Does God Care Who Loves Whom

I haven't ever posted a sermon on my blog before, but I couldn't figure out how to get this posted any other way - the old Connexion site is down and I don't have control over the new one. Anyway, the topic of homosexuality and the church/Christians is one we don't talk about often at ECC. We haven't focused on the issue as the most important of our day or anything like that. Yet, we do have convictions.

The earth is billions of years old

The current issue of Modern Reformation looks great (not sure which I get more excited about - my bimonthly Modern Reformation or my biweekly Rolling Stone). The main theme of this issue is the formation of the Christian canon and includes articles on the relationship between covenant and canon, the apocrypha, the trustworthiness of the canon, and the gnostic gospels.

In addition, the article "PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth," written by a group of Christian geologists, is very interesting. Let me give you a preview:

"The statement below is extracted from the concluding pages of the 2000 Report of the Creation Study Committee.

Clearly there are committed, Reformed believers who are scientists that are on either side of the issue regarding the age of the cosmos. Just as in the days following the Reformation, when the church could not decide between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system, so today there is not unanimity regarding the age question. Ultimately, the heliocentric view won out over the geocentric view because of a vast preponderance of facts favoring it based on increasingly sophisticated observations through ever improving telescopes used by thousands of astronomers over hundreds of years. Likewise, in the present controversy, a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor.

The geocentric/heliocentric debate refers to a controversy starting some 500 years ago between two conflicting views of nature. The geocentric position held that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around the earth. In contrast, the heliocentric position held that the earth and planets revolved around the sun. Several passages of Scripture appeared to support the geocentric view, and heliocentrism was considered by many to be a direct challenge to the authority of God's Word. Others recognized more than one possible interpretation of the Scrip-tures in question, and scientific evidence eventually persuaded them that the sun was indeed the center of our solar system.

In this context, it is important to recognize that science did not prevail over Scripture. Scripture was and remains true. Scientific evidence only served as a God-given aid in selecting the more accurate of two plausible, Bible-honoring interpretations. The CSC report suggests we are at a similar crossroads concerning the age of the earth, but without sufficient evidence to tip the scales one way or the other.

The CSC commendably included several scientists, though none were geologists. So what would a geologist add to the discussion? As practicing geologists committed to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, in keeping with Reformed tradition, the eight authors of this article maintain that the "large number of observations over a long period of time" mentioned in the CSC report have already been made, and the data are sufficient to unequivocally answer the question. We also understand, however, the inherent difficulty that people have in assessing a vast body of scientific literature filled with terms and jargon that often require years of schooling in very specific fields to comprehend. Such difficulties have landed even well-read and godly individuals such as Martin Luther on the wrong side of these debates. Luther addressed the heliocentric theories of Copernicus in his day as being little more than the pursuit of vanity since Scripture clearly speaks of the sun moving and not the earth.

In this article, we wish to provide our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ with a few general observations, some clarification of a common misconception about our science, and two specific examples that speak convincingly that God's earthly creation has been around for a very long time."

The authors, all eight of them, belief in the inspiration of Scripture and it's inerrancy. And, they also believe the earth is billions of years old. To some, that might not seem possible. The authors respond, "[we do] not regard the scientific evidence [for a very old earth] as challenging the veracity of Scripture, but only as challenging one aspect of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. The central message of God's authorship of creation was and remains undisputed by evidence of great age. It was not a commitment to naturalism that convinced Christian geologists of the antiquity of the earth, but rather a belief that the history of nature recorded in the earth's rocks should be consistent with the unchanging, truthful nature of its Author. In their estimation, the rock record in outcrop after outcrop in all parts of the world clearly told a story extending far beyond a few thousand years." The bulk of the article is a marshaling of geological evidence for an old earth, using two studies to make the case: Lake Suigetsu in Japan and plate tectonics of the Atlantic Ocean.

While maintaining an irenic tone in the article, the authors maintain that where one falls on the debate does have some significance. They conclude,

"If the PCA recognizes that mature believers fall on either side of the age of the earth debate, does it ultimately make a difference which side you fall on? We suggest it does matter for two important reasons.

The first is a greater appreciation of God's handiwork. If creation conforms to God's trustworthiness and looks old because it is old, we are free to marvel at each new discovery that further reveals the incredible complexity and grandeur of his creativity. If the earth is old and we insist it is young, every new discovery can be met only with distrust and disdain--disdain of his creation!

The second reason is of perhaps greater importance. If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!"

song of the week

There is a flurry of great new hymns/reworked hymns coming out from RUF, Sovereign Grace, Sojourn, and others. Here's a new favorite from Sovereign Grace:

Simeon and Wesley: Example of Christian Charity

Charles Simeon was a great evangelical preacher in the last half of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. Though a Calvinist, he displays a wonderful charity to his Arminian brother John Wesley. I first read this account of the conversation between Simeon and Wesley in John Piper's book The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce.

"Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

Yes, altogether. And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree." (pg. 87-88)

Praise God for the Messiness of Evangelicalism

Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I confess I have a little mind and I love consistency. I love order, I love tidy systems of thought. Maybe that's why I'm so Reformed - true Reformed theology is consistent, sometimes too tidy. Maybe that's also why I sometimes wonder if wonder if I'm really an evangelical. Evangelicalism isn't tidy, is nebulous, nearly impossible to define, has no center, not organizational flow chart, no controlling creeds or confessions. In a word, it's messy. Maybe I should shift to a less evangelical though conservative denomination like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the Reformed Church. Those groups are evangelical in belief (the uphold the authority of the word, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, miracles, sustitutionary atonement, real resurrection, the church, the return of Christ, etc.) , but not evangelical in self conscious ways. Many would askew the label. They wouldn't disagree or deny Bebbingtons definition of an evangelical (bible is authoritative, evangelism/missions is important, the cross work of Jesus is central, conversion is necessary), but resist the controlling pietistic air and revivalistic emphasis on experience. They're world is tidy. Do I fit there?

Reading Alister McGrath's Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity reminded me of why I love evangelicalism and should appreciate it's messiness. The beginning of the book is, to be honest, overly optimistic. By the end he does address the 'darker side' of the evangelical movement, but the opening three chapters are incredibly positive. It was refreshing. I read a lot about evangelicalism - more than on any other single topic probably. Most of what I read is critical - usually from friends within the movement, but critical nonetheless.

This isn't an organized review, but just to point to a few things that were really encouraging.

1. The tent is big and, while there are many disagreements, the unity is profound as well. Evangelicalism draws from a wide range of historical sources and traditions - from classic confessions of the Reformed Tradition to Anabaptist dissent to Wesleyan practice and Pentecostal worship and experience. In addition, evangelicalism is growing globally and the being expressed in innumerable cultural contexts. There is no wonder there is such diversity and disagreement. However, it's remarkable what a consensus there is on core issues. McGrath describes six controlling convictions: 1) the supreme authority is Scripture, 2) The majesty of Jesus Christ, both as incarnate God and Lord and as the Savior of sinful humanity, 3) the lordship of the Holy Spirit, 4) the need for personal conversion, 5) the priority of evangelism, and 6) the importance of Christian community. In each of these, the imprecision (aka 'wiggle room'). For example, Scriptures supreme authority doesn't necessarily inerrancy. Also, the need for personal conversion is flexible enough to include various modes of conversion (gradual process or dramatic 'Damascus road' type). Some groups would emphasize the convictions differently, but there remains a 'coherence amidst diversity.' Moreover, there is a 'devotional ethos' within evangelicalism that is unifying. "It is no dead orthodoxy, but a living faith," writes McGrath (pg. 57). He continues, "Evangelicalism is basically Christian orthodoxy, as set out in the ecumenical creeds, with a particular emphasis on the need for the personal assimilation and appropriation of faith and a marked reluctance to allow any matters of lesser importance to get in the way of the proclamation and application of the gospel" (pg. 57).

I love the blending of orthodoxy with the truth that some doctrines that are nonessential should be "matters of indifference" (I don't like that phrase, but it's historic. Doesn't mean we don't care about them, but they aren't worth dividing over or fighting about). Some of those conservative Protestant denominations I love have a poor track record on this, dividing over issues like the propriety of speaking about grace in God's dealings with Adam, etc. Silly things to divide over. So McGrath helped me appreciate again the unity within diversity in evangelicalism and how beautiful it is. The ecumenicalism of evangelicalism is good. McGrath quotes Trembath, "Considered ecclesiologically, evangelicalism is Protestantism's clearest attempt to recapture the pluralist nature of the early church." We should embrace this I think.

2. The evangelical movement is relatively new - 280-450 years old, depending on which side you take in some current debates (some would argue it's only 60-70 years old, but they are nutts). Yet, there are deep roots; roots that extend all the way back to the ancient creeds. As McGrath argues compellingly, evangelicalism is orthodox Christianity (with an 18th century twist, to steal from Doug Sweeney). McGrath may overstate his case when he writes, "Evangelicalism is historic Christianity... evangelicalism has shown itself to have every right to claim to be a modern standard bearer of historic, orthodox Christianity" (pg. 94). That seemingly controversial statement is even acknowledged by many liberal theologians. For example, McGrath cites Kirsopp Lake wrote (in 1926), "It is a mistake often made by educate men who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that fundamentalism is a new form of though. It is nothing of the sort; it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians...The fundamentalist may be wrong; I think he is. But it is we [liberals] who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the the fate of anyone who tries to argue with the fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible is the corpus theologicum of the church is on the fundamentalist side" (pg. 28).

As the standard bearer of classic orthodoxy, evangelicals have the right, the duty, to claim the ancients as their own and draw upon them. On this McGrath quotes J.I. Packer, ""The Spirit has been active in the Church from the first, doing the work he was sent to do - guiding God's people into an understanding of revealed truth. The history of the Church's labor to understand the bible forms a commentary on the Bible which we cannot despise or ignore without dishonoring the Holy Spirit. To treat the principle of biblical authority as a prohibition against reading and learning from the book of church history is not an evangelical, but an anabaptist mistake" (pg. 83).

So evangelicalism has deep roots. I like that. That's not to say other groups, say Lutherans and Reformed types don't have deep roots. It's only to say those roots aren't theirs exclusively.

3. McGrath sounds a corrective to my arrogance, and arrogance that can sometimes be discouraging. As I look around the evangelical landscape, I'm often frustrated and discouraged by those who's practice and theology are sub par biblically. Pragmatism runs rampant. Doctrine is slighted because it's not useful. Confetti canons are brought into the church because they're fun and people like fun. All kind of wild stuff. But, and here's McGrath's corrective, God can use all these means to be drawing people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak against poor practice and theology and seek reform, but it does say to us that God is bigger than us. McGrath recounts how the invitation of Billy Graham to speak at Union Theological Seminary in 1954 (uber liberal at this point) created quite a stir. Reinhold Niebuhr thought it below the institution to invite someone so un-academic and backwards in their theology (his words were 'obscurantist version of the Christian faith'). Niebuhr continued, "we can be assured that his approach is free of the vulgarities which characterized the message of Billy Sunday, who intrigued the nation about a quarter century ago. We are grateful for this much 'progress'" (pg. 77).

A biting critique of Niebuhr's snobbishness came from his own president (of Union), Henry P. van Dusen, "Dr. Neibuhr prefers Billy Graham to Billy Sunday. There ar many, of whom I am one, who are not ashamed to testify that they would probably have never come within the sound of Dr. Niebuhr's voice or the influence of his mind if they had not been first touched by the message of the earlier Billy. Quite probably five or ten years hence there may appear in the classrooms and churches of Billy Graham's severest critics not a few who will be glad to give parallel testimony to his role in starting them in that direction" (pg. 78). Likewise, there are many in our church (es) who have been drawn by God through churches/ministries/pastors with whom we have profound disagreements. There will be many who grow find their way out of WillowBack churches into deeper, more theological churches, but who owe their spiritual life to those shallow churches (humanly speaking).

Reading that was a good corrective and softens one of my constant agitations against evangelicalism. As I progress through the book, I'm sure I'll post more - especially on the critical side. But today I was feeling cheery and chipper. It doesn't happen often.