And Another Thing...

This Post grew out of a response I gave to a question posited by "Bob" in a thread on Toby's Classical Presbyterian Blog.


Bob,

Considering a good 90% of modern American Christians are at the least Semi-Pelagian you have quite a question that I believe needs to be SERIOUSLY considered and prayed about in a manner befitting Gethsemane. We fret over (albeit very serious as well) sexuality issues while allowing many of our "evangelical" conservative brethren to preach a gospel of Works Salvation that is in many ways more endangering to the future and health of Christendom than the ills of Liberal social ethics. We tolerate the abominable teachings of Finney, Graham, and others while fighting the onslaught of liberalism in a separate arena. Both problems, Arminianism and Liberalism, ultimately are cut from the same cloth hermenuetically. They each want to place the value of Salvation upon the unworthy shoulders of beings that cannot bear the weight of their own sin. Whether in Finney's theology (see an excellent critique here) that weight is paid by generic "good works" or Liberalism's "Social Gospel" salvation, which like Finney, comes to embrace Process Theology (a modern-day heresy in its own right) and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection is not enough for salvation but merely places one in the position to move in the direction of salvation by checking off various benchmarks on the way to earning a place in the kingdom through various "good works".

The point here is that while it is good that "evangelicals" are fighting the false diversity of Liberal social ethics at the same time they are no better if they deny Sola Fide in the process. To paraphrase something I heard Michael Horton say one time on the White Horse Inn it strikes me as odd that a term like "evangelicalism" can encompass such a broad spectrum of people to include both Benny Hinn and R.C. Sproul who could not be farther away systematically if they tried but are seen as the same because of their shared views on a very narrow slice of theological pie. My Reformed brethren we have to be careful with whom we lie down with and cast our arm around to win secular political battles when in doing so we put ourselves in danger of losing the Kingdom entirely.

Happy Reformation Day!!!

Make sure to give Thanks on this Day for the many martyrs blood that has been spilled so that the Gospel may be brought to us this day 490 years since Martin stood up to the World.

Continuing my Walk

For the second installment of my walk of discernment I would like to highlight two past posts I have made on "Adam". They are not that old so some of you have already read them, but they serve our purpose well.


I thought a nice meaty topic would be in order so I want to discuss an issue that is bearing its head among colleagues and friends here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. That issue, as one can tell from the title, is whether or not Adam and Eve were actual beings, the Garden ever actually existed, and does "Original Sin" necessitate an "Original Sinner"? These are of course not new topics and though at first glance may seem to be third order worries I however take the position that without an actual Adam there would be no need for an actual Christ. So one could say that I hold this argument to be much more than a simple third order concern.

Why may you ask are people even doubting Adam's reality? Does not Paul in Romans 5:12 say that all sin came into the world through one man? Jesus himself refers to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4,5 not to mention Luke 3 records Adam as being in his geneology. Calvin in his commentary on the Pentateuch recalls that:

So God created man The reiterated mention of the image of God is not a vain repetition. For it is a remarkable instance of the Divine goodness which can never be sufficiently proclaimed. And, at the same time, he admonishes us from what excellence we have fallen, that he may excite in us the desire of its recovery.*

Or Abraham Kuyper:

Like Job, we ought to feel and to acknowledge that in Adam you and I are created; when God created Adam He created us; in Adam’s nature He called forth the nature wherein we now live. Gen. i. and ii. is not the record of aliens, but of ourselves—concerning the flesh and blood which we carry with us, the human nature in which we sit down to read the Word of God.

Or A.W. Pink:

Now, strictly speaking, there are only two men who have ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and unimpaired responsibility, and they were the first and last Adam's. The responsibility of each of the rational descendants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them accountable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall.

Or Charles Hodge:

We are inherently depraved, and therefore we are involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin.

So here we have Scripture, greats of the Reformation, and contemporary scholars all pointing to a real Adam. So why do Orthodox people seem inclined to accept that Adam was a real being but we of 2007 seem not to think it either necessary or true? Is it because these old white men did not have access to "knowledge" that we have today and if they just knew about textual criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, grammatical criticism, and J, E, P, and D then they would also see the "mythical" properties of the creation text? Well would Calvin change his mind on the necessity of Adam's fall for the reality of Christ's death if he knew of the Yahwist? The easy answer is to say that proponents of the allegory hypothesis are so taken by accommodation with the sciences that their theistic evolutionary stance forces them to concede that no "Adam" ever existed, regardless of what this position does to their theology, because science has proved Homo Sapiens developed independently. But is this answer sufficient? Is it just simple to say that those who hold there is no Adam because of the supposed inconsistencies in the Hebrew and the alleged "two creations" are "wrong" without delving deeper into the questions behind this stance?

What do you think? Does a Christ automatically support an Adam? Or do we think that the story of Creation, without an actual Adam, is a proper myth that helps us and the early Israelites, Jesus, and the Apostles understand our current predicament and that an actual Adam is not required for the Cross?

*-All quotes taken from www.ccel.org



___________________________________________________________________



To continue the conversation about a literal Adam a little further let us examine how not having a "real" Adam destroys the need for an actual Christ. Those of you who do not believe in a physical Adam as expressed in the beginning chapters of Genesis need to reconcile how Christ, who Paul explicitly says in 1st Corinthians 15:42-49 is the second Adam, can be the so-called second of something that did not previously exist? Or put in other words how Adam being a metaphor calls for a Christ to die for a fake rebellion.

I think those of you who deny Adam's reality do not truly comprehend how much the idea of there being no Adam affects the rest of Scripture. It would be like taking away the opening chapter of a novel and expecting to be able to understand the rest of the story. Someone who describes the creation text as myth or folklore must analyze what this does not only to the history of God's relationship to Israel but to their Christology. Because not only does the non-existence of Adam necessitate that God created the world sinful and evil but it requires that Jesus' death on the cross is an action that resolves God's mistake in making an already fallen creation to himself. Not that Jesus was reconciling us, who share in Adam's rebellion, to God but that God was reconciling his own blunder with himself. Michal Horton in his work Putting Amazing Back Into Grace quotes John Calvin who says,"The depravity and malice both of men and of the devil, or the sins that arise therefrom, do not spring from nature, but rather from the corruption of nature." In other words it is not that nature itself was created evil but that nature had to of its own accord fall from the perfection in which it was formed to begin with. This has to mean that at some point in the past an "Adam" was given the free will to sin or as the Second Chapter of the Scots Confession defines it:

"We confess and acknowledge that our God has created man, i.e., our first father, Adam, after his own image and likeness, to whom he gave wisdom, lordship, justice, free will, and self-consciousness, so that in the whole nature of man no imperfection could be found. From this dignity and perfection man and woman both fell; the woman being deceived by the serpent and man obeying the voice of the woman, both conspiring against the sovereign majesty of God, who in clear words had previously threatened death if they presumed to eat of the forbidden tree."

For Jesus' death on the cross to be as Scripture says it to be necessitates a literal Adam who fell from God's grace. A fake Adam creates a Christ who has failed and is a liar. For what need do we have of a Savior that saves us from a death that was his fault to begin with? What do we say when we know that Christ did not die because of our own rebellion but because of his own mistake? How can we say that the literally hundreds of times Adam's sin is called upon by the writers of the Old Testament to show forth the sin of Israel is mere allegory? How can we say Christ died for an allegory or a metaphor and be taken seriously? Adam's reality is VITAL for the gospel to be real. Without an actual Adam our faith is in vain because Christ's atonement is nothing more than a big "sorry about that". This is not the message of the gospel.

More Old Testament Thoughts

THE MOSAIC TRADITION

AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF REJECTING IT

By Oswald T. Allis

Until comparatively recent times, the practically universal view among both Jews and Christians was that "Moses wrote the Pentateuch." Josephus, the Jewish historian, in speaking of the sacred books of the Jews declares: "and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death."[3] That these words refer to the Pentateuch, that they attribute it to Moses, and that they represent the accepted opinion of Jewish scholars of the past is undeniable. The acceptance of this belief in the Christian Church is shown by the fact that in Luther's translation of the Bible each of the books of the Pentateuch is entitled a "book of Moses," and that a similar statement appears in the 1611 Version of the English Bible. The question whether a tradition which is so ancient and so universal is correct is important in itself. But it becomes especially important when we consider the three matters closely connected with it which have already been alluded to: (I) the basis of this tradition, (II) the consequences of rejecting it, and (III) the methods used by the critics to disprove the Mosaic authorship.

I. The Basis of the Mosaic Tradition Is Four-fold

a. The Claims of the Pentateuch Itself

The quotation from Josephus given above states that the Pentateuch contains "his [Moses'] laws." This is borne out by the statements of the document itself. As to the Decalogue, it is expressly declared that all the arrangements for that most impressive scene at Mount Sinai when the Law was given were made by Moses, and that the Ten Words were uttered in his presence (Ex. 20:19f.); later he was told to write them (34:27). Regarding the laws of Ex.21–23., we are expressly told that "Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah" (24:4); and the document containing them is clearly the "book of the covenant" referred to in verse 7. All of the laws regarding the erection of the tabernacle and its worship recorded in Ex. 25–31 are given in the form of personal communications to Moses; and the account of the construction of the tabernacle and of its erection is accompanied by the oft–repeated refrain, "as Jehovah commanded Moses."[4] In Leviticus the words, "Jehovah spake (said, called) unto Moses" (or less freq., "unto Moses and Aaron"), occur about 35 times, 19 of which are at the beginning of a chapter; and 26:46 and 27:34 definitely connect the giving of these laws with Sinai. Numbers closely resembles Leviticus in this respect. Nearly half of the chapters begin in the same way; and the last verse of the book brings us down to the time when Israel was encamped in Moab. Deuteronomy is largely made up of elaborate discourses declared to have been delivered by Moses, the primary aim of which is to rehearse the laws already given and apply them to the new conditions under which Israel will shortly live, and to exhort the people to loyalty and obedience. Chap. 31:9, 24 tells us that Moses wrote the law in a book; and vs. 26 tells us that he commanded the Levities to place this book beside the ark. The meaning and scope of the word "law" in these statements is a matter of dispute, but the natural inference would be that it at least included all the legal portions of the Pentateuch.

What applies to the laws is also true to some degree of the historical portions of the Pentateuch. Of the events of his own day we are told that Moses was commanded to write God's judgment upon Amalek "in a book" (Ex. 27:14). It is also stated that Moses wrote the itinerary recorded in Num. 33. And there is force in the argument that the writer of this itinerary would naturally he the author of the narrative which describes the history of which it is only a summary.[5] We are also told that Moses gave as a parting legacy to Israel the Song and the Blessing recorded in Deut. 32-33. The fact that these chapters are expressly attributed to Moses favors the correctness of Josephus' phrase "and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death."[6] They show that Moses was interested in the past history of his people (32:7, 8); and the author of Deut. 33 might well be the recorder of Gen. 49.[7] It is true that the Book of Genesis nowhere claims to have been written by Moses. But an account of the origin of mankind or at least of the ancestors of Israel such as is given there is required to make the other four books intelligible. Furthermore, the "and" (or, now) with which Ex. 1:1 begins is an indication that this book is a continuation and only in Genesis do we find the history recorded which Exodus continues.[8]

b. The Testimony of the Rest of the Old Testament

References to Moses are about as numerous in Joshua as in all the other books of the Old Testament taken together. They show that Joshua derived his authority from Moses and appealed constantly to what Moses had commanded. These references serve to define the task assigned Joshua after the death of Moses. Chap. 1:7 is typical: "Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee" We speak at times of Joshua as Moses' successor. But such an expression is misleading. Moses was the Law–giver: it was the duty of all who came after him to keep that law and instruct others to do so. In his farewell to Israel Joshua passed on to the elders (23:6) the obligation to obey the law of Moses, which had been solemnly laid upon him. This involved "all that is written in the book of the law of Moses." Moses had, strictly speaking, but one successor: the One who said of Himself, "A greater than Moses is here."

Occasional references to Moses are found in 14 other books. In Judges 3:4 it is declared that certain nations were left in the land after the death of Joshua for the purpose of testing whether Israel "would hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses." The books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, all refer to the law of Moses.

The prophets only occasionally mention Moses by name. They refer more frequently to "the law." But that by this they mean "the law of Moses" is indicated by the fact that his is the only name ever connected with the law, Aaron being merely his mouthpiece.[9] The final word of the last of the prophets is "Remember the law of Moses my servant." Just what is covered by the word law may be a matter of dispute, but that the Old Testament attributes the law of God which was Israel's most precious possession to Moses and to no one else is so obvious that detailed discussion is here unnecessary.

c. The Testimony of the New Testament

The New Testament makes it quite clear that Jesus did not dispute the Old Testament canon as accepted by the Jews, but fully accepted it as the Word of God. He challenged only their misinterpretation of it and failure to follow its teachings (e.g., Lk. 20:37, Jn. 7:19). This is made especially clear by Luke 24:27, 44, which indicates that Jesus recognized as already in existence the divisions of the Old Testament as later defined by Josephus, and that the "writings" of Moses (Jn. v.47, cf. Lk. 16:29, 31) to which He referred were the Pentateuch. He quoted the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16) with the words "Moses said" (Mk. 7:10) and added a quotation taken from Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9. When the Pharisees raised the question of easy divorce (Mt. 19:3), He appealed first to Gen. 2:24; and then, when the appeal was made to Moses' "command" (Deut. 24:1-4), He declared that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. When the question of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5) was placed in a ridiculous light by the Sadducees for the purpose of making the resurrection seem absurd, Jesus appealed to the words uttered at the Bush (Ex. 3:6) which in Mk. 12:26 are referred to "the book of Moses" and in Mt. 12:31 ascribed directly to "God." That Paul held the same view is indicated by Acts 28:23. Such passages as Rom. 10:19, 1 Cor.9:9, 2 Cor. 3:15, indicate clearly the viewpoint of the New Testament on this question, which is that "Moses" and "law" are equivalent expressions.

d. The Voice of Tradition

Since the higher critics do not deny the antiquity and practical universality of the tradition that the Pentateuch is Mosaic,[10] but rather affirm that their own view is essentially a modern discovery, it is not necessary to prove this in detail. A few facts, however, may be noted. The earliest extra-canonical witness to the Old Testament canon is Ecclesiasticus (written about 250 B.C.). There we read, "He [Jehovah] made him [Moses] to hear his voice and brought him into the dark cloud, and gave him commandments before his face, even the law of life and knowledge, that he might teach Jacob his covenants and Israel his judgments."[11] Second Maccabees speaks of the "commandment of the law which was given . . . by Moses" (7:30). Philo, who was an older contemporary of Josephus, attached such importance to the books of Moses that he assigned the Pentateuch a unique place among the Old Testament books. In the Talmud it is declared that any departure from the teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch would be punished by exclusion from Paradise.[12] Among Christian scholars, one of the first to refer to the "five books of Moses" is Melito, Bishop of Sardis (cir. 175 AD.). In all of the lists of the Canonical Scriptures given by the Church Fathers the Five Books of the Law are given a unique position; and they are frequently called the "books of Moses."[13] The simplest explanation of this tradition is that it represents the teachings of the Bible itself.

II. The Consequences of the Rejection of the Claim that the Pentateuch Is Mosaic are Very Serious

a. The first consequence is the rejection of all the positive external evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, as to the authorship of the Pentateuch. This is to be done, not on the authority of older and better evidence, as no such evidence has been produced. It is to be done in the interest of a theory, the correctness of which has never been proved. And since this rejection of external evidence necessarily involves and includes the rejection of the testimony of the New Testament and, most important of all, the testimony of Jesus as recorded in it, the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch becomes a matter of very vital concern to the New Testament Christian. Unless he is prepared to treat it as of no importance whether Jesus is correctly quoted in the New Testament, or whether He accommodated Himself to Jewish prejudices and accepted traditions which He knew to be false, or whether He was in such a sense a man of his age" that He was as ignorant as were His contemporaries of the "facts" which the critics claim to have discovered, the Christian of today must regard the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as no less important than it was held to be before the rise of the higher criticism first called it into question, and then positively rejected it.

b. The second consequence of the rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is the admission that the account of the " 'Mosaic" age given us in it is a fundamentally erroneous one. Moses is the outstanding figure. He is mentioned more than 500 times in Exodus to Deuteronomy. But, if all the legal codes of the Pentateuch date from long after Moses' time, and if the history is late and unreliable, Moses becomes a decidedly elusive figure; and it becomes difficult if not impossible to account for the prominent role assigned him. His reputation is vast, but the deeds which serve as the basis for it are no longer to be regarded as his. He becomes a kind of legal fiction.

c. The third consequence of the acceptance of this theory is the adoption of a low view of the authority and credibility of the Bible as a whole. For, as will appear in the course of the discussion, it is only by rejecting or amending the statements of Scripture that the evidence cited above can be overthrown.

III. The Method Employed by the Critics Is Responsible for These Radical Consequences

a. It is characteristic of this method that it is divisive and destructive of the unity and harmony of Scripture. The slightest variations in diction, style, viewpoint or subject matter are seized upon as indicative of difference in author, date, and source. Differences are frequently magnified into contradictions. A book which is full of contradictory statements cannot speak with the authority of truth and cannot be in a unique and special sense the Word of the God of truth.

b. It is characteristic of this method that it largely rejects the claim of Scripture that the children of Israel were in a unique sense the object of divine guidance. The tendency is to substitute for the uniqueness of God's dealings with Israel, the uniqueness of Israel herself, her special genius for religion.

c. It is characteristic of this method that it minimizes or rejects the redemptive supernaturalism of Biblical history and endeavors to reconstruct it in terms of naturalistic evolution. The miraculous element is viewed with suspicion and regarded either as evidence of the late date and unre-liability of a narrative, or as proof that it represents a primitive and unscientific account of phenomena in which a modern writer would see only the operation of natural processes.

In view, therefore, of the strength of the Mosaic tradition, the serious consequences of rejecting it, and the drastic methods made use of by those who do this, the question whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch should be of vital concern to everyone who has any knowledge of the Bible or any interest in it

---

The Five Books Of Moses. Oswald T. Allis. The Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. 1943. Pages 5-12

Some Light Reading

Seeing as we are discussing issues with the Book of Genesis I though it would be helpful to link several articles that help to cast light on my thoughts more clearly.

The Time Element in Genesis 1 and 2
by Oswald T. Allis (former Prof. of OT at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia)

Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony
by Meredith G. Kline (former Prof. emeritus of OT at Westminster Seminary, California)

Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7
With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3 part 1 & part 2
by Mark D. Futato (Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament at RTS-Orlando)

Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Chapter 1
by John Calvin

Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Chapter 2
by John Calvin

Working through Discernment

Working through Discernment

By Benjamin P. Glaser

As anyone who reads this blog semi-regularly knows I am in a period of discernment and prayer as to what my future in the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be for me and my family. As part of this discernment process I have decided to work out some central passages in which I differ from the majority of my colleagues in seminary and the general view of the PC (USA). It is important to remember when reading this that these writings are not intended to be full treatises for publication and may seem not to be fully exegeted, that is not my goal. My goal is to test my beliefs against a subjective audience and see if what I believe is so outside the denominational witness that a move is necessary both for the health of my own conscience and my ability to give an honest witness to what Scripture is teaching.

My plan is to do this bi-weekly and in a systematic and chronological way. Therefore the first question I will begin with is Adam and Eve and the majority belief in the Old Testament scholarship of the PC (USA) that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate accounts and are disconnected explanations of the creation of man. (cf: documentary hypothesis).*

*- It should be noted here that not all positions will be covered but just the main position of the PC (USA)

1) Man and Woman created in Genesis 1:26-27

2) “Adam” and “Eve” (Man and Woman) created in Genesis 2:7,18,21-22

Now modern PC (USA) (and all mainline) Old Testament scholarship gives the following explanation for this supposed “double creation” event.

1) Gen. 1:26-27 was written by the Priestly Source and Gen. 2:7,18, 21-22 by the Yahwist

2) Both accounts arise out of other near east creation texts. Therefore the text is not meant to be “complimentary” but necessarily conflicting. In other words Genesis 1 is the view from God’s perspective and Ch. 2 is Man’s perspective.

Here is where I disagree with this hypothesis. The mention of the creation of humans in 1:27 in no way makes the second mention in chapter two “contradictory” or even competing. While it has been the recent tradition of OT scholarship since Wellhausen (and to a lesser degree Spinoza) to make these two statements I believe the second statement to be easily refuted. Not only throughout Jewish tradition have these two chapters been treated as one narrative but Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 quotes both from Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in one thought (as well as attributing Mosaic authorship to the whole of the Torah in Matt 8:4, 19:7, 22:24, Mark 1:44, 7:10, 12:19, 12:26, Luke 2:22, 5:14, 16:19, 20:28, 20:37, 24:27, 24:44, John 1:17, 1:45, 5:45, 5:46, and 7:23). Now one may say here that Jesus is just following his ritual, not necessarily giving credence to the view of chapters 1 and 2 being of the same tradition. In other words the critique says that Christ’s use of both chapters; giving equal voice to both 1 & 2 as if they are telling the same story, does not necessarily mean that both speak with the same voice or having the same author. Christ, since he had voluntarily emptied himself of divine knowledge (as seen in his not knowing the Day of Judgment), and had “forgotten” or even more implausibly Jesus chose not to share with the apostles the truth he knew about the writing of Genesis 1 and 2 thereby quoting from both honestly outside of the truth we now hold.

I cannot begin to describe how this view does damage to Chalcedonian Christology. However in the interest of giving a more thorough understanding of how dangerous this last statement is to historical orthodoxy let us look at one example of how this critique breaks down orthodox foundations of how we see Christ.

Chalcedon says:

The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved

Now if according to the last critique that by emptying himself Christ necessarily gave away his knowledge of past events-which is what is being said by those who deny the Mosaic (or singular if you will) authorship of Genesis 1 and 2-it is then illogical to say then that the divine nature is not affected by the bodily nature, which in and of itself denies historical Christology.

Denominational News

Presbytery lets Mt. Lebanon church leave, with property

Thursday, October 18, 2007

By Steve Levin, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Almost six months to the day after voting to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA), Beverly Heights Church in Mt. Lebanon was granted its dismissal today by the Pittsburgh Presbytery.

The Presbytery's 174-73 vote, with two abstentions, means Beverly Heights will move its 400-member congregation, along with its buildings and grounds, to the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

Finding Agreement with John Frame

I also used to say that one should never leave a church if that church needs him/her in order to survive. But from God's point of view, no human being is indispensable. If he wants a weak church to keep going, he will supply the gifts that church needs. On the other hand, I have come to the view that it is not a tragedy when a tiny, stagnant, sick church folds up and dies. It is better for the members of such churches to be part of living, dynamic fellowships than to stay forever in a situation where they are constantly discouraged and, most likely, not being properly fed.

As someone who rarely, if ever, agrees with John Frame I find in this section from his work Evangelical Reunion (cf. Rev. Toby Brown's already linked discussion) a paragraph that is quite refreshing. I find myself presently at a time of much discernment and prayer as to my future in the PC(USA). As I think about this I am often troubled by further deepening the already wide gulf between the denominational landscape. What I personally struggle with is whether I am called to be like Jeremiah and others prophets (certainly not calling myself a prophet, that would be absurd) and stay in an increasingly apostate denomination preaching the gospel where many minds are shut to it or seek to follow the example of Matthew 10:14 and shake the dust from my feet and move on to another town.

Hey Who Called The Stork???

Well it Looks like my wife and I did. Found out today my wife is pregnant with our second child and is due in June.

Sunday Theological Moment

Joel Osteen and the Glory Story: A Case Study

By Michael S. Horton

"Name it, claim it"; the "health-and-wealth" or "prosperity gospel": these are nicknames for a heresy that in many respects is only an extreme version of perhaps the most typical focus of American Christianity today more generally. Basically, God is there for you and your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life and if you follow them, you can have what you want. Just "declare it" and prosperity will come to you.¹ God as Personal Shopper.

Although explicit proponents of the so-called "prosperity gospel" may be fewer than their influence suggests, its big names and best-selling authors (T. D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer) are purveyors of a pagan worldview with a peculiarly American flavor. It's basically what the sixteenth century German monk turned church reformer Martin Luther called the "theology of glory": How can I climb the ladder and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering? The contrast is the "theology of the cross": the story of God's merciful descent to us, at great personal cost, a message that the Apostle Paul acknowledged was offensive and "foolish to Greeks."

Joel Osteen: Another Verse of a Really Long Song
The attraction of Americans to this version of the "glory story" is evident in the astonishing success of Joel Osteen's runaway best-seller, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Beyond his charming personality and folksy style, Osteen's phenomenal attraction is no doubt related to his simple and soothing sampler of the American gospel: a blend of Christian and cultural elements that he picked up not through any formal training, but as the son of a Baptist-turned-prosperity evangelist who was a favorite on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). However, gone are the eccentric caricatures of "prosperity" televangelism, with its flamboyant style and over-the-top rhetoric.

In the Wal-Mart era of religion and spirituality, every particular creed and any denominational distinctives get watered down. We don't hear (at least explicitly) about our being "little gods," "part and parcel of God," or the blood of Christ as a talisman for healing and prosperity. The strange teachings of his father's generation, still regularly heard on TBN, are not explored in any depth. In fact, nothing is explored in any depth. Osteen still uses the telltale lingo of the health-and-wealth evangelists: "Declare it," "speak it," "claim it," and so forth, but there are no dramatic, made-for-TV healing lines. The pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, which now owns the Astrodome, does not come across as a flashy evangelist with jets and yachts, but as a charming next-door-neighbor who always has something nice to say.

Although remarkably gifted at the social psychology of television, Joel Osteen is hardly unique. In fact, his explicit drumbeat of prosperity (word-faith) teaching is communicated in the terms and the ambiance that might be difficult to distinguish from most megachurches. Joel Osteen is the next generation of the health-and-wealth gospel. This time, it's mainstream.

As community philosopher Karl Marx said of a consumer-driven culture, "All that is solid melts into the air." Religion, too, becomes a commodity-a product or therapy that we can buy and use for our personal well-being. Exemplifying the moralistic and therapeutic approach to religion, Osteen's message is also a good example of the inability of Boomers to mourn in the face of God's judgment or dance under the liberating news of God's saving mercy. In other words, all gravity is lost-both the gravity of our problem and of God's amazing grace. According to this message, we are not helpless sinners-the ungodly-who need a one-sided divine rescue. (Americans, but especially we Boomers, don't take bad news well.) Rather, we are good people who just need a little instruction and motivation.

"Law-Lite": Salvation From Unhappiness By Doing Your Best
There is no condemnation in Osteen's message for failing to fulfill God's righteous law. On the other hand, there is no justification. Instead of either message, there is an upbeat moralism that is somewhere in the middle: Do your best, follow the instructions I give you, and God will make your life successful. "Don't sit back passively," he warns, but with a gentle pleading suggests that the only reason we need to follow his advice is because it's useful for getting what we want. God is a buddy or partner who exists primarily to make sure we are happy. "You do your part, and God will do his part."² "Sure we have our faults," he says, but "the good news is, God loves us anyway."³ Instead of accepting God's just verdict on our own righteousness and fleeing to Christ for justification, Osteen counsels readers simply to reject guilt and condemnation.⁴ Yet it is hard to do that successfully when God's favor and blessing on my life depend entirely on how well I can put his commands to work. "If you will simply obey his commands, He will change things in your favor."⁵ That's all: "...simply obey his commands."

Everything depends on us, but it's easy. One wonders if he has ever had a crisis of doubt or moral failure that stripped him naked in God's presence. Osteen seems to think that we are basically good people and God has a very easy way for us to save ourselves-not from his judgment, but from our lack of success in life-with his help. "God is keeping a record of every good deed you've ever done," he says-as if this is good news. "In your time of need, because of your generosity, God will move heaven and earth to make sure you are taken care of."⁶

It may be "Law Lite," but make no mistake about it: behind a smiling Boomer Evangelicalism that eschews any talk of God's wrath, there is a determination to assimilate the gospel to law, an announcement of victory to a call to be victorious, indicatives to imperatives, good news to good advice. The bad news may not be as bad as it used to be, but the good news is just a softer version of the bad news: Do more. But this time, it's easy! And if you fail, don't worry. God just wants you to do your best. He'll take care of the rest.

So who needs Christ? At least, who needs Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29)? The sting of the law may be taken out of the message, but that only means that the gospel has become a less demanding, more encouraging law whose exhortations are only meant to make us happy, not to measure us against God's holiness.

So while many supporters offer testimonials to his kinder, gentler version of Christianity than the legalistic scolding of their youth, the only real difference is that God's rules or principles are easier and it's all about happiness here and now, not being reconciled to a holy God who saves us from ourselves. In its therapeutic milieu, sin is failing to live up to our potential, not falling short of God's glory. We need to believe in ourselves and the wages of such "sins" is missing out on our best life now. But it's still a constant stream of exhortation, demands, and burdens: follow my steps and I guarantee your life will be blessed.

A TIME story in 2006 observed that Osteen's success has reached even more traditional Protestant circles, citing the example of a Lutheran church that followed Your Best Life Now during Lent, of all times, "when," as the writer notes, "Jesus was having his worst life then." Even churches formally steeped in a theology of the cross succumb to theologies of glory in the environment of popular American spirituality. We are swimming in a sea of narcissistic moralism: an "easy-listening" version of salvation by self-help.

This is what we might call the false gospel of "God-Loves-You-Anyway." There's no need for Christ as our mediator, since God is never quite as holy and we are never quite as morally perverse as to require nothing short of Christ's death in our place. God is our buddy. He just wants us to be happy, and the Bible gives us the roadmap.

I have no reason to doubt the sincere motivation to reach non-Christians with a relevant message. My concern, however, is that the way this message comes out actually trivializes the faith at its best and contradicts it at its worst. In a way, it sounds like atheism: Imagine there is no heaven above us or hell below us, no necessary expectation that Christ "will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead" and establish perfect peace in the world. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anything in this message that would be offensive to a Unitarian, Buddhist, or cultural Christians who are used to a diet of gospel-as-American-Dream. Disney's Jiminy Cricket expresses this sentiment: "If you wish upon a star, all your dreams will come true."

To be clear, I'm not saying that it is atheism, but that it sounds oddly like it in this sense: that it is so bound to a this-worldly focus that we really do not hear anything about God himself-his character and works in creation, redemption, or the resurrection of the body and the age to come. Nothing in the past (namely, Christ's work) nor in the future (namely, Christ's return in judgment, raising our bodies in everlasting life) really matters. Maybe I haven't heard enough of his talks on TV, but I have never heard anything that approached a proclamation of any article mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. Despite the cut-aways of an enthralled audience with Bibles opened, I have yet to hear a single biblical passage actually preached. Is it possible to have evangelism without the evangel? Christian outreach without a Christian message?

If God matters, it is for the most trivial concerns-or at least those quite secondary to the real crisis that the gospel addresses. One could easily come away from this type of message concluding that we are not saved by Christ's objective work for us, but by our subjective "personal relationship with Jesus" through a series of works that we perform to secure his favor and blessing. God has set up all of these laws and now it's up to us to follow them so that we can be blessed. I can think of no better illustration of what sociologist Christian Smith has identified as "moralistic, therapeutic deism": the gospel of American Religion.

As the New Testament repeatedly affirms, those who want to be saved by their own obedience need to know that God doesn't grade on a curve. His record-keeping is bad news, not good news, unless Christ's obedient record has been credited to us through faith alone. God's law says, "If you want to be saved by your own effort, here are the terms: Do all these things and you'll go to heaven; fail to do them and you'll go to hell." The revivalists of yesteryear came up with their own list, but it was basically the same threat: "Do or die." The kinder, gentler version is, "Try harder and you'll be happier; fail to do them and you'll lose out on God's best for your life here and now." No heaven, no hell; no condemnation or salvation; no perfect obedience of Christ credited to us: Just do your best. Remember, God is keeping score! Christ becomes totally unnecessary in this message.

Osteen reflects the broader assumption among evangelicals that we are saved by making a decision to have a personal relationship with God. If one's greatest problem is loneliness, the good news is that Jesus is a reliable friend. If the big problem is anxiety, Jesus will calm us down. Jesus is the glue that holds our marriages and families together, gives us purpose for us to strive toward, wisdom for daily life. And there are half-truths in all of these pleas, but they never really bring hearers face to face with their real problem: that they stand naked and ashamed before a holy God and can only be acceptably clothed in his presence by being clothed, head to toe, in Christ's righteousness.

This gospel of "submission," "commitment," "decision," and "having a personal relationship with God" fails to realize, first of all, that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified co-heir with Christ and adopted child of the Father. "How can I be right with God?" is no longer a question when my happiness rather than God's holiness is the main issue. My concern is that Joel Osteen is simply the latest in a long line of self-help evangelists who appeal to the native American obsession with pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Salvation is not a matter of divine rescue from the judgment that is coming on the world, but a matter of self-improvement in order to have your best life now.

---

NOTES:

¹ This position is extensively documented in Michael Horton, ed., The Agony of Deceit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990).[Back to text]

² Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential (NY: Warner Books, 2004) 41-42. [Back to text]

³ Ibid., 57. [Back to text]

⁴ Ibid., 66. [Back to text]

⁵ Ibid., 119. [Back to text]

⁶ Ibid., 262. [Back to text]

---

The Rev. Dr. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, the host of the nationally syndicated broadcast of The White Horse Inn radio program, editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine, and a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America.

Dr. Horton is also the author/editor of more than fifteen books, including: Putting Amazing Back Into Grace; Made in America; A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God Centered Worship; God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology; and Too Good To Be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype. He received his Ph.D. from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and the University of Coventry, and resides in Escondido, California, with his wife Lisa and their four children.

Thank You Revs. Brown and Crawford, Preach it Brothers

Who gets to be called 'schismatic?'

October 11, 2007

I continue to find the writings of John Shuck [Letters, October 10, 2007] to be illustrating about what we face by remaining in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Here is a minister in good standing who has publicly mocked our faith, who believes that Jesus' body rotted in a grave, that Jesus will not return again, who mocks Christians on a daily basis over at his blog, and then he has the nerve to label a faithful minister like Bill Crawford a schismatic. What a joke! Friends, when an apostate "minister" stands within our system, not disciplined by his presbytery, who refutes the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and calls a faithful pastor schismatic, we had better know where we stand. How long, brothers and sisters in Christ, will we allow this to go on? How long will we swear our allegiance to an organization that allows a person like John Shuck to wear our label? As my good friend Will Spotts calls us to remember in his farewell address to the PCUSA, we had better remember what is being done in our names. I, for one, will not long abide in an organization that allows this to continue. How about you?

Toby Brown
Cuero, Texas


About letter by John Shuck
October 11, 2007

I think it will be a interesting day indeed when Christian members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) take a moment to see true heresy and apostasy at work by checking out John Shuck's blog "Shuck and Jive." Although offensive, it is a lesson in the practical reality of this institution. I think The Layman Online would do a community service to publish this letter and its links. Shucks, a full-blown investigation would be illuminating.Yes, John Shuck is a minister of Word and sacrament and, yes, he has been reported to the committee on ministry of Holston Presbytery and the reply was that he was a "minister in good standing." You can read the sermons that he preaches from the pulpit of a PCUSA congregation here. Or, perhaps, you would like to read as John talks about the "Rapture" (warning – some medieval nudity here).When John Shuck insults me, I count it all joy.

Bill Crawford
pastor First Presbyterian Church of Thibodaux
Thibodaux, La.

Rev. Bill Crawford, Schismatic?

Isee the "Rev." John Schuck has taken the time out of his busy day to take a pot shot at one of the consistory:

The PCUSA is moving ahead
October 10, 2007

It will be a day just like all others when schismatics like Bill Crawford
of Thibodaux, La. [Letters, October 9, 2007], finally exit the denomination in a
self-righteous huff. Despite the angry (and now tired) complainers, the vast
majority of the church does its work for Christ's Kingdom. Crawford and his
crowd can stay or leave.The Presbyterian Church (USA) is moving ahead with or
without you.

John Shuck First Presbyterian Church Elizabethton, Tenn.

Sermon October 7, 2007: World Communion Sunday

Oct. 7, 2007
Linway United Presbyterian Church
Lamentations 1:1-6
"The Roads of Zion are in Mourning"

As I was attending chapel at Seminary last week we began to sing a hymn that I had sung hundreds of times before. It was one of those hymns that as soon as the organist begins to play it you can feel your soul being lifted up and you may even step up a little onto the balls of your feet. You know what I am talking about. You know that feeling. It is a hymn that I have heard so many times that I can almost sing it without the help of the words on the page, I really need only to follow the musical notes and listen to the organ. We began with the first verse, I’ll save you the pain of listening to me sing and just read it to you, see if you recognize the hymn: “O worship the King, all glorious above, O gratefully sing His power and His love; Our Shield and Defender, the Ancient of Days, Pavilioned in splendor, and girded with praise.” And as we finished the first verse and the Organist began to begin again my voice raised just a little bit more as my singing became filled with gusto, when all of a sudden I fell silent as I noticed that what I had just sung was just a little bit different than what had been belted out by those next to me. It was not that I had forgotten the verse or that a large section of the hymn had been changed but I looked down and noticed that one single solitary verb had been altered to a noun. But this single solitary noun distorted greatly the whole meaning of the hymn. It is hard for us to imagine how a single word could change the meaning behind an entire hymn but lets look at both verses; now pay attention and listen to the difference. Listen as I read the original second verse of the hymn and the verse after it was changed and see if you can notice the discrepancy: Here is the version I knew: O tell of His might, O sing of His grace, whose robe is the light, whose canopy space, His chariots of wrath the deep thunderclouds form, And dark is His path on the wings of the storm. Got it? Now here is the changed second verse: “O tell of His might, O sing of His grace, whose robe is the light, whose canopy space, the chariots of heaven the deep thunderclouds form, And light is God’s path on the wings of the storm.” Did you notice the difference? Did you notice the word that was changed? Now you may be asking yourself what difference does it make that the revisionist of this great hymn changed the phrase, “chariots of wrath”, that Robert Grant had originally included in his hymn, to “chariots of heaven”? Well before I answer that question let us look at the Scripture lesson [the liturgist] read for us this morning.

The Prophet Jeremiah in the first 6 verses of the Book of Lamentations, which we read this morning, described Jeremiah’s anguish and torment for all that had befallen God’s people after the destruction of the Holy City and the desecration of God’s Temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. After the many years of God’s prophets warning the Jews that they had better start to follow God’s laws and commandments, that they had better change their ways here we read that Judah had once again disregarded the calls for Holiness and Righteousness deciding to head down their own path rather than listen to the counsel of the Almighty God. Jeremiah was so taken aback by the destruction that he could hardly contain his grief. He could only express his sorrow, John Calvin says, by expressing his astonishment. In our minds eye we can see Jeremiah down on his knees with his hands raised crying out to the Lord our God, “Why dear God have you forsaken your people!” “Why has Jerusalem deserved this punishment?” Listen to the imagery Jeremiah gives us in verse one and as you do try to place yourself in the shoes of Jeremiah and feel the pain of his words, “How lonely sits the city that was full of people. She has become like a widow who was once great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a forced laborer!” and in verse 2, “She weeps bitterly in the night and her tears are upon her cheeks. She has none to comfort her among all her lovers, all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they have become her adversaries.” Jerusalem has gone from being honored by God, separated and glorified from among the pagan and heathen cultures that surrounded her to a grand lump of broken stone that is but dust and desolation. The city that once had boasted the glory of Solomon’s kingdom, which had bragged about its own glorification to the nations, now, is but a pile of rubble and emptiness. Jeremiah continues in verse 4, “The roads of Zion are in mourning, because no one comes to her appointed feasts. All her gates are desolate; her priests are groaning. Her virgins are afflicted and she herself is bitter.” Not only has the physical city of Jerusalem been destroyed but even the worship of the Lord our God has been stopped. The priests wail because they no longer can offer sacrifice to the Lord. The feasts and traditions of the Jewish people have been ended. Even the roads of Zion feel the emptiness of the exile. Jeremiah presents to us this image of the roads grieving in which the highways of Judah that were once filled with people who are moving with joy and excitement approaching the Holy City to offer their worship has gone silent………. However what is the most disturbing for the Prophet Jeremiah and for us is to come in verse 5. “Her adversaries have become her masters, Her enemies prosper; For the Lord has caused her grief. Because of the multitude of her transgressions; Her little ones have gone away, as captives before the adversary.” If we read too quickly through verse five we may miss a phrase that none of us like to take notice of, certainly not the editors of the new Presbyterian hymnbook like to hear, but is a truth we cannot overlook. Jeremiah cries out, “Her adversaries have become her masters, Her enemies prosper; FOR THE LORD HAS CAUSED HER GRIEF…” We have a natural human tendency to skip over the hard sayings like this in Scripture. We do not like to hear about the wrath of God anymore than we like to hear Christ and Paul telling us that we have to pay our taxes. Jeremiah has recognized that the sorrow that he is now feeling, the emptiness of the plains of Abraham, is not the result of the natural expansion of the Babylonian Empire or because of the arbitrary whim of an uncaring God but is the consequence of a people who have broken their covenant with our God. Jeremiah shows that the destruction of Jerusalem in all its turbulence and confusion was neither accidental nor random but was the work of an almighty God acting in his role as a Righteous judge. Jeremiah understands that God is grieved by Jerusalem’s iniquity. He understands that God our Father does not act rashly in his judgment or out of pleasure like the Gods of Greece and Rome or Babylon and Egypt but acts only because of his righteousness demands that his creation be perfect so that it might glorify him.

Of course this vision of God having the least bit of a hand in the workings of destruction is nearly a completely foreign concept in many of our minds. We have somehow over time created in our brain not a God who demands righteousness and allegiance to his will but a God who acts more like a kind Grandfather, patting us on our head, seeing us as generally good grandkids that just happen to “miss the mark” on occasion. We will have a hard time placing ourselves in the shoes of Jeremiah, understanding his pain and anguish if we have this muted understanding of God the Father. Even more dangerous is that if we fail to comprehend the Righteousness of the Father and the reality of his zeal for righteousness we can scarcely understand the cross upon which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was crucified.

Turn with me now if you will to the 27^th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. We are brought forward in the New Testament to a similar time and place as we read about in Jeremiah’s lamentations. The enemies of God have brought his son to Golgotha, the place of the skull, to crucify him. We see the followers of Christ dejected and full of sorrow. Peter has already denied Christ three times and gone out and weeped bitterly just as Jeremiah had done for Jerusalem. The Lord our God has been beaten. It looks as if all that Christ had promised and spoken of was about in the matter of hours to be done away with. Forget that you know the rest of the story for right now. Place yourself at the foot of the cross next to Mary and James and John. Kneel with them; look up as your brother is being physically and emotionally tormented. Feel their pain. Read with me starting at verse 45. Matthew says, “Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, " ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, "This man is calling for Elijah." Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. But the rest of them said, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.” In Matthew’s telling of the crucifixion we are given these descriptions of the grief of God, that the earth trembled and was broken as his son was ruptured for our sins. All of creation moaned in unison with Jeremiah. As God had in his wrath destroyed the temple of Israel and the holy city of Jerusalem for their disobedience in the time of Jeremiah here in the Gospels the Son of God has been broken for our transgressions. Just as Jerusalem had paid the penalty for the multitude of its transgressions in its destruction by the Babylonians, Christ has paid the ultimate price for our iniquity in his crucifixion by the Romans. Just as the roads of Zion had gone silent after the destruction of Jerusalem the Christ our Lord was dead.

As I spoke of in the beginning about the neutering of the great hymn by Robert Grant, let us not be like those who denigrate the power of God to work his will in the world by trying to soften or, in the case of the revisionist hymn writer get rid of God’s wrath. But let us be transformed by the understanding that even though we each deserve the same fate as Jerusalem, Christ our Lord and savior has stood up for us directing the wrath of God for our iniquity upon his own body away from us. And in God’s greatest act of mercy has raised his son from the dead, who died to make men holy, securing for the elect eternal life with him.

So as we sit here this morning readying to partake together in the broken body of Christ our Savior and drink of his blood with literally hundreds of millions of other Christians joined as one by our common bond in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ let us not do so casually or without forethought. For what we are doing in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as Paul explains in the 11^th chapter of his first letter to the Corinthian church, is not to be taken lightly. For our Lord’s body has been broken for us. His blood has been spilled. He has died so that we may be seen as holy and righteous before our God. Not so that we could come and have bread and juice as simply an act of remembrance but so that the elements of communion may be set apart from their common uses and that those who receive them with faith and repentance may be spiritually filled with the Grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To the Honor and the Glory alone be to Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen.