Renewal of the whole

According to N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, “Paul summons to let the mind be renewed, and so to be transformed all through.”  He then quotes that passage in its entirety, only with his own translation from the original Greek text. His translation appears below with some helpful insights of his own following thereafter:

So, my dear family, this is my appeal to you by the mercies of God: offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is your true and appropriate worship. What’s more, don’t let yourselves be squeezed into the shape dictated by the present age. Instead, be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you can work out and approve what God’s will is, what is good, acceptable, and complete. (12:1-2)

…Paul sees that in Jesus Christ the long-awaited age to come has already begun. And that is where Christians must consciously choose to live.  …God’s new age has come thundering in through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but the present age acts as a powerful undertow, preventing the incoming waves from having their full force. The undertow of the continuing present age does its best to persuade those who through faith and baptism are already part of the age to come that in fact nothing much has changed, and that they should simply continue as they were, living the same life that everyone else is living.  “The way the world is” is a powerful, insidious force, and it takes all the energy of new creation, not the least of faith and hope, to remind oneself that the age to come really is already here, with all its new possibilities and prospects. 

The antidote to the power of the present age, then, is to have the mind renewed so that one can think clearly about the way of life which is pleasing to God, which is in accordance with God’s will, good and acceptable and (here it is again) “perfect,” teleios, complete.  This renewal of the mind is at the center of the renewal of the whole human being, since the darkening of the mind was identified as central to the problem of idolatry, dehumanization, and sin in an earlier chapter of Romans.1

1.  N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 148-149, 152

Domesticated Jesus

In After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, Bishop N.T. Wright makes the following observation concerning Jesus as the great "moral example" to be copied. He writes:

Many people, reading a chapter about Jesus and virtue, would expect a discussion of Jesus himself as the great example. Surely, many will think, part of the point of his life was to show us how it's done?
...Making Jesus the supreme example of someone who lived a good life may be quite bracing to contemplate, but it is basically safe: it removes the far more dangerous challenge of supposing that God might actually be coming to transform this earth, and us within it, with the power and justice of heaven, and it neatly helps us avoid the fact, as all four gospels see it, that this could be achieved only through the shocking and horrible events of Jesus' death. Jesus as "moral example" is a domesticated Jesus, a kind of religious mascot.  

... [Jesus himself] doesn't go about saying, "This is how it's done; copy me." He says, "God's kingdom is coming; take up your cross and follow me." Only when we learn the difference between those two challenges will we have grasped the heart of the gospel and, with that, the taproot of a reborn virtue.  

...The way of life he was modeling was precisely not something that could be reduced to rules... Nor, certainly, was Jesus saying that people should "do what comes naturally": indeed, what comes "naturally" from the heart, was precisely the problem, as far as he was concerned. The only way we can get to the heart of understanding the moral challenge Jesus offered, and offers still today, is by thinking in terms not of rules or of the calculation of effects or of romantic or existentialist "authenticity," but of virtue. A virtue that has been transformed by the kingdom and the cross.1

1. N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 125-127, 132

The way to & The way of

The way to the kingdom is the way of the cross, and vice versa -- as long as you remember that "the kingdom," once again, is not "heaven," but the state of affairs in which God's kingdom has come, and his will is being done, on earth as in heaven.

-- N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] p. 116

By the Brook Cherith

                                                   "...hide thyself by the brook Cherith... thou shalt drink of the brook...
                                                            And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up..."
  
                                                                                                                   (1 Kings 17:3-7)




When flowed the brook of Cherith, God sent Elijah there,
And fed him by its waters, though all the land was bare.

While flower the brook of Cherith, Elijah rested there,
No drought could touch his fountains, nor blight his soul with care.

When failed the brook of Cherith, beside its channel bare,
What thought Jehovah's prophet?  Did faith become despair?

But God had long provided new sources of supply,
The morsel that should waste not, the cruse that should not dry.

When fails some brook of Cherith that long for us availed,
Do we recall His promise and think that too has failed?

Nay, He has other rivers whose waters will not dry;
His love is ever meeting new need with new supply.

When dries our brook of Cherith and leaves its channel bare,
The cruse, long since made ready, is waiting.  He knows where.

                                                                       -- Annie Johnson Flint
                                                                       "By the Brook Cherith"

Eden's Courtesy

One of my favorite poems by C. S. Lewis:

Such natural love twixt beast and man we find

That children all desire an animal book, 

And all brutes, not perverted from their kind, 

Woo us with whinny, tongue, tail, song, or look;

So much of Eden's courtesy yet remains.

But when a creature's dread, or mine, has built

A wall between, I think I feel the pains

That Adam earned and do confess my guilt.

For till I tame sly fox and timorous hare

And lording lion in my self, no peace

Can be without; but after, I shall dare

Uncage the shadowy zoo and war will cease;

Because the brutes within, I do not doubt,

Are archetypal of the brutes without.1

1.  C. S. Lewis, Poems [Harvest/HBJ edition; 1977] p. 98

Retrogression Part II

In the previous post, I mentioned a discussion between two Reformed friends; and I was one of them. I also mentioned that I requested his permission to post our discussion on my blog for future record, and that my request was granted favorably. Also, as noted before, the discussion was heading in the direction of a major dispute until the point in which I asked some questions. My questions focused upon his assumption that certain reformed leaders, such as  John Calvin, John Knox, and John Owen, were all opposed to formal liturgical worship services. In essence, I was questioning his belief that "The Reformers" (as he called them) were anti-liturgy.

My friend also proceeded to argue that most of the Westminster Divines were opposed to liturgy, but for the remnant who favored formal liturgical worship throughout the reformation, they were allegedly stuck in the rut of "medieval thinking" and "popish" traditions without enough discernment to realize the dangers inflicted upon future generations by their cowardice. Again, the claims of cowardice, as noted in the earlier post, are his words, not mine.

Well, I had a few more words to discuss with him about the convenience of using such loaded derogatory claims as "medieval thinking" and "cowardice", especially without any further evidence - other than his claims - to present in defense of his position. But now that the week is over and I've had some more time to reflect upon our discussion, I feel like I can focus upon his concerns by posting a few relevant insights that are not my own, but rather are from a very well respected Reformed Christian scholar. Robert Letham is that scholar, and he has written a tremendous book about the historical context surrounding the Westminster Assembly, detailing many of the controversies surrounding the Calvinist communities of England, whose theology continued to be the backbone of the Church of England until the 18th century.

In his book, The Wesminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context, Letham writes concerning the modern 21st century notion that the regulative principle, as presented within the Westminster confessional standards, was anti-liturgy:

We need to appreciate how the regulative principle functioned in the historical context of the [Westminster] Assembly. ...The focus of these statements cannot be understood apart from the draconian legislation that governed worship in the Church of England, whether it was observed more in the breach or not. The Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer (1559), which restored the Book of Common Prayer of 1552, specified:

That all and singular Ministers, in any Cathedral, or Parish-Church, or other place, within this Realm of England, Wales, or marches of the same... shall... be bound to say and use the Mattens, Evensong, Celebration of the Lord's Supper,... and all their common and open Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book.1

If any Minister decided to rebel against this legal demand and refuse to use the precise order and form of the latest edition to the Book of Common Prayer, or even "declare or speak anything in the derogation... of the said Book ...and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this Realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession ...[that person] shall lose and forfeit... all his Spiritual Benefices, or Promotions, coming or arising in one whole Year next after his Conviction."2

Letham points out that an offender would also face imprisonment for six months without bail for the first offense, and upon the conviction of a second offense, the penalty was imprisonment for one full year and the removal of all ministerial promotions. On a third offense, the person would receive life imprisonment. Even the layman, the common ordinary person with no ministerial status, could be punished for sedition against that Act of Uniformity. The fines for publishing articles or pamphlets against the Book was punishable by a fine of 100 marks, the second offense by 400 marks, and the third offense requiring the offender to "forfeit to our Soverign Lady, the Queen, all his Goods and Chattels, and shall suffer Imprisonment during his life."3

Letham then concludes with these interesting observations:

When we reflect on the drastic imposition of the Book of Common Prayer by the Elizabethan settlement and its aftermath, we see why the Assembly produced a directory of worship giving freedom to individual ministers to conduct worship services within the boundaries of the regulative principle of Scripture. It was the binding legal requirement, imposed by the crown, with penalties attached, that was the real nub of the problem with the liturgy for Puritan minds. While opposing the legal imposition of set liturgies, the [Westminster] Assembly was not abandoning liturgies as such. The Directory for the Publick Worship of God [produced by the Westminster Divines] contains a range of model prayers to be used in the regular service, at the start, before the sermon, after the sermon, before and after baptism, during and after communion, at the solemnization of marriage, in visiting the sick, and at public solemn fasting. Even John Owen, a few years too young to have been appointed to the Assembly, when writing on liturgies, stressed that he was not opposed to them or to the Book of Common Prayer, but to their imposition by law, with the forbidding of the slightest deviation from the set words. The standard practice of the Reformed churches had been to have a liturgy with set prayers; the problem for the divines was the rigid imposition and the repressive, punitive sanctions for failure to comply.4

But what about the Divines antagonism to liturgy, and the "medieval thinking," "popish traditions," and generally ill-discerned "cowardice" of those who sympathized with liturgical forms of worship? My friend has yet to post the sources of information in favor of his perspective.






1.  Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context [P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ; 2009] p. 301-302
2.  Ibid. p. 302
3.  Ibid.
4.  Ibid., pp. 303-304 Explanations in brackets are mine

Retrogression Part I

In some confessionally Protestant churches, the regulative principle of worship is purportedly the basis for rejecting formal liturgical worship services (and books), such as covenant renewal worship (and the Book of Common Prayer).  Some even go so far as to presume upon all liturgical traditions as though some form of compromise has been made with "popish" and pagan traditions -- traditions saturated with doctrines that stand against the "truths" of Scripture.

I am mentioning all of this now because I was recently reminded by a dear brother and Protestant friend, albeit in a polite manner, that the church in which my own immediate family attends regularly and are members, does not worship "biblically," and never can because we promote one of the many formal liturgical forms of covenant renewal worship. By adhering to covenant renewal liturgy, not only have we been accused of worshipping contrary to the Scriptures, but we are assured that the Scriptures only promote the Regulative Principle of worship as understood by the Reformers. They brought to light what was buried in darkness by "popish" and pagan traditions for too long!

My friend also appealed to "the Reformers'" rejection of liturgy, noting such famous works as John Owen's Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and  The Chamber of Imagery in the Church of Rome Laid Open. Of course, God's Word itself was projected as the ultimate appeal of authority (as it should), but unfortunately, in our discussion it was almost always with the proviso that the new covenant of God's Word only promotes a regulative principle that is anti-liturgy. He meant well in teaching me this, as he assured me. But regardless of whether someone endorses the regulative principle of worship or not, or even John Owen's polemics, how is a christian brother supposed to respond to such allegations?

I did respond to his questions and we did have a healthy discussion for about ten more minutes. After our conversation was over, I asked him if I could post our discussion on my blog and even answer his questions online for future review. He said yes, as long as he is allowed to respond to my posts. I agreed. So to continue where we left off, I have included a sampling of a few things I mentioned to break the ice and steer our conversation in a healthier direction. I hope this helps others too (especially those who share the same Reformed persuasion as my friend).

First of all, I asked who the "Reformers" were that (he claims) "properly understood" the regulative principle? He responded, "Calvin, Knox, Owen" as though his response was rehearsed. And so I continued to ask, "What makes you believe that the 'Reformers' like Calvin, Knox, and Owen didn't continue to worship with liturgical books and formal liturgical patterns of public service? I mentioned that Martin Luther did. John Calvin did. Martin Bucer did. John Knox did. And that John Owen wasn't opposed to prescribed liturgies per se, but rather the legally binding imposition of prescribed liturgies which violated the conscience of individual Ministers. I think that caught his attention, because there was no other rehearsed response to the contrary. Instead, his response was simply, "I'm not so sure about that. I'll have to look into that and get back to you."

I then proceeded to ask him what he thought about the Westminster Divines and their views about formal liturgical worship. I asked, "Do you believe the Westminster Divines were opposed to liturgical books and worship services?" I asked this because I suspected his awareness of the Westminster confessional standards being used among modern adherents of the anti-liturgical approach to the regulative principle of worship. His answer was basically yes, but with a certain caveat attached. He proceeded to argue that most of the Divines were opposed to liturgy, but those who were not were stuck in the rut of "medieval thinking" and "popish" traditions without enough discernment to realize the dangers inflicted upon future generations by their cowardice.

I'm not kidding, and neither was he; That was his argument.

Again, how is a christian brother supposed to respond to such allegations?