghost of Semi-Pelagius.
Semi-Pelagianism, while acknowledging the faults of the old Pelagianism, still maintained a meritorious aspect to salvation. In Pelagianism we did 99% of the work towards our salvation and God, in sending the Son, did 1%. In Semi-Pelagianism, however, it is God who does the 99% and we who do the 1%. Martin Luther, writing of Semi-Pelagianism, asserted that this teaching was even more dangerous than the former heresy:

This hypocrisy of theirs [Semi-Pelagians] results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something in us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.[13]

The outcome of this teaching is the same as that of the heretical Pelagius: man works for his salvation. Many Christians believe and live as though their salvation is based on how good of a Christian they are. This can be most evidently seen in the theology of those who deny the doctrine of Eternal Security.[14] There is a shift in the central focus of the believer, going on here. Instead of focusing on the cross and Christ’s death as the satisfaction of God’s wrath against man’s sin, he focuses on his works as the means to maintaining God’s good favor. But the Bible is clear that no one will be saved (or kept saved) by the works of the law. No good deed is good enough to satisfy God’s anger against your sin, only Christ’s subistutionary death, paying the penalty we deserved, is sufficient. This is important because of what “working for God’s favor” says about the cross.
When we work to earn God’s favor, when we attempt to add our character or deeds to the cross, we are saying with our lives, if not with our hearts, that Jesus’ death was not sufficient. That in fact his death may very well be in vain if I do not do something to help him out. We suddenly turn God into a puny deity who needs us to work, or worse still we rob Him of all the glory He deservers for our salvation. Jesus paid it all! We have nothing to add. In the words of William Cowper, “Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.” Grasping this is crucial for warding off legalism.

Remember Progression
The second pitfall into legalism deals with the issue of sanctification as a process. While the former failed to distinguish sanctification from justification, this error fails to realize the progressive nature of sanctification. This problem is all the more difficult to resist because of the battle going on currently over “Lordship Salvation.”[15] It is true that Scripture does indeed teach that the true Christian will live a life representative of his changed heart, reflecting his conversion. But our obedience as evidence of our salvation can easily be perverted into something it was not meant to be. Let’s carefully deal with this issue in more detail.
The mistake of legalists in this area is to confuse sanctification with glorification. We are not perfect in this life and while we are to follow Christ in obedience, failure to do so flawlessly does not admit false conversion, or lost salvation. A theology that teaches otherwise may properly be identified as Perfectionism. Theologians and Christians who adhere to this system of teaching do so based on misinterpretations of various Scriptural passages, such as: Matthew 5:48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect;” 2 Corinthians 7:1 “Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God;” 1 Thess. 5:23 “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly;” and John 3:6 “No one who abides in Him sins;” and there are many other verses. Do these verses, however, teach that in this life our perfection may be realized? After a closer inspection of the context and the whole of Scripture it is simply not possible to conclude what the Perfectionists profess. Wayne Grudem has done a masterful job of arguing against their interpretations of these verses in his systematic theology[16]; I will not here repeat them. What we must understand, however, is that each part of the Bible is to be interpreted in light of the whole. So we should consider here and ask the question, “what does the whole Bible teach about sanctification?”
A great verse to consider here is Romans 6:19. Here Paul writes, “Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.” We must pay attention to the words at the beginning of this verse. The “Just as” is crucial. For “just as” the Roman Christians had previously yielded themselves up to more and more sin, in a like manner they are now to yield themselves up to more and more “righteousness for sanctification.” So Wayne Grudem correctly writes:
Paul says that throughout the Christian life “we all…are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18). We are progressively becoming more and more like Christ as we go on in the Christian life. Therefore he says, “Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14)- this is in the context of saying that he is not already perfect but he presses on to achieve all of the purposes for which Christ has saved him (vv. 9-12).[17]

The Bible teaches that sanctification is a process, not a one-time event that produces perfection in this life.[18] Legalism appears in this manner when individuals suppose that any sin is a sign of “backsliding” or of a lack of salvation all together. This simply is not always the case. The apostle James clearly said, “We all make many mistakes” (James 3:2). When we understand that sanctification is a process we are less prone to judge others, and ourselves, by our works.
The “sticky” part of this particular aspect of the discussion comes up when we inquire of the role of works. What place does self-discipline have in the Christian life? What about the spiritual disciplines? How do we wrestle with those commands in the Bible that tell us to “work?” These are important questions and they must be addressed in a balanced manner. It is important to remember that while we are called to “work” we are never called to any form of legalism, and the difficulty is in finding the proper balance.

The Role of Works in the Christian Life
Titus 2:14 is one particular passage that helps us to understand the place of discipline and work in the Christian life. There the apostle Paul, writing to his son in the faith, says that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify form himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works.” Within in this short and simple verse we have a basic theology of works. Let’s lay it out.
The context of this verse indicates that Paul is speaking about the very issue we are here considering: working in the Christian life. Beginning in verse 11 he states that it is the grace of God through Jesus Christ that has brought salvation to us, and that this salvation is “training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.” So sanctification is a post conversion work of God. After salvation, God, through His Holy Spirit works in us to train us to renounce ungodliness, to be conformed to the image of Christ. The verse we are mainly focusing on in this section of scripture, v. 14, teaches the same thing. Christ redeems a people from all “lawlessness and to purify” them. No matter how good our works were before Christ they were not good enough, for all men and women need to be redeemed from lawlessness and be purified.
The second part of the verse indicates why Christ redeemed and purifies: to make a “people for His own possession who are zealous for good works.” To be zealous for truly good works we must first be redeemed and purified. So in no way are our works meant to save us! They cannot! Only after our salvation do works have a proper place in our life, as a means to honor God and exalt Christ. Where we fall short of this we are to confess our sins and ask for forgiveness, and, according to the apostle John, “if we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.”[19] Christians sin; John says as much when he writes in chapter two of 1 John, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” There is no place in Christian theology for a Perfectionist teaching, and no place for a legalism that deems only the perfectly sinless are truly converted.

Turning Our Theology On Others
The brunt of our focus on legalism thus far has been the self. I have been concerned with encouraging those of us who bare the scars of legalism and find ourselves hopeless and depressed and indeed doubting our salvation. I hope that if you are one of those people you see how clearly the Bible teaches only Christ can save and His work is sufficient for your full and eternal salvation. Rest in that truth and never move beyond it. But now let me take the time to focus on those who use legalism as a means of judging others, something, I am sure, none of us are innocent of.
While none of us likes to be judged by the legalist’s standards it is sadly true that we often do the same to others. I hope that making the proper distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification will keep you from doing this, but there is another principal that may also help us to avoid judging others un-biblically. The apostle Paul lays it out for us:
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1 Cor. 4: 6)
The context of this passage is Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians who were judging others based on what leader they followed, and judging Paul, himself. In verse 5 we read, “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” In this verse Paul is instructing the Corinthians not to judge matters for which we do not have all the information (things hidden in darkness) and not to judge the motives of others’ hearts. And he follows this up with a strict command “not to go beyond what is written,” meaning beyond what God has laid out in His Holy Word. This is the number one fault leading to legalism and as such deserves a full explication; this will help us make a proper distinction between judging Biblically and un-Biblically.

Beyond What is Written
God has given us clear commands in scripture on a number of issues in the Christian life. We know from the Bible that we are not to commit adultery, we are not to steal, we are not to get drunk, we know that we are not to forsake the church, or to oppress the poor. But what are we to do when the Bible does not give an explicit command on a certain issue? There are a number of issues which Scripture does not address that are considered somewhat controversial in Christian circles. For example: Should Christians go to the movies, play video games, smoke, drink, watch football games on Sunday afternoon, dance? These and many other issues are a main source of division in the church. How are we to deal with such subjects when God’s word does not deal with them? In that one phrase “do not go beyond what is written” Paul gives us a principal of guidance.
Where God’s word remains silent, by either direct statement or implication, then we are free to make our own choice in good conscience. This one verse assuredly condemns making a moral universal standard out of something that is nowhere recorded in Scripture. You cannot make a universal law about something that the Bible is silent. Again, in Romans 14 Paul lays this principal out for us.
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
The passage continues with an astounding and forthright declaration on the freedom of the Christian to make decisions where the Bible is silent, and on the prohibition of judging where there is no definitive Biblical rule.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the Judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
The whole chapter is rich with this topic and in a straightforward fashion declares judging where the Bible is silent is an un-Biblical form of judging. Instead it promotes the freedom that Christians have in Christ, and one phrase in particular stands out as key: Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. In this one sentence we have a mandate for free thinking and conscience guided decision-making. After all a Biblically informed conscience can be an excellent guide in the Christian life, though it is not the only one or the ultimate one. Dave Swavely calls this the “Principal of Conscience” and it is an important principal to grasp to help aid us in the fight against legalism.

The Principal of Conscience
Dave Swavely writes, “The apostle Paul ends his discussion in Romans 14 by explaining more about Christian liberty and its relation to that mysterious faculty of the human soul that we call conscience.”[20] God has instilled in His created man a conscience with the intent that, under the influence of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, man would be led in the way he should go. Of course with the fall into sin all of man has been contaminated, and even our conscience can sometimes lead us astray. But when informed by God’s moral law and requirements the conscience can be a great tool. In verses 22 and 23 Paul gives encouragement for us to enjoy the freedoms that we have in Christ. So he writes:

The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

On issues where the Bible has given no clear direct or implied moral command we are free to make our own decision. But, as Paul tells us here, that decision must be Biblically informed and you must be convinced in your conscience that you are in no way sinning against God. Speaking of those who would eat food sacrificed to idols when it is against their conscience to do so Paul says that they are “condemned,” meaning guilty. To eat without faith, Paul says, is sin. It is not the eating that is the sin, it is the person’s heart that is causing him to sin. Dave Swavely uses an interesting example to explain this point.
A helpful illustration would be a woman who was taught while growing up, by her parents and her church, that wearing pants is wrong. Men wear pants, the argument goes, so women should not wear pants. This is a legalistic view that is read into Scripture…, but does not proceed from a sound interpretation of Scripture and is not consistent with common sense…So she has been convinced that it is wrong for her to wear pants. Now suppose she is getting ready to go out for the evening with some female friends, who are all wearing jeans and begin to encourage her to do the same. They even poke fun at her hesitancy, and practically browbeat her into breaking her tradition. If she decides to put the jeans on while she still thinks it might be wrong, she will be sinning, because at that moment something is more important to her than pleasing God. It will not be her faith in Him that motivates her to put those jeans on, but her fear of what her friends think, and perhaps her own comfort. [21]
Here is a clear case of how the “Principal of Conscience” should be applied. It is not a sin to wear jeans; nowhere in Scripture do we find even the slightest implication of such a rule. Yet if one believes it is a sin to wear jeans, yet you do it anyways, than you say with your heart, “I would rather wear jeans than honor God.” As is often the case with sin, the action is not necessarily the sin; it is the motivation and inclination of the heart. In the case of Swavely’s fictional woman, her heart is more inclined towards pleasing her friends than pleasing God. Where Scripture does not give us boundaries we are free to make our own choice, but that choice must never be to do what we think might even possibly be a sin.

The Dangers of Unbiblical Judging
While the Bible does declare that we have much freedom in Christ there are many who don’t acknowledge this and they make their own opinions about certain issues to be universal laws. So they judge others by a standard which God has not set, a man-made tradition. This was the great fault of the Pharisees in Jesus’ own day. The Pharisees had a number of problems, a majority of which stemmed from their legalism. I want to turn our attention to three major problems, or dangers, that stem from legalism: (1) Hypocrisy, (2) Pride, (3) Self-Condemnation.

The Sin of Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is a word used to describe those who give the pretense of being something which they are not. It is saying one thing, and doing the opposite. This is often a result of legalism because of the tendency that this teaching has to focus on the external actions while ignoring the internal heart. On Several occasions Jesus identifies this as the problem that the Pharisees had. In Mark 7:5-7 we read:

And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "' This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

Here we have a real life example, from the New Testament, of legalism. The Pharisees were teaching “as doctrine,” meaning they made a universal law, the “commandments of men.” The “law” to wash your hands before eating was not set by God, but was a man-made rule that the Pharisees were making universal. It was the “tradition of the elders,” not the tradition of God. Yet in making this rule the Pharisees forgot that it is not merely the external actions that matter, but the state of one’s heart. So Jesus condemns them for their formalism: honoring God with their lips but not worshiping Him in their hearts.
Again in Luke 11:37-44 Jesus identifies the Pharisees as hypocrites.

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it."

The Pharisees here are said to cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, a metaphor for their own selves, yet the inside is still dirty. It’s a very practical and convincing image. Would you want to drink from a cup that was clean and shiny on the outside but on the inside had week old coffee stains or milk? It’s a rather gross image in that way, and Jesus is here comparing the Pharisees to externally clean dishes that have maintained their filth on the inside. They look good to others, yet to God, who judges the heart, they are stained with sin. In short: they give the pretense of holiness, while being full of sin; it is hypocrisy.
Of course this serves as a warning to us. One of the great faults of legalism is to suppose that external deeds are evidence of internal holiness. But we know it to be true that often we can do the right things and still be sinners. Before we were Christians even, we often did good deeds, but this does not make anyone holy (as has been shown above). Washing the outside of our cups but leaving the inside dirty is hypocrisy and not genuine righteousness. We may honor God with our lives but if our hearts do not worship Him than we worship God in vain. Hypocrisy hardens our hearts to true purity. We will gradually become more convinced that if we are doing the right deeds, we will not need to seek true repentance and internal devotion to God. It is this hypocrisy that Jesus condemned and it will bear dead spiritual fruit in our lives.

The Sin of Pride
Pride is the second major sin of the practice of legalism. This result being as equally disastrous to our spiritual lives and fellowship with the saints and the Lord as the former sin is. Often the keeping of these external rules can become a source of pride in the legalist. Listen to the words of the Pharisee in the parable that Jesus tells.
[Jesus] also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'[22]
What audacity this Pharisee had. He came before God bragging of his good deeds as though he had accomplished much for God without God. His heart was full of arrogance and self-righteousness. And Jesus’ has told this parable with the expressed intent of showing the self-righteous how foolish they are, for it continues:

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

It was not the self-professed righteous Pharisee who leaves the temple justified, but rather the poor and humble tax collector. Legalism tends towards making arrogant fools out of men, a point that the Apostle Paul saw all to clearly.
Why is the Apostle Paul so concerned, in 1 Corinthians 4, that Christians should never go “beyond what is written” in their judgments about moral issues? …The Answer lies in all the problems that result from it…The last part [of 1 Corinthians 4:6] is a purpose clause (beginning with the Greek conjunction “hina”) explaining why Paul wants the Corinthians to keep themselves from going beyond what is written…Paul says we should avoid legalism “so that no one of you will become arrogant.”[23]
Pride is simple sin to fall into and yet God’s word has very harsh words for the proud man. Note these verses from Proverbs:

When pride comes, then comes dishonor, but with the humble is wisdom (11:2).
Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; assuredly , He will not be unpunished (16:5).
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling. It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoil with the proud (16:18-19).
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him (26:12).
An arrogant man stirs up strife, but he who trusts in the Lord will prosper (28:25).
A man’s pride will bring him low, but a humble spirit will obtain honor (29:23).[24]

God’s word makes no excuses for the sin of pride. It is an “abomination” to the Lord. It is an outrage to Him, for many reasons but chief among them being that it robs God of His glory. Paul plainly asked the Corinthian Christians “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not?” God gets the glory for every “good and perfect gift” and our pride is an attempt to claim for ourselves some of what belongs solely to Him, for “in Him we live and move and have our being.” So how does pride come from legalism? Dave Swavely gives a solid and Biblical answer:

…Remember that to whatever extent you go beyond what is written, it will short-circuit your spiritual growth to the same degree. Why does this happen? One way of explaining it is that when we are learning and obeying the commandments and teachings of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is present and working within us as we do …But when we are learning and obeying the “commandments and teachings of men,” He is not. If we grow in our godliness by the power of the Holy Spirit, He makes sure that we progress in humility as well. But when we are living in legalism by our own strength, we can only grow arrogant as we surpass other Christians in our “spiritual success.”[25]

Legalism leads to pride because it accomplishes “spiritual growth” (which is really false spiritual growth) in one’s own strength, and bypasses the power of the Holy Spirit. And, as we read above, pride leads to destruction and is an abomination to the Lord. Spiritual pride wreaks havoc on our relationship with God and with other believers.

The Sin of Self-Condemnation
Perhaps it seems odd to you to call “self-condemnation” a sin. Many think this has more to do with a lack of self-esteem than with sinfulness, but sin is usually involved in this psychological problem. C.J. Mahaney helps us better understand condemnation, he writes, “Condmenation is something we all deal with at one time or another…We can become condemned over any sin, past or present, great or small. The common element is a sustained sense of guilt or shame over sins for which you have repented to God and to any appropriate individuals.”[26] How is this a sin? That’s an excellent question and I am glad you asked.
Self-Condemnation is a sin because it reflects an unspoken attitude that says, “Jesus’ sacrifice couldn’t possibly be enough to win the Father’s favor completely, unreservedly, and forever.”[27] It is an attempt to justify oneself by works, which we have already seen is the epitome of arrogance and impossible. Legalism almost always leads to self-condemnation, both for those who allow themselves to be judged and often for those who do the judging. Let’s see an example.
A legalist has recently joined your church. Of course he does not identify himself as a legalist, and to the members and the staff of the congregation he seems to be a very godly man who lives a very godly life. You welcome him with open arms, and suspect nothing (which you should if you do not know him to be a legalist or have reason to suppose he is). As you spend more time together he convinces you that it is a sin to watch movies, to listen to public radio, and to eat a snack after dinner. He then convinces you that only home schooling is a Biblical way to train your kids, and that if you are not leading a Bible study at work then you are sinning. After further time together he wants you to read a book together with him, and join the bus ministry; After all “every good Christians serves in as many capacities as he can at the church,” he tells you. Well for several weeks you are doing well but then you had some ice cream after supper one night, and you watched a movie with your cousin who came in town. Suddenly you begin feeling extremely guilty, and for things that are not even sins. As time goes on you fail to read the weekly chapters for the book you’re reading with him, and you listened to a song on the radio on the way to work, you begin to wonder how displeased God is with you? You’re now feeling worse than before, you begin to avoid prayer and Bible study, and you can no longer look you friend the eye. Why does this happen? Where did this condemnation come from? From the legalism you have been sucked into.
There are many good things to do in the Christian life, some are even essentials, yet none of them ever changes our accessibility to God or His favor on us. Even something as crucial as Bible reading and church attendance will never make us more acceptable to God. But the more we think they do, and the more we fail to do them, the more we will build up a problem of self-condemnation. Mahaney gives some sound advice, however, when he writes:

The Christian who desires to live a cross centered life will regularly face his or her own depravity and the seriousness of personal sin, squarely and unflinchingly. It’s a reality. But the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin is even greater…Here’s how to beat condemnation. Confess your sin to God. Then believe in Him.[28]

Fighting Our Great Foe
We have, at length, discussed the issue of judging and legalism. Much more could be said, and, thankfully, has been said by better authors than myself. It is important, however, that before we conclude our discussion we ask the question: How can I fight against legalism in me? That is the final focus of this chapter: Steps to Kill Legalism.
Step 1: Sola Scriptura. We read above on the strict command of Paul “not to go beyond what is written.” The chief way to avoid legalism is to filter every though through the word of God. Paul said to the Romans, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…” We become more like Christ as our thoughts become more like His thoughts. Keep a close guard on your theology and let the word of God be your source. Speaking of the phrase “do not go beyond what is written,” Dave Swavely comments:

This would be a good slogan for Christians today to repeat regularly, similar to Sola Scriptura, the one made famous during the Reformation in Europe. It represents and reminds us of the important doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture- both positively and negatively. Positively it reminds us that in God’s Word we have all we need to know and serve Him- in other words, “everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). And negatively the slogan reminds us that the Bible is the only trustworthy chart by which we can navigate the murky waters of human morality.[29]

God gave His Bible as the means by which we would learn how to serve Him and live in this world for His glory, to that end it should be sufficient to instruct us. Adding to it is only a suggestion that God’s infallible Bible is not enough.
Step 2: Cross-Examination. One of the elements to the Puritan Spiritual life we would do well to recover is the element of self-examination. Among them there was often a suspicion about the self, they did not always trust themselves and therefore the were constantly holding up to their faces the mirror of Scripture. In a like manner we need to cross-examine our judgments. It is important to realize that if we will compare our judgments with what the Scriptures say it will be much easier to put off un-biblical ones and to hold tightly to those that are Biblical. So Dave Swavely lists several questions to help us examine our judgments.
First, Is this opinion based firmly on Scripture, or on my ideas and preferences? We might use the example of music here. Nowhere in the Bible are we told what style of music to sing in our worship services, we are told to honor God and in some ways certain genres and certain songs will affect this, but nonetheless we cannot make a case for singing only hymns, or singing only new worship songs. We each certainly have our preferences but we cannot make a universal rule about music styles without basing them on our own ideas and preferences alone.
Second, Does the formation of this opinion include any judgments about the person’s thoughts or motives? We have read above how Paul strictly forbids the judging of people’s motives, things which we cannot see or know for definite. We need to be conscious that we are not making judgments based on what we think others may be thinking. Dave Swavely wisely notes the tendency of some Reformed folks to do this with non-reformed brothers. He writes:

As a Reformed Christian I find it easy to assume certain things about the hearts of those who are not Reformed in their doctrine. I tend to think that they are not willing to study enough to get to the truth, that they are afraid of the unpopularity that true doctrine brings, or even that they want to believe that they have contributed to their salvation, and are really trusting in their works rather than in Christ. But although some of those things might be true of some non-Reformed people, it simply does not follow for all of them.[30]

We must examine our judgments to see if we are in anyway judging things that we cannot know for certain. Judging the hearts and motives of others is beyond our ability and only God can judge the heart.
Third, Am I missing any facts that are necessary for an accurate evaluation? In some cases we can get ahead of ourselves in making judgments. We rush in and look like fools (as the song says), we need to be sure we have all the facts straight before we draw our conclusions about issues. How many relationships have been broken because one person didn’t get all the facts about another person’s response. Think about surprise parties. It seems as though everyone has forgotten your birthday and this, of course, would make you very upset. So you begin to formulate judgments about certain individuals. “They never liked me anyways,” or “So-and-So is just too busy for her own good,” or “I remembered his birthday and this is the thanks I get.” But at the end of the week you come to find out that they have all been secretly planning your surprise party. Imagine how foolish you would have looked if you would have expressed your judgments to these people before you found out about the party. It’s embarrassing to even think about.
Fourth, How would I want this person to think of me if the roles were reversed? This important question puts us in the shoes of those we would judge. Perhaps we are judging the hearts and motives of another person, and if that is the case would we want someone to judge our hearts that they cannot know? Would we want someone to make opinions about us or our actions without getting all the details? We want people to “hear our side” before they draw conclusions so shouldn’t we give them the same respect?
Finally, How can I show the grace of the cross to this person? We must never forget in our judgments that God has all along known our hearts and motives and seen all our wicked deeds yet has been merciful to us. We truly deserve condemnation and wrath, yet receive grace because of the Cross of Christ. How can we demonstrate Christ and point others to the grace of God? Both believers and un-believers need to be reminded of the cross and the way that we judge can be a pointer to it. This is not to say that we should never make judgments. Paul clearly makes it known that in certain cases judging and expelling from the church is the most loving thing to do with a sinning brother who will not repent (1 Cor. 5:5). But in all cases our goal is not to condemn a brother, but to love them and to show grace to them just as God through Christ has shown grace to us. In these five ways, and I am sure many others, we can guard our hearts and lives from legalism.
Step Three: Cross Centeredness. All things tend back to what was discussed in chapter one. The Bible is of no use to us if it does not speak of the Cross. Worship cannot happen if Christ has not reconciled us to God. The meaning of life is fulfilled only after Christ has redeemed us from the Kingdom of darkness. And legalism can only be thwarted by the Christ on the Cross and continues to be denied a place in our Christian lives through our sanctification. A life centered on the cross, living in its shadow, and turning to it repeatedly is a life that will avoid the error of legalism. When we know that we are justified only by Christ’s death, and we are sanctified through a process of becoming conformed to His perfect image, we will see no place for un-biblical standards and rules. We will be less prone to confuse justification, sanctification, and glorification, and we will be more prone to humble, gracious, Christ honored living. Legalism is the great killer in the church. It divides and conquers whole congregations. But at the cross Christ died for every sin, even the sin of legalism. Through His death He made atonement for our sins, justified the repentant believer, and now makes intercession on our behalf at the right hand of God almighty. When we are tempted towards legalism we can think of the cross, when we commit legalism we can repent and be forgiven because of the cross, and when others judge us we can hope in the cross. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1)!

[1] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life. (Sisters: Multnomah, 2002). 24.
[2] John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991). 179.
[3] Mahaney, Cross Centered Life. 32-33.
[4] Ibid. 32.
[5] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2003). 226.
[6] diakou is the Greek word. Cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). 723.
[7] Grudem, Systematic Theology. 723.
[8] This summary of Catholic teaching is owing to a lecture by R.C. Sproul at Together for the Gospel, 2006. Louisville, KY.
[9] Dave Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2005). 51.
[10] Grudem, Systematic Theology. 746.
[11] Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life. 33.
[12] Timothy George, Amazing Grace. (Nashville: LifeWay, 2000). 50.
[13] As quoted by J.I. Packer in the introduction to The Bondage of the Will. Trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957). 50.
[14] Eternal Security asserts that Christ’s death on the cross secured salvation for all those who repent and believe. Based on verses such as John 10:27-30 and others this doctrine denies that any true Christian can ever lose their salvation. For further reading see Tom Schreiner, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance. (Leicester: IVP, 2001).
[15] Lordship Salvation teaches that where there is not fruit of repentance there is not genuine conversion. That is to say a true Christian will show forth his salvation in good works; not that we are saved by good works, but that we are saved for good works. See Titus 2:14, Romans 6:1-4, etc. For further reading see John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005); The Gospel According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Ernest C. Reisinger, Lord & Christ: The Implications of Lordship for Faith and Life. (Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).
[16] pp. 746- 759.
[17] Grudem, Systematic Theology. 748-9.
[18] Some verses in scripture do speak about sanctification as a past tense event but interpreting these passages requires careful consideration of the context. Some may refer to the definite beginning stage of our sanctification, some may be speaking in a future context of glorification looking back on our life of sanctification. Always, always, always pay attention to the context. For further reading see G.C. Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification. Trans. by John Vriend. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952); Anthony Hoekema, Saved By Grace. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); and John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955). For a thorough dealing with Perfectionism see B.B. Warfield Perfectionism. Volumes VII and VIII of The Works of B.B. Warfield. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1932 reprinted 2003).
[19] 1 John 1:9. Some have said that this verse speaks of conversion but John is not writing to non-believers. He refers to them as “My little children,” in chapter 2 verse 1.
[20] Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. 126.
[21] Ibid. 127.
[22] Luke 18: 9-12.
[23] Swavely, Who Are You To Judge?. 65-66.
[24] These verses were compiled by Dave Swavely in his book Who Are You To Judge?. 77.
[25] Swavely, 70.
[26] Mahaney, 38.
[27] Mahaney, 42.
[28] Ibid. 42-43.
[29] Swavely, 55.
[30] Ibid. 39.

Jonathan Edwards: Religous Prude or Passionate Preacher?

2006-04-10T12:27:00.000-07:00

Rarely does a discussion about Jonathan Edwards progress far before prejudices become apparent. For some, he has nothing to contribute to history except a terrifying and awful sermon, preached in 1741. Still there are others for whom he is a guide, a resource, and a hero in American life and religious thought. How is it that so many people can have such opposing views of a real historical personage? It most certainly does not come from a lack of writings on or from the pen of Edwards. As historian Ian Murray writes, “Edwards is not some obscure figure, scarcely to be understood on account of lack of dependable source material. On the contrary, his thought and life is among the best documented of all the Americans of the eighteenth century. For a start there are over 1100 sermons existing in their original manuscript form[1].” Today we also posses many of Edwards’ own personal letters, his books, and notes from his own diary; there is plenty of evidence to support one of the afore mentioned views. An investigation of just some of this evidence should provide for adequate discernment as to which one is true.

Edwards had an outstanding formal education. He was the son of the Rev. Timothy Edwards and it was under his father that he first began his training. He spent his college years under the tutelage of Elisha Williams, a recent Yale Graduate, cousin to Edwards, and highly praised teacher who trained his students in the same curriculum from which he had been taught. This curriculum included: “languages (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) in the first year; logic in the second, natural science in the third, and arithmetic, geometry, and some astronomy in the final senior year[2].” Edwards graduated at sixteen as the highest ranking student in his class, and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in September of 1720; he had not only been educated by some of the best but had himself become the best of those educated.

Edwards’ writings have proven to be quite famous, not only in religious circles but also in the secular world. His works on spiders in particular stands out. Again Murray writes, “His ‘Spider’ papers…have been widely praised, not only by students of Edwards’ thought but by professional scientists as well, for their contributions to the natural history of the spider[3].” Edwards was not, however, gifted only in science. The Encyclopedia Britannica echoes the thoughts of many others when it identifies him as an “American…philosopher[4].” His philosophical works are well known and ring with Platonism. To many others, Edwards was the greatest theologian that America has ever produced. His 1731 lecture at Boston was published under the title God Glorified in Man’s Dependence; this was Edwards’ first public attack on Arminianism. He would later write his most famous work The Freedom of the Will, defending Calvinism and the sovereignty of God. Edwards may have been all of these things but he was, however, first and foremost a pastor.

That Edwards was a pastor of a local congregation is all too often overlooked. After graduating from Yale he was invited, in 1726, to take an associate job in Northampton, Connecticut alongside his grandfather, the renowned Solomon Stoddard. Upon Stoddard’s death, not long after Edwards’ arrival to Northampton, Jonathan became the senior pastor of the congregation. During this time in Northampton America would witness the first of the Great Awakenings, as spiritual revival spread through New England. The leaders in this revival were English evangelists George Whitefield, and John and Charles Wesley, and Edwards himself. It was during this spiritual awakening that Edwards would preach his most famous sermon, though not in Northampton. This sermon has become so connected to his name and yet so misunderstood as to misrepresent the nature, intent, and theology of its preacher. It deserves a closer look if one is to discern the nature of this Puritan pastor.

Perhaps it is the most famous sermon ever preached in America, but it has contracted a bad reputation as a fire and brimstone sermon in which its preacher aims at scaring the hell out of his parishioners; some have even called it, says R.C. Sproul, “utterly sadistic[5]”. A simple glance at the title of this sermon may seem to support such a statement, for Edwards titled this sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God; but does this sermon prove that Edwards was a religious prude? Only by examining the text itself, and understanding the theology behind it, can that question be answered accurately.

Edwards bases his sermon on the Old Testament verse of Deuteronomy 32:35, “Their foot shall slide in due time.” So he lists as his first point in the sermon, “That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall,” and also point three, “That they are liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down[6].”

What Jonathan Edwards was pointing to in his initial statements was what Calvinists refer to as the Biblical doctrine of radical depravity. According to the Calvinist the Bible teaches that man is born corrupt and sinful and can do nothing to please God, nor does he desire to please Him. So it is said that man deserves punishment and the wrath of God will be poured out upon him[7]. It is with this understanding that Edwards opens his sermon, reminding his congregation of their awful state and the impending and sure doom that is to come upon man. Again Edwards says, “Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen[8].”

Edwards preaches on this subject for one great reason, and it is not the reason that some have suggested. Sproul identifies the purpose of his preaching this doctrine when he writes, “He did this not out of a sadistic delight in frightening people but out of compassion. He loved his congregation enough to warn them of the dreadful consequences of facing the wrath of God[9].” In the puritan mind if God exists (and He does) then He is perfect and this perfection requires that God be just; if God is just, however, (and He is) then man’s offense of the omnipotent being requires punishment.

Contrary to popular opinion Edwards was not a sadistic preacher but a concerned advisor. He saw the need for people to come to Christ and cry out for salvation. It was Jesus Christ who bore their punishment so that they might be saved and receive the mercy of God. The preaching of this very descriptive and frightening sermon was not from a delight in provoking fear in others, but from a love for his people. He testifies to this himself when he writes, “The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ[10].” Jonathan Edwards had a heart for people and love for their souls so much that he desired that none should perish in hell because they have not known the truth of God’s holiness and of their need for a savior.

If this sermon seems still to be a depressing and awful word on God’s wrath, it will benefit you to know that it is also a word on God’s grace. Edwards shows this truth in a most masterful way. One will note the descriptive imagery and elevated language as the preacher moves from God’s wrath to God’s grace.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world…but that God’s hand has held you up.[11]

He leads his listeners to the conclusion of the sermon with the following words:
And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the Kingdom of God[12].

It is a sermon that does indeed speak of God’s wrath and man’s impending doom, but it is also a sermon that attests to God’s great grace, long suffering, and mercy. This is the type of sermon that Edwards had in mind and yet this is not the type of sermon that he was labeled by. I wise observer once noted that Jesus spoke more of hell than He did of heaven and yet He is labeled as kind and merciful; Edwards spoke more of heaven than he did of hell and he is called a fire and brimstone preacher. The real Edwards did speak of more beautiful things than this, the majority of his works and sermons are on the beauties of heaven and the joy found in God. He says to his congregation, “The enjoyment of God is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied. To go to heaven, fully to enjoy God, is infinitely better than the most pleasant accommodations here. Fathers and mothers, husbands, wives, or children, or the company of earthly friends, are but shadows; but God is the substance. These are but scattered beams, but God is the sun. These are but streams, but God is the ocean[13].” A simple list of other sermons preached by him will identify his desire to preach on more wonderful subjects: “Charity and its Fruits”, “The Excellency of Jesus Christ”, “Safety, Fulness, and Sweet Refreshment, to be Found in Christ”, “Heaven, A World of Love”.

Jonathan Edwards was a scientist, a philosopher, and a great American theologian; but, lest we forget, he was first and foremost a minister, whose heart was for the salvation of his congregation; indeed Jonathan Edwards was a passionate preacher.

[1] Ian Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2003), xxiii.
[2] Ibid., 27.
[3] Ibid., 65.
[4] Encyclopedia Britannica. 11th ed. (New York: Encyclopedia Britannica Co., 1910) 9; 3.
[5] R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God. (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1998), 175.
[6] Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Other Writings. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 3-4.
[7] This doctrine they would support Biblically by quoting Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:3, Psalm 51:5, etc.
[8] Edwards, 7.
[9] Sproul, 176.
[10] Edwards, 9.
[11] Ibid., 11.
[12] Ibid., 16.
[13] Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 2; 244.

The Dunham Family Vision and Direction

2006-02-23T04:34:00.000-08:00

To glorify God in the expression of an Ephesians 5 marriage, individual holiness, redemptive parenting (including the reflection of the unity of all races in Christ by means of inter-racial adoption), in happy-hearted obedient children, and in faithful ministry to the local church.

By means of:
1) Humble, sacrificial male headship in the home.
2) Faithful and helpful female submission.
3) Redemptive discipline of children (including firm corrective discipline, humbling praise, and continuous encouragement when each is needed).
4) Directing the family’s focus continually to the cross through a careful guarding of the number of hours and the content of television watched, internet web-pages viewed, and the type of books read, through daily/weekly family worship, and through mandatory service as occasions rise.
5) Weekly date night between husband and wife, and monthly date night between father/mother and child/children.
6) Serving in the pastorate or mission field as God call us.
7) A resistance to affluence, including a celebration of Christmas that is Christ centered instead of present-centered.
8) Educating our children on the need for missionaries, and encouraging such a goal for each of them.
9) A weekly, monthly, and annual spiritual check-up.
10) A confession of faults to one another, and prayer for one another.
11) A proper management of money, and a consistent and sacrificial giving to the Lord of our finances.
12) The repeated commendation of sexual purity outside of marriage, and fidelity within.
13) Glorifying God in our body, which means a wariness towards self-indulgence and apathy in both eating and exercise.
14) Persistent Parental involvement in the education of our children, either through home schooling or simply a knowledge of what is being taught at the public school.

15) Personal piety, and daily private prayer and Bible study.

A Trinitarian Theology

2006-02-05T21:25:00.000-08:00

“Lose weight, feel great,” says the slogan for one diet regimen. Nothing makes one feel better, so we are told, than losing those extra un-wanted pounds that bog us down. This “heaviness,” we are told, can be lost to welcome in a life of more comfort and satisfaction. But the physical body is not the only place that our modern culture longs to lose some weight. In theology too there is a desire to lose some un-wanted theological pounds, specifically in relation to the doctrine of God.

The ever-increasing religious pluralism in our culture, and inclusivism in the church, indicate that a more generic god is needed. Churches across America are looking for a god with no sovereignty, no moral law, and no confrontational attributes. This cultural trend has been well documented and discussed by David Wells in his book God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams[1]. So Wells comments, “…evangelicals rarely have a functioning view of the transcendence of God”[2]. We find this god, however, not only theologically thin in His holiness, but also in His inner life. The culture has not only abandoned the psychologically hard doctrines of justice and sovereignty but they, along with much of the church, have equally abandoned the intellectually hard doctrine of the trinity. It is the latter of these two losses that concerns me in this paper, for the doctrine of the trinity bears great significance for understanding the God of the Bible. To see the God of the Bible correctly and to understand His uniqueness, His aseity, and His love Christians must see Him as the Triune God.

The God of the Bible is not the god of the Jew, or of the Muslim, and certainly not the same god as that of cultural Christianity. The God of the Bible is distinct in that He is triune: One God, three persons. This is certainly not easy to think about and impossible to uncover completely, yet without wandering too far into speculation we may adequately understand the trinity and then, in turn, grasp the significance of this doctrine. In order to explain this doctrine, however, we will have to turn to the very Word of God.

For any of us, understanding the trinity is impossible without God’s self-revelation. One indicator that the doctrine of the trinity is the truth given to man by God is that it is too complex a doctrine for any man to have conceived of in his own intimations. For us to have such a doctrine it must come from God’s revelation of Himself to man. John Calvin put it very poetically when he wrote, “For, as persons who are old or whose eyes are by any means become dim, if you show them the most beautiful book, though they perceive something written but can scarcely read two words together, yet, by the assistance of spectacles, will begin to read distinctly- so the Scriptures, collecting in our minds the otherwise confused notions of deity, dispels the darkness and gives us a clear view of the true God[3].” It is only by means of Scripture that man goes from deist to Christian.

Christians are monotheists, that is they believe that there is one God. This is, undoubtedly, the clear teaching of Scripture, and is seen most clearly in the Shema of Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4). Deuteronomy 6:4 is known as Israel’s great Confession of Faith; the text reads, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” The context of the verse gives us some insight.

Deuteronomy details the renewed covenant that God was making with the new generation of Israelites before they entered the Promised Land, and as such it was a covenant that was all of God’s grace and yet contained within it stipulations for Israel. There were conditions, which they had to meet in this renewed covenant. Verse 5 sums up their responsibility: they are to love the LORD their God with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their might. This condition is based completely on verse 4, which clarifies that God is “one”. The word “one” in this verse can be interpreted in a several ways; I think it is best to see in this word both God’s singularity and His uniqueness. There is no God like Him because He is the only true God, and thus it is to Him alone that the Israelites are to be devoted.

In the gospel of Mark, Jesus echoes this very same verse. When a scribe asked Jesus, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’” (Mark 12:28b-30). Jesus himself teaches that there is only one God. The New Testament, in pointing to the three persons of the Godhead, does not in anyway intend to undermine the monotheism of the Old Testament. Yet within this same context we have hints of multiple persons within this one Godhead. When Jesus answers the man that the greatest commandment is to love God and love your neighbor the scribe asserts that Jesus has spoken truly. In verse 34 we read, “And when Jesus saw that he [the scribe] answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ And after that no one dared to ask Him any more questions.” In seeing that this young scribe understood what Jesus had said He tells him that he is near to the Kingdom of God, but not yet in that kingdom. Why was the man only near? The rest of the New Testament teaches us that it was because he had not at this point repented of his sin and confessed Jesus as Lord. So even in this one verse we see that God is one and yet salvation unto God is by Jesus, a distinct person of the Godhead.

There are other verses that also teach that there is only one God (Isa. 45:5-6; Deut. 32:39; Isa. 44:6-8; Rom. 3:29-30[4]). Robert Letham points out that the Shema of Israel “and the whole law of which it was apart, trenchantly repudiate the polytheism of the pagan world. In the immediate context, Canaanite religions were the challenge to Israel, but this impressive declaration includes in its scope all pagan objects of worship mentioned in the historical and prophetic literature[5].” While it is certainly true that the Old Testament, time after time, drives home the unity and uniqueness of God, there are hints that this unity is complex.
The New Testament bears the most fully developed information concerning the doctrine of the trinity, but all that is said there builds upon what was established in the Old Testament. So Herman Bavinck, in his Doctrine of God, says, “These N.T. facts do not give us something which is absolutely new. The N.T. principles involved in the doctrine of the trinity are contained in the O.T. teaching concerning creation, and in fact in the entire O.T. economy[6].” In fact the Old Testament begins asserting multiple persons within the one God from the very beginning, Genesis 1.

In Genesis chapter 1 we read of God’s creating the world, and as we come to verse 26a we read, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” Who is this “us” that God is referring to? All throughout His creating of the world God has been identified in the singular (“He”). Many have defended a number of varying interpretations to try and clarify the change in voice. Peter Lewis, quoting Gordon J. Wenham, states that this change in voice is “a divine announcement to the heavenly host, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the masterstroke of creation, man[7].” The problem with this claim, however, is that the text does not merely say God called others to watch Him work, but that He called upon them to work with Him: “Let us make…” Is it, then, to be assumed that God called upon the angels to help Him make man? To this interpretation the early church father Iraneaus points out that God needs no help, “as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness[8].’”

Others have turned to issues of language and stated that the Hebrew word for God in this context (elohim, which is plural in verse 26) could easily be used as a form of royal address. God, like earthly kings, may be, here, referring to Himself in the plural form, which would explain the “us” and the “our”. This would be an acceptable answer if it were not for the lack of evidence of such usage within Hebrew literature. Nowhere else in Hebrew writing is a “plural of royalty” used.

The most fitting answer seems to be that God the Father, the creator, is referring to the other two persons of the trinity, the Son and the Spirit. Such an interpretation is supported by the apostle John’s words that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3). Jesus is the “Word,” and this passage testifies that He was with God in the beginning, that He is the means by which the whole world was created, and that He is God. Note, also, that while this passage teaches that the Word is God it also makes a distinction between the Word and the Creator (i.e. the Son and the Father): the Word was with God. He is not only God, but He is with God. The two are one, and yet the two are distinct.

In a like manner we find the Holy Spirit is present in the work of creation as well. In Genesis 1:2b we read that God had created the earth and that the “Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Here we find the third person of the trinity. He is God and yet He is distinct from the Father, who speaks, and the Son, who is the Father’s Word. All three are present, and once we turn to the New Testament it sheds the needed light on these Old Testament shadows of the trinity.

Among other places in the Old Testament that point to the Trinitarian existence of God are the numerous Messianic texts. One such text is Psalm 110:1, which Jesus quotes in Matthew 22:42-43. In the Psalm David says, “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” The verse should raise eyebrows, as Jesus assumes it should in the context of Matthew 22. There we read, “Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet?” If David calls him Lord, how is he his son?’ And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask Him any more questions” (Matthew 22:41-46). The verse from Psalm 110 is clearly pointing to Jesus himself, the Christ, the Messiah, who is both with God and is God. “The LORD”, that is Yahweh, “says to my Lord,” this is someone who is both God and is yet distinct from God. Jesus’ words indicate that the Pharisees missed the truth of this Psalm: that their messiah is divine. Other verses confirm a Trinitarian God; they can be found stretching across the whole canon of scripture (Psalm 33:6; Isa. 11:1-2; Isa. 42:1; Gen. 11:7; Isa. 6:8; Ezek. 34:21; Psalm 45:6-7; Isa. 63:9-11; Isa. 9:6-7; Jn. 5:21-23; Jn. 17:5; Mt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14; and Eph. 1:1-14).

The Bible teaches that there is one God, and yet there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit[9], the exact persons whom Jesus commands His disciples to baptize new believers in the name of (Matthew 28:19). The evidence of Scripture, then, gives us firm ground to stand upon in proclaiming the truthfulness of the doctrine of the trinity. The question now to ask, however, is “why should we care.” It is sad that many today do not. If Wells is correct that most evangelicals do not have a functioning view of God’s transcendence, then how much more true is it that they do not have a functioning view of His Trinitarian life. Many may profess agreement and adherence to the orthodox creeds of the Christian faith, they may espouse belief in the trinity, but they rarely think about it, rarely worship it, and undermine its significance. Robert Letham has described this sad truth in his work The Holy Trinity. He writes, “Prominent aspects of the church’s doctrine of the trinity have often been derided or neglected as unbiblical speculation…Today most Western Christians are practical modalists[10]. The usual way of referring to God is ‘God’ or, particularly at the popular level, ‘the Lord’. It is worth contrasting this with Gregory Nazianzen, the great Cappadocian of the fourth century, who spoke of ‘my trinity,’ saying, ‘When I say “God,” I mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit[11].’” This negligence to contemplate the trinity on our part is a failure to see God for who He really is: a Triune being. And failing to understand and think through this doctrine has effects on other doctrines that the church holds very dear. There are three other doctrines that the doctrine of the Trinity has specific bearing upon. To be sure there are more than three, but I will only deal with these three: (1) God’s uniqueness, (2) God’s aseity, (3) and God’s love.

God’s nature has, in the last two centuries, slowly become more and more acclimated to the culture. Many today are opposed to Christian missions to the Jews, because after all, they assert, “they worship the same God.” This is, however, proof of nothing more than a shallow understanding of who the God of the Bible is. God’s Trinitarian nature makes Him distinct, separate from all other “gods;” it is His trinity that makes Him unique. Many other religions profess belief in a deity who is “all-powerful” or who is “personal” (though only in Christianity are both attributes combined into one being). Many other religions profess belief in “many gods” or in “a monad,” but the trinity is distinctly Christian, where God is one and yet three. Others may have presented a sort of philosophical trinity, but this proved to be nothing more than impersonal forces. The Trinitarian existence of the amazing God of the Bible is one of a kind.
In putting this doctrine on the historical shelves to be covered in the dust of time, by ignoring it, and by practically denying it the church has reformed the doctrine of God completely. He is no longer the one true God of Scripture, but the generic god of the culture. The Jew, Muslim, deist, and Christian can share and worship a divine being only if he is undefined. Such a truth should make the church think more carefully about its worship songs and its prayers; can this be sung or prayed by a deist or a Jew? If it can then it is not worshiping or praying to the God of scripture. If the Christian charismatic community focuses on the Holy Spirit to the point of ignoring the Father and the Son, than other churches focus on the Father or the Son (usually one or the other) without the acknowledgment of the Spirit. The church at large, then, has lost a view of the triune God. Thus the recovery of Biblical worship must begin with the recovery of the Biblical doctrine of God. Consciousness, within the church, about all three persons of the one Godhead reminds us of the truth that there is only one God like our God.

Part of what makes God unique is not only that He is three in one, but also that He is completely independent. This is sometimes referred to as God’s aseity, His self-reliance. He has no need of man, the earth, oxygen, or food; He is completely independent. In Psalm 50:12 God says, “If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine.” The apostle Paul affirms God’s independence when he writes, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). This attribute of God, like His uniqueness, is also dependent upon His being Trinitarian in His inner life; allow me to elaborate.

I would like to be able to deal with each of these three attributes individually, but due to the fact that God’s attributes are not simply parts of a whole, but are so much a part of His very nature that they mix together, I cannot. So in dealing with God’s aseity I must also deal in part with His love, the two are that connected. The very nature of love is such that it must be communicated. Love cannot be “love” unless it is exchanged and shared. In order, then, for the God of the Bible to be a God of love, which the Bible says He is (1 John 4:8), He must communicate that love. This is where the issue of aseity becomes necessary. The need for love to be communicated requires that there exist someone or thing to receive that love, but if the only possible receivers of God’s love is creation then suddenly we find a God who is dependent upon His creation. Thus God is no longer a se. But the Trinity, as B.B. Warfield said, “brings us…the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God[12]…” The Trinity allows for God to be both genuinely loving in His very nature and yet also free from His created world.
The eternally existing triune nature of God allows for love to be exchanged between the three persons of the trinity. C.S. Lewis grasped this concept when he wrote, “All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love.’ But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, he was not love[13].” What Lewis is saying is essentially that in order for God to be love he must be love in His Ontological Trinity, which is what He is in triune nature apart from the world. In order for God to be “love” and to be self-sufficient this attribute must exist within God Himself. And since it does, the love that has flown between these three persons of the Godhead for all eternity allows for God’s creation of the world to be free, not out of necessity. The God of the Bible, unlike any other mythical or fabricated god, is both personal and independent; He is royally sovereign over the world and yet He loves the world. Without the trinity we lose these complimentary truths. Some theologians, such as Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, have failed to articulate clear distinctions between the Creator and the creation and have thereby misconstrued the doctrine of the trinity. The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, however, teaches that God both loves His creation and yet remains independent of that creation.

Many in the church today are quick to talk about the love of God and yet slow or completely resistant to talk about His transcendence. This is certainly true in non-Evangelical circles and it is even creeping into the Evangelical community with pragmatic based preaching, and most recently with Open Theism. Further investigation would need to be done on my part, but I believe, from an initial examination, that this can be traced back to a loss of the Biblical view of God, including a loss of His Trinitarian existence. When we realize that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that God is transcendent and independent, and yet also loving and personal we will be less prone to overemphasize one attribute at the expense of the others. Those who speak much about God’s love and not about His transcendence have forgotten an important lesson of the trinity: that God is royally above us[14]. Thus by overemphasizing love and ignoring transcendence the church is only speaking half-truths about God, and a half-true God is not the true God at all.

There are other ways that the relationship between the trinity and the attribute of love are being challenged today, and have been challenged in the past. Throughout the history of the church some have rejected the usage of the word “person” to identify the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Early on St. Augustine expressed reservations over the word, and in the 20th century both Karl Barth and Karl Rahner attempted to abandon or qualify the word. Karl Rahner (1904-1984), a prominent Catholic theologian, composed an alternate definition to replace “person”. He calls the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “…three distinct manners of subsisting[15].” The concerns of Barth, Rahner, and others should be taken seriously; there is nothing sacred about the word “person” (it’s never once found in Scripture), and it is, perhaps, not the best word for identifying God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Yet finding a fitting substitution seems to be extremely difficult, and most who have attempted to avoid the word “person” have done more damage to the doctrine of the trinity than good. Take Rahner’s definition for example. By denying himself the use of the world “person” Rahner has, in turn, made God impersonal. The attribute of love, which is so important to the church, is not only lost if we deny the trinity, but it is lost if we fail to speak of that trinity in personal language. Robert Letham appropriately asks “how three ‘distinct manners of subsisting’ can love each other[16]?” The related question of how three “distinct manners of subsisting” can love us needs to be asked as well, for the impersonal does not love.

The significance of the trinity is that it gives the creation both a God who is un-limited in His power, un-contaminated in His purity, and yet who draws near to that creation in love. It preserves His justice allowing man to trust God in His word, to believe Him to be powerful and almighty, and yet to feel and know Him intimately. The trinity allows God to be both far and near, not spatially but relationally. He is far above us in His transcendence, holiness, and otherliness; He is in no way dependent upon us for anything. But He is also near to us in love and intimacy, giving to man all things from His gracious hands. The Trinity gives to man, what John Frame has identified as, the Covenant Lord. He joins Himself into a personal covenant with man, and yet He remains the sovereign Lord over all. Frame elaborates on the importance of the trinity for God’s love:

“We might imagine that God’s love…is defined as a relationship between Himself and the world. But then a divine attribute would be dependent upon the world. God would have needed the world in order to have an adequate object for His love. But Trinitarianism teaches us that God’s love is defined not by the world, but by the eternal love between the Father and the Son. God would have been a loving God even if He had chosen not to create the world. So God is sovereign in defining His own nature. And He is sovereign, not only in defining His love, but in exercising it. He loves the world, not because He must, but because He chooses freely to do so[17].”

In the fourth century the Orthodox Christians fought hard for the doctrine of the Trinity, they knew what was at stake in its being challenged. At that time in history a denial of the trinity from a group known as the Arians was an attack on the divinity of Jesus. In our own day and age, however, the denial or neglect of the trinity does not tend so much towards a denial of the divinity of Jesus (though there certainly are some). In evangelical circles, however, the neglect of the trinity often means imbalanced presentations of God’s attributes, or imbalanced presentations of His Covenant Lordship (leaving off either the Covenant part or the Lord part). It means making the persons of the trinity either impersonal forces or making them nothing more than “good buddies”. The true Biblically saturated concepts of the divine Godhead hold before the eyes of man a God who is unique, who is a se, and who loves. It is this God, and no other, who is worthy of worship. Our prayers, hymns, and praises should reflect who He truly is in character and nature. This means praying in the name of Son, calling upon the Spirit’s aid, worshiping the Triune God, and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John Frame sums this truth up so succinctly when he writes:

So the doctrine of the Trinity is quite integral to the doctrine of divine lordship. It reinforces God’s sovereign control, His aseity, the sovereignty of His love and knowledge, the authority of His word, the intimacy of His relationship to the creation, the richness of salvation. The doctrine of the Trinity is not an incidental addition to the doctrine of God; rather, it is the doctrine of God as a whole, in which God gives us a glimpse of His own inner life[18].

The culture’s obsession with weight loss and dieting has gone too far when it takes aim at shaving a few pounds off the doctrine of God. It is the responsibility of the church to both grasp the true significance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and to proclaim it to the world. We are to be like Athanasius, in the fourth century, who boldly and defiantly held that God is one and yet He is three. If we fail to hold on tightly to this deep and full theology of God we end up with a deity who is not merely theologically thin, but one that is really non-existent.

Bibliography:

Banvinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.

Calvin, John. On the Christian Faith. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. Philipsburg: P&R, 2002.

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
Philipsburg: P&R, 2004.

Lewis, Peter. The Message of the Living God. Leicester: IVP, 2000.

Warfield, B.B. Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1932.

Wells, David. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

[1] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).
[2] Ibid. 28.
[3] John Calvin, On the Christian Faith. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957). 19.
[4] Here in Romans 3 Paul asserts that the God of the Jews is also the God of the Gentiles, something he can assert because there is only one God.
[5] Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2004). 25.
[6] Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951). 264.
[7] Peter Lewis, The Message of the Living God. (Leicester: IVP, 2000). 39.
[8] Quoted from Letham, 93.
[9] For a more thorough treatment of how the Bible proves that all three are God I recommend John Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2002). 644-687.
[10] A label applied to those who see the three persons of the trinity not as persons, but merely as roles that the one God plays.
[11] Letham, 5-6.
[12] B.B. Warfield, Bible Doctrines. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1932). 139.
[13] Quoted in Robert Letham, 458.
[14] The concept of God’s royal transcendence I have adopted from John Frame, The Doctrine of God. Frame argues that by accepting the doctrine of transcendence as a reference to spatiality we have lost the doctrine of immanence. “So the transcendence of God is best understood, not primarily as a spatial concept, but as a reference to God’s kingship”. 106.
[15] Quoted in Letham, 295.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Frame, 734.
[18] Ibid. 735.

The Compatibility of Love and Judgment

2006-02-03T20:27:00.000-08:00

In the Tim Burton film Big Fish Albert Finney plays Edward Bloom, a father and husband known for telling large tales. At one point in the movie, while having dinner with his family Edward tells them that the African parrot when in its natural habitat speaks the most elaborate French you’ve ever heard. These parrots, he says, will talk about anything. They’ll talk about politics, romance, business, and economics; everything except religion. When pressed one why the parrots don’t talk about religion Bloom responds that it is not polite to talk about religion, “you never know who you’re going to offend.” It is certainly true that true religion offends. In the modern culture, Christianity in particular is often labeled as very offensive. One of the more pernicious doctrines of the faith, it is said, is the doctrine of divine judgment. The most frequent assaults against this doctrine are that it is incompatible with the doctrine of divine love, and thus one or the other of these two doctrines must be dropped. Is it true, however, that divine love and divine judgment are necessarily incompatible? I intend to show otherwise.

In order to see how these two doctrines can coalesce we must begin where God begins, that is with God-centeredness. Part of our dilemma in viewing these two doctrines as friends is that most of us start our theology by looking at man, instead of looking at God. This is what is known as doing theology from below. The Scriptures teach us, however, that all theology must begin with God. Why? Because God begins with God.

When one begins to contemplate God’s design it is often with humanity at the center of it, this notion is, however, flawed. Isaiah 43:6-7 correct us when we read God’s words there, “I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made[1].” Here we find the purpose of man most clearly stated: to glorify God.

Most often people today believe that God exists from man’s connivance rather than man for God’s glory. We believe that the chief end of God is to love man. The members of the Westminster Assembly, however, had a different view on life. They sated in the Westminster Catechism: The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Modern theologian John Piper has taken those words and performed surgery on them to convey another message: The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Is that true? Is God’s chief desire to glorify Himself? Of course the only way to answer that question is from scripture. Let’s look first at Isaiah 48.

For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver, I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (Isaiah 48:9-11)

Within these verses we see a truth that probably most of us have never heard before: that God’s primary concern is His glory. God does an action with the chief concern being for Himself and His glory. It is as Jonathan Edwards, that great puritan pastor of the 1700s, said, “God delights in Himself and makes Himself His end.” In this context the people of Israel have been in captivity in Babylon for many years, since before the fall of Jerusalem in 587. Many have died in captivity and many have been born here. Soon the great Persian King Cyrus, will release them to return home and rebuild their city, but God is concerned now with preparing them for that time. His concern is that if He does not tell them now that this is His work that He will do in sending them home, then they are liable to attribute it to the King or even to some false god. In verse 3 of Isaiah 48 God reminds the Israelites that He foreordained their captivity, “The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth and I announced them; then suddenly I did them and they came to pass.” But God did not only predict their captivity into Babylon, He predicted and foreordained their return from captivity as well. But why did He do that? Verses 4-5 explain.

Because I know that you are obstinate and, and your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass, I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, “My idol did them, my carved image and my metal image commanded them.”

These obstinate and stiff necked people, who have been so immersed in the culture of their captors, would ascribe to their graven images their return if it were not for the Lord’s promising it beforehand. God did it (that is, declared this prophecy) for the sake of His own glory, and that is what we see in the text of verse 11. “For my own sake, for my own sake I did it…” God is primarily concerned with glorifying Himself. It is for His praise (v.9) that He does not pour out His anger on the Israelites. It is not primarily because He loves them, though He does love them, it is primarily because He desires to preserve His glory. God is for Himself, and indeed He must be.

Were God to love anything more than Himself, to put something above His own glory, it would be idolatry. God’s dedication to His glory is right and just. It is proper to love something in accordance with that things worthiness, and thus God must love His glory because it is above all things the most worthy of love. Do you still contend that God must love us first and foremost? When asked what the greatest commandment was Jesus responded by saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and will all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment” (Matthew 22:37-38). For God to do any less, for God to love us more than Himself, is to commit idolatry! God, in order to maintain His justice, and because He is indeed worthy of all love, praise, and adoration, must make His first and chief goal in all things to bring glory to Himself. There is further confirmation of this found within the pages of scripture.

Ezekiel 20: 8b-9, “Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt.”

“Yet He saved them for His name’s sake, that He might make known His mighty power” (Psalm 106:8).

One might also look at: Exodus 14:4, 18; Psalm 23:3; 2 Kings 19:34; 2 Kings 20:6; Ezekiel 36:22-23, 32. The point is made; God’s passion for His glory and His God-centeredness is indeed Biblical.

We must now return to our initial question and ask: how does God’s God-centeredness reconcile the apparent conflict between divine love and divine justice? If it is true, as I believe it is, that God must love His own glory above all things then we must realize that He must hate the belittling of that glory. If God were to ignore sin, which is what any offense to Him is, then He would cease to be just and righteous. This loss of righteousness and justice would be detrimental to His love. For if we cannot guarantee that God is righteous and just then how can we be certain that He will always love us? How can we be certain that He will not choose to hate us, or that His forgiveness and tenderness will not simply fail? God’s justice is, in the end, the assurance that we have that His love will remain.

Perhaps this gives you little comfort. After all we are all sinners, all of us deserve wrath instead of love. God certainly does not need us. Within His own triune nature the Father God has an eternal love relationship with the other members of the Trinity (the Son, and the Spirit). His creation of us was a free act, and one that, in light of our sinful rebellion, could just as easily be done away with. And in any case, how can God be just and yet still love such unlovable people? Perhaps God’s God-centeredness makes things more depressing, and not less.

The resolution to this problem can be found only in the cross. At the cross where Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, was crucified for sinners, the Lord is found to be both just and gracious. In punishing Jesus for our sins God was able to be just, but in Jesus’ willfully dying for us God was able to be gracious. The only hope any of us has for salvation is found in the cross. It is indeed the only hope that anyone has of divine love. The cross is the place where love and wrath embrace, and to do away with one is to do away with both.

At the end of this whole discussion it is possible that some will still see God as vain and selfish. He demands our worship of Him, and He punishes those who do not. But there is good news in all of this. If man was created to know God and to worship Him, if God is truly worthy of worship and truly wonderful, then fulfilling the purpose of our lives will bring us great joy. Whenever we worship something, whenever we praise something that adoration is part of our joy. If I get new shoes I am not as happy in those shoes as I can be until I have pointed them out to others and expressed my delight in them. But shoes will not truly satisfy me. Not homes, not cars, not wives, not jobs, not health, not wealth, will satisfy the soul that was made for God. So for us to truly take joy in God we must not only worship Him (thereby completing our joy in Him) but He must be satisfying. This is where we see that God’s God-centeredness is for our joy.

If God denies His worthiness by loving anything more than Himself, even us, then He is essentially saying that He is not satisfying. If that is true then all our hopes of true joy are dashed. So for God to truly love me He must first love Himself, which He does by punishing all those who reject and hate Him. And then He must offer Himself to me, which He does by means of the cross. At the cross God Himself bears the punishment that I deserve and offers me the privilege of knowing and rejoicing in Him. Take away judgment and you take away God’s righteousness and justice; you take away the cross, and you take away the only hope for man to be truly satisfied. Divine love without divine justice, then, is really nothing more than getting a pair of new shoes. They’re nice for a while, but eventually they get old and fall apart. So while it is true that true religion does sometimes offend, without that offense there is no true joy.

[1] All Scripture references are taken from the English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

Freedom and Sovereignty in Tension

2006-02-01T11:01:00.000-08:00

As a young high school student I often wondered how it could be that light was understood scientifically to be both particles and waves. It seemed like such a conflicting notion, yet it was overwhelmingly accepted as truth. Even back then I was beginning to understand that some things may be in tension and yet be true. Of course it is not always true that things in tension remain true, yet for light it is the case. It is also the case for the biblical/theological subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility; while these two biblical truths seem to be in tension they are nevertheless both true.

It is difficult to think through this tension and a number of individuals have sought to resolve or lesson the tension by appealing to different explanations. There are two major systems of thought on this subject, each with its own set of definitions. After briefly explaining these two positions I hope to biblically defend where I stand on the matter. The importance of this subject demands that we think about it despite its difficulties. For if we know to what degree and in what way God is sovereign and we are free we may better know how to glorify Him and live in obedience.

The first view takes a position known as “General Sovereignty.” The General Sovereignty model sees Biblical grounds for the belief that God is sovereign. His creation out of nothing in Genesis 1, His sending Jesus into the world through virgin conception, and His working things towards His appointed end, clearly indicate God’s supreme control over the world. In the General view, however, it is in the specific details of the lives and actions of human beings where God’s sovereignty is limited. The word “General” is to be contrasted with that of “Specific” (the label taken by the opposing position). Within in this view man has the final say in all the things that he does and ultimately where he will spend his eternity. This is what is known as a libertarian view of human freedom.

Man’s free-will, it is argued by proponents of General Sovereignty, guarantees that his life and actions can, in no way, be pre-determined. Pre-determination, it is argued, dispels of true freedom. It is often over the definition of “freedom” that the majority of contention between opposing viewpoints comes. For the General view “freedom” means that man’s choices are free from any necessary causation. Man is never motivated or inclined to do something to such a degree that he could not have otherwise chosen another action. Where does this system leave a sovereign God? It leaves Him as self-limited. That is God, in choosing to create men and women with libertarian free-will, intentionally limits Himself. The more traditional orthodox view within this camp believes that God has a plan, which He sees coming to fulfillment, but the details of that plan are left up to human beings.

In orthodoxy, Arminians are those who hold to a General Sovereignty view. For the Arminian it is important to note that he in no way wants to undermine the truths of Scripture that God is sovereign. By stating that God intentionally withholds the exercising of His omnipotence and sovereign control they believe that they can preserve His supremacy. They affirm a doctrine known as “prevenient grace,” which teaches that God offers a measure of grace to humans to help them come to salvation, and to keep them from sin, but that this offer may be rejected or accepted by the free-will decision of that human. Salvation then, for the Arminian, is synergistic; meaning that man and God must work together to bring about an individual’s salvation. This theological system also takes into view God’s ability to foresee individual’s actions. So it is often asserted that God “elects,” or chooses, people for salvation based upon that individual’s foreseen faith in Christ. God’s omniscience, then, allows Him to incorporate the free decisions of humans into His general plan for the world.

Two more liberal groups also adhere to a General Sovereignty model, (1) Open Theists and (2) Process Theists. There is agreement between these two groups upon God’s inability to know for certain what the future holds. In that regard, God’s omniscience is certainly not accepted. What the Open Theists and Process Theists seem to understand, correctly I believe, is that one cannot separate “foreknow” from “foreordain”. For these theologians, God cannot know for certain that something will happen if humans always have a libertarian free-will. The Open Theist’s attempt to remain orthodox by stating that God can always take away human free-will and get His own way, but that usually He does not do so. The Process Theists contend merely that God can persuade and attempt to influence human choices but in the end He can only re-act and hope for the best. For all three groups, however, there is a general consensus that the way to resolve God’s Sovereignty and Human Freedom is to state that God has limited himself.

The Specific Sovereignty model, on the other hand, takes a much more high view of the sovereignty of God than the former. As my initial introduction to this system may, perhaps, identify, I am a proponent of Specific Sovereignty. The view as a whole holds that God is never limited by humanity, but is always acting out His sovereign will and yet this sovereignty never denies man’s responsibility and freedom. This system defines freedom, not as libertarian, but as compatibilist freedom. Compatibilist freedom may be defined as the freedom to do whatever you so desire to do. When man chooses to do something, it is argued, he is choosing based upon his desires, and his inclinations. In other words, he has sufficient reason for choosing to do that which he is doing. So in a compatibilist definition of freedom the will always chooses in accord with its strongest desire. This definition of freedom appears to be more biblical. Jesus Himself testifies, “The good person out of the good treasures of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45, ESV). If it is out of the good treasures of the heart that man produces good, and out of evil treasures produces evil then it seems to indicate that there is a sufficient motivation for performing certain actions.

In this sense man is free to choose what he wants but only what he wants. It is a limited freedom, in this view, instead of a limited sovereignty. This also seems to follow the pattern of life, for no man is indeed absolutely free. No man can choose, simply by exerting his free-will, to bear children, or to fly. I heard Don Kistler say once that you cannot go into McDonald’s and order a hot dog. Man is free to choose but his choices are limited. The major theological system that adheres to this view of freedom is labeled as either Calvinist or Reformed. For proponents of a Specific Sovereignty model, God is free to pre-determine all things, even free human choices, and in fact He does. This is the very teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

In Daniel 4:35 King Nebuchadnezzar says of God, “…He does according to His will among the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” God is sovereign and no one can prevent His work, even among the inhabitants of the earth (i.e. men). Likewise Genesis 50:20 teaches God’s sovereign action in the free decisions of men. Here we have both truths taught, and the lack of an explanation for this mystery suggests that it was generally accepted that God could be sovereign and yet man could still be free. In this context Joseph calms his brothers’ fears by explaining that though they sinned and sold him into slavery, God had ordained it to bring about good. So the young ruler says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” Note that Joseph’s brothers are not absolved of their responsibility, they meant evil against Him, but nonetheless it is God who did it.

When one broaches the subject of salvation within the confines of a Specific Sovereignty model it is with great humility and gratitude. For from this view point salvation is monergistic, meaning that it is completely the doing of one (mono) work. Salvation is all of God and not of man. This too is the clear teaching of scripture. We read in Ephesians 2 that man outside of Christ is “dead” in his trespasses and sins. The word “dead” here is the same Greek word used to identify a corpse. So the point the apostle is making is that man outside of Christ is a spiritual corpse. While many Arminians would agree with this they would still contend that man can do something in the work of salvation (despite being dead). That is not the consensus of the rest of the text, however. In verse 4 Paul states, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:4-5). Note the passive sense of “made us alive”. Man is dead and it is God who makes him alive. There is no sense in which the work of salvation described here is synergistic; it is all of “grace”. Grace refers to the undeserved gift of salvation. In order for it to be truly undeserved then, man must not be able to do anything worthy of that gift. So, it is argued, grace necessarily makes salvation monergistic.

Yet it is important to note the whole of scripture never teaches that man is anything less than responsible to believe in Christ and repent of his sins. When Peter preaches to the crowd at Jerusalem, just after Pentecost, the mob cries out, “What shall we do?” And Peter responds in the power of the Holy Spirit, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). So in salvation we see again both God’s sovereign control and man’s moral responsibility.

Of course explaining this mystery is not possible for my finite and feeble mind, but the Scriptures are clear in their expression of God’s complete sovereignty. “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps” (Psalm 135:6). It is important to note that both systems teach that man is free and God is responsible, neither is denying such truth. It is rather in the definition of freedom and the application of God’s sovereignty that they differ. The downfall of General Sovereignty’s definition of freedom is that its very nature is incompatible with divine sovereignty. There is in this system a necessary contradiction. While of course many of my beloved Arminian brothers will appeal to mystery here, such a practice seems to skirt the real issue. I concede that mystery is indeed involved in the subject, but here we still have a contradiction. The Calvinist too must confess mystery, but he does so on no necessarily contradictory grounds. In a Specific Sovereignty model God’s supreme control and man’s genuine freedom can co-exist, because that freedom is understood by a compatibilist definition.

One may rightfully ask how it is that this world can include both God’s divine sovereignty over all things and man’s genuine freedom. The only answer that I can give, however, is that there is no necessary contradiction between the two in a compatibilist definition of freedom. Beyond that we find ourselves in the mysteries of God, things that no finite human being can know and grasp in this life. That of course is not simply a cop out, for mystery is naturally part of Biblical Christianity. It comes with the territory of the creator/creature distinction, and in fact such is the case in life. How can light be both particles and waves? I do not know, but I know that in life there is no need to discount tensions. For something can be both mysterious and yet still be true. Such is the case for light, and such is the case for the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom.

King Arthur: A Review

2006-01-25T08:50:00.000-08:00

Art that aims at conveying a message of pointlessness is often dealing with the emotion of nihilism. This art (nihilistic art), however, is not pointless; it does indeed have a point: to convey the notion of meaninglessness. Art, however, that aims at making a point but never gets there, is pointless. Such is the case for the film King Arthur.

This Touchstone Pictures 2004 film, directed by Antoine Fuqua, may be one of the worst films in the last three years. The entire opening battle sequence is completely pointless, drawn out far too long, and contains none of the elements that make good battle scenes. It is nothing more than a complete slaughter that barely has any significance to the development of the plot. This is only the beginning.

The main theme of the film is the notion of libertarian free-will. Arthur and his knights have been under an obligation to Rome for at least 15 years. They have done their duty, paid their dues, and sacrificed their lives for the cause of Rome (most of which is selfish and despised by the knights themselves). Their time for freedom has finally come, but they do not receive it. Instead of giving the knights of the round table their freedom Bishop Germainus, orders them on one last mission: To rescue a noble family from territory soon to be invaded by the dreaded Saxon army. This sets the stage for the conflict between the knights’ individual free will and their servitude to Rome.

Almost every dialogue from here on out has to do with free will and human autonomy. The overemphasis on this concept justifies my saying that this may have been one of the most poorly written films in history! There is zero subtlety and creativity in the dialogue, which only compliments the rather stoic acting of the characters. The worst part about this film, however, is not its poor writing, pointlessly gruesome battle scenes, and wooden actors, but its message about God.
Within the film Arthur is the lone “Christian” among his band of knights. Periodically he engages in quick and rather futile debates with the other knights about God’s goodness, sovereignty, and existence. Arthur, however, is also the largest proponent of human autonomy in the film (even to the degree that he tells an entire village their free will absolves them of serfdom). The references to God throughout the whole scope of the dialogue always leave the impression that God is much like the oppressive Roman Empire: Nothing more than a totalitarian overlord. There is never an attempt to accurately represent the God of Christianity.

I was so disappointed in this film. It was cast in the light of a film in the likeness of Gladiator, but fell far short! It mutilated the amazing legends of Arthur from British literature, stories such as Le Morte d’Arthur. And aside from a few puns on these tales and a horribly thin and underdeveloped love relationship between Arthur and Guinevere it bears no likeness to the tales of old. So what’s my suggestion about seeing this film? While I don’t believe in the free will that this movie has presented, a libertarian free will, I do believe in a compatablist free will. And in a compatablist free will humans may always choose according to their strongest desire; so unless you are compelled, do not see this film!

Mona Lisa Smile: A Review

2006-01-20T20:24:00.000-08:00

One of the major questions often asked of Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is related to her smile: is she happy? It’s a legitimate question I suppose, for not everyone who smiles is happy. Far too often the smile is a cover up, a charade. Today we use the word “fine” in the same way that older generations painted on a smile. Our world is falling apart and we respond to the question “How are you” with “O, I’m fine”. But below the surface there is much more going on. It is this looking beyond the surface that the film Mona Lisa Smile (Revolution Studios, 2004) intends to promote.

In this 2004 release Julia Roberts leads an outstanding cast on the search for finding one’s self. Unfortunately the concluding message that it sends will, I believe, disappoint many. Roberts stars as Miss Katherine Watson, a “free-thinking” art history teacher who comes to teach at the conservative Wellesley College. As a period piece it magnificently portrays the early 1950s. The scenery, the girls’ college, and the dilemmas all reflect well this post-war culture. Since so few can pull off period pieces well I certainly applaud director Mike Newell and his staff. But beyond this I find little else to appreciate about this film.

The discipline of art serves as an analogy for the film. As the bold Miss Watson teaches her students that they cannot learn art by reading a textbook but only by looking beyond their initial impressions and sense experiences so she teaches them to do the same with life. Marriage is one of the big issues in the development of the plot. The young women of Katherine Watson’s class are all focused on one thing: husbands (specifically Harvard husbands). As the plot unfolds, however, the conclusion is drawn that marriage is not all its cracked up to be.

For student Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) marriage turns out to be a complete sham. Her husband is cheating on her, her mother tells her to ignore it, and pretending everything is okay eats her alive, to the point that she has a complete breakdown. It is a terribly sad scene when Betty verbally assaults her promiscuous friend with the thoughts that she is actually thinking about herself. For Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) marriage stamps out her personal dreams. She is a stellar student with the potential to go to law school, but she turns it down to stay at home with her new husband. The one redeeming moment of the whole film comes when Joan lectures Miss Watson on her hypocrisy. As Joan sternly points out to her teacher that she is only looking at the surface of the housewife, just like they were only looking at the surface of the modern art, one gets the feeling that the film is shifting. Suddenly there comes a rainbow up from the thunderstorm of feminism in this film. But the light lasts only a moment and is gone. With barely a second comment the incident with Joan is forgotten in the film. The one redeeming quality of the film is lost in a torrential down pour of an anti-housewife conclusion.

As the story comes to a close Watson leaves Wellesley’s repressive halls, and her love interest, to travel across Europe; the “free-thinking” woman leaves with her independence intact. Betty divorces her husband, who indeed is a jerk (to say the least), and shares an apartment with the girlfriend she had previously derided. Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), one of the other main characters of the film, continues her promiscuous affairs, one with a married man, without ever expressing any regret. Nothing, in the end, is said about marriage, the family, and all those who have represented the goodness of the home are forgotten or cast in a backwards or foolish light.

To say that a film such as this has no agenda is really to say that it was poorly written, and I do not think it was poorly written. There’s nothing wrong with the production of this film, it is a high quality production- it is, rather, the message itself that I find disappointing. Marriage, as God has ordained it, is a wonderful gift that, though only dimly, is meant to reflect the love that Jesus Christ has for His church. And though all of us fail in our marriages, any film that portrays this side as all there is to it, and as something worth avoiding, has really only seen the surface, and has sadly missed out on the real beauty beyond that surface!