A Day to Remember

In Israel today begins Yom HaShoah the day in which the Holocaust (Hitler’s Final Solution to the  “Jewish Problem” — their complete extermination) is remembered. For non-Dispensational Christians it might seem a bit odd to take note of this event never mind spend time thinking of its significance. After all these things happened nearly 80 years ago now, and (we are told) the world has changed. For those things which have changed and have made life a little better for many people we should be thankful, not to the scientists or to our governments but to God.

We may hear words like bigotry and racism used to describe the reasons for Hitler’s Final Solution or the Holocaust. In some circles we may even hear the problem blamed on nationalism after all Nazi is a representation of the principles of National Socialism. It should never be forgotten, however, that it was not only Jews that were targeted by the Murder Squads. The ultimate aim was to bring the German people to realize their full potential by selective breeding so while it is true that 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime in order to cleanse the world of Jewish influence, the aim was to remove any influence which might be detrimental to their ultimate goal.

Unlike the Spanish Inquisition which was aimed at forcible conversion of the Jews to Christianity, “The Final Solution” included Communists, Gypsies, and (bringing the point back to us) Christians who either refused to go along with government plans or protested against them. Those supporting or harboring Jewish people or those holding to the same beliefs immediately became suspects — a part of the problem for eventual removal. As you have read through the paragraphs above, I hope you have noticed the way those being described are viewed as less than image-bearers of God.

Sadly, in the descriptions above both the Nazis and their “problems” can be looked upon as categories of people which we can, by “objective” discussion, view from an increasingly distant stance until we cease to remember that these are God’s image-bearers we are discussing. Our Christian perspective should not allow us to be happy about this and it is interesting that the Jewish remembrance focuses on the survivors not the victims. It is easy to remember that it was the Jewish people who were responsible for the death of the Lord and Savior, ours and theirs, and to feel righteous about the fact that they have suffered as they ought.

It is quite another thing to remember that had they not fulfilled the role they chose we would not have gained any benefit from Jesus’ life here on earth. “… the Son of Man is going as it has been determined;” he said, “but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (Luke 22: 22). We should remember that, disaster though it must have seemed, the betrayal and his death was a part of God’s plan of salvation. How then should we view those who put him to death “by the hands of wicked men?” Surely it’s as those who are in need of redemption even as the rest of us. Interestingly the first ones to whom the gospel was sent were those in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria — those very same people. Hatred of the Jewish people does not seem to be justified by the attitude of God towards them. In fact, as Paul says, the promises of God to the fathers are irrevocable so let us not forget that he blesses those who bless Abraham and his descendants and those who curse them are cursed in their turn.

There is a new mankind to be revealed in its time but that is not the product of evolution but the regenerating power of God!

The Two Kingdom Speech

I have often heard the most dramatic part of this speech cited but have not previously found the whole speech. Thanks to David Myers’ blog it is now my pleasure to share it with you. It’s taken from “This day in Presbyterian History” for September 2, 2014 citing Melville’s Diary, as recorded in WM Hetherington “History of the Church of Scotland” (p. 105). The entry for September 2nd, by David T Myers, and citing Hetherington’s History reads:

The day is lost to church history. We know the month and the year of the Two Kingdom Speech of Andrew Melville. That month and year was September 1596. But the exact day is lost to us.  So this author is going to put it on September 2, this day in Presbyterian history, because it is too important not to consider it.

The elders of the General Assembly were meeting in Cupar, Fife, Scotland. Due to a breach of faith on the part of King James, the assembly had decided to sent a deputation to seek the resolution of their concerns. Heading that deputation was James Melville, who was chosen because of his courteous manner and the apparent favor he had with the king. Along side him, out of the spotlight, was his uncle, Reformation leader Andrew Melville.

Barely had James Melville begun speaking before the king cut him off and accused him of meeting in a seditious manner with other elders of the kirk, and bringing causeless fears before the people of Scotland. Andrew Melville stepped in, despite his nephew’s attempt to keep him silent, by taking the king’s robe by the sleeve, and saying that the king was “God’s silly vassal.”

“Sir,” said Andrew Melville, “we will always humbly reverence your majesty in public; but since we have this occasion to be with your majesty in private, and since you are brought in extreme danger of your life and crown, and along with you the country and the Church of God are like to go to wreck, for not telling you the truth and giving your faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty, or else be traitors both to Christ and to you. Therefore, Sir, as divers times before I have told you, so now again I must tell you, there are two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of the commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Sir, those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over his church, have power and authority from Him to govern his spiritual kingdom, both jointly and severally; the which no Christian king or prince should control and discharge, but fortify and assist; otherwise they are not faithful subjects of Christ and members of his Church. We will yield to you your place, and give you all due obedience; but again, I say, you are not the head of the Church; you cannot give us that eternal life which we seek for even in this world, and you cannot deprive us of it. Permit us then freely to meet in the name of Christ, and to attend to the interests of that Church of which you are the chief member. Sir, when you were in your swaddling clothes, Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land, in spite of all his enemies. His officers and ministers convened and assembled for the ruling and welfare of his Church, which was even for your welfare, defense and preservation, when these same enemies were seeking your destruction. Their assemblies since that time have continually have been terrible to these enemies, and most steadfast to you. And now, when there is more than extreme necessity for the continuance and discharge of that duty, will you (drawn to your own destruction by a most pernicious counsel) begin to hinder and dishearten Christ’s servants and your most faithful subjects, quarreling them for their convening, and the care they have of their duty to Christ and you, when you should rather commend and countenance them, as the godly kings and emperors did? The wisdom of your counsel, which I call devilish, is this, that you must be served by all sorts of men, to come to your purpose and grandeur, Jew and Gentile, Papist and Protestant; and because the Protestants and ministers of Scotland are over strong, and control the king, they must be weakened and brought low by stirring up a party against them, and, the king being equal and indifferent, both should be fain to flee to him. But, Sir, if God’s wisdom be the only true wisdom, this will prove mere and mad folly; His curse cannot but light upon it; in seeking both ye shall lose both; whereas in cleaving uprightly to God, His true servants would be your sure friends, and He would compel the rest counterfeitly and lyingly to give over themselves and serve you.” (Melville’s Dairy, pp. 245, 246, quoted in W.M. Hetherington, “History of the Church of Scotland” p. 105

Admonition to Office-bearers

It has sometimes been considered that the “Institutes of the Christian Religion” is where we find the definitive work of John Calvin when it comes to understanding his teaching on almost any subject. He was, however, first drawn to the attention of those who became his followers by his expositions of Scripture. It was a sermon which he assisted his friend Nicholas Cop to write that led to their both being chased out of Paris. It was his sermons, faithfully taught for years in Geneva, that were the most influential in bringing about the changes in understanding and morals of the common folk. So, when it comes to understanding the great theologian of the Reformation it is to his understanding of the passages of Scripture — his commentaries and sermons where we ought to place most emphasis.

The doctrine there is less defined but it does show how he reflected upon and applied those passages that were to become a part of the great work which so influences us even today. Here is an element of his view on the eldership which receives less emphasis than maybe we ought to grant it; the idea that, even though incumbent upon all the flock, it is the office-bearer — and the pastor in particular — who is called upon to serve. For Calvin calling to office is more about responsibility than privilege.

“45. Who is the faithful and wise servant? This passage is more distinctly explained by Luke, who inserts Peter’s question, which gave rise to a new parable. Christ having declared that the suddenness and uncertainty of his coming led to such danger as left no room for sloth, Peter asked, if this doctrine was general, or if it belonged to the twelve alone. For the disciples—as we have formerly seen—were always in the habit of thinking that they were unjustly treated, unless they were exempted from the common lot, and greatly excelled all others. When our Lord now represents to them a condition which is far from being pleasant or desirable, they look around them on every hand, like persons astonished. But the object of Christ’s reply is, to show that, if each of the common people ought to watch, much less ought it to be endured that the apostles should be asleep. As Christ had formerly exhorted the whole family in general to watch for his coming, so now he demands extraordinary care from the principal servants, who had been appointed over others for the purpose of pointing out, by their example, the path of sobriety, watchfulness, and strict temperance. By these words he reminds them that they were not elevated to high rank for the purpose of indulging in ease, indolence, and pleasure; but that, the higher the rank of honor which they had obtained, the heavier was the burden which was laid on them; and therefore he declares that it is especially demanded from such persons that they exercise fidelity and wisdom.

“Let all who are called to an honorable office learn from this, that they are so much the more strongly bound, not only to bestow their labor faithfully, but to strive with their utmost zeal and industry to discharge their duty. For while it is enough for ordinary servants to go through their daily toil, stewards, whose office embraces the care of the whole family, ought to go much farther. Otherwise Christ charges them with ingratitude, because, while they have been chosen before others, they do not answer to their honor; for why does our Lord prefer them to the rest, but in order that they may excel all by extraordinary fidelity and wisdom? True, indeed, all are enjoined, without exception, to be sober, and to give earnest attention, but drowsiness would be peculiarly disgraceful and inexcusable in pastors. He next holds out even the hope of a reward to encourage them to diligence.”

James Guthrie on the Eldership

Do we expect too little of our elders? It seems true that if we expect too little of our children they will not achieve their true potential and why should it not also be true of those who are called to lead the Church of God? Granted not all Presbyterian Churches maintain a two-office view of the leadership of the Church but it does have a long and an illustrious tradition among Presbyterians of the past. In such a view the role of ruling elder is differentiated from that of the preaching elder in terms of his usual employment in the congregation rather than any difference of qualification in the biblical passages which speak of Church leaders.

In one of the key works dealing with the officers of the Church, “A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons, understanding their office and duty,” James Guthrie finished his letter to the reader with these thought-provoking words:

“… some may happily think, that there is here too much laid upon ruling elders, more than they shall be able or willing to undertake; yea, more than the Lord doth require of them, most of the things that are mentioned by us being incumbent to ministers rather than to elders. It is true what is said of elders’ duty, is also the duty of ministers, for whatsoever the elder ought to do by virtue of his calling, that also ought the minister to do and somewhat more, but so far as we know, nothing is spoken here of the elder, that doth not belong to him; if through ignorance or want of ability, or neglect, or custom, elders have not done these things, it is that which ought to be helped, it is now high time for them to awake, and to know and own and follow their duty; and for the church of God in Scotland, to know how much she hath smarted under the hands of ignorant and slothful, yea and scandalous men; we would not always satisfy ourselves ‘with disguised and histrionical men, puffed up with titles or with idols, dead in sins to be elders; but would seek after holy men, who being endued with faith in God, and walking in obedience, God authorizing them, and the church his spouse choosing them, and calling them, undertake the government thereof, that they may labour to the conservation and edification of the same in Christ;’ neither need the qualification, or
multitude, or difficulties of the particulars here spoken of, discourage or scare any: It is not so much the measure as the truth of the thing that is to be looked at. We have set down what a ruling elder ought to be, in regard to the whole extent of his charge, sundry particulars whereof the most part of ruling elders are seldom called to exercise, and if they be in some measure fitted for these parts of the charge which God calls them to exercise, and follow the same with singleness of heart, they may believe that they shall be assisted, and accepted of God in Jesus Christ; the employment is not theirs but the Lord’s, from whom they may expect both their furniture and also their reward; let them arise and be doing, and the Lord shall be with them.”

Certainly, for this reader, these words were sufficient to make him want to read further to find out what, if any, made his writing even a little controversial. This is a book (which is available for less than US$10.00 at either Barnes and Noble or Walmart) well worth the read and a must study for those who are called to the offices of the Church. If, as a poor student you are unable to afford the money it is also available for download from monergism.com — as is usual, the URL (for those who can’t follow the link shown above) is: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/guthrie/elders.pdf

Pastoral visits

One of my friends is a pastor in a nearby city. He has a blog site which, I discovered to my horror, is not (yet) listed on the weblog roll on the right of this site. I will rectify this, and here is a reason why it should have been here already.

In case the link doesn’t work in your browser, here is the URL:

http://johnbotkin.net/2012/03/16/practical-pastor-making-hospital-visits/

“Reformed” or “not Reformed”

As one who has a great deal of sympathy with restricting the use of the word “Reformed” it disturbs me that some would so restrict it that it can no longer be used as an adjective. The only people, it seems to me, that have the right to argue for some real restriction of the term would be those of the Continental tradition which use the name as the sole title of their denomination. Even there, however, there are national additions to describe the Churches. The Dutch Reformed are not the same as the German Reformed or the French Reformed – their confessional bases are not always the same and, historically, there have been other additions which make the word Reformed more an adjective than a noun also for them.

It is in the Presbyterian tradition, where the idea that the word “Reformed” should not be appropriated by those of differing traditions has its strongest defenders. And here is where my sympathy lies. For Presbyterians the word has traditionally included all those things which make Presbyterianism Presbyterian. For us the word implies much more than “mere” soteriology. Resting on a particular understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Testament leads to a certain amount of continuity between the Old Church and the New. It is hard to share the adjective with those who do not share that same view. Yet, even here, we have “Reformed Presbyterians” where the word “reformed” is an adjective signifying the way a group of Presbyterians wish to be defined. So, let us be clear about this, Presbyterians do use the word as an defining adjective. Yet the debate keeps resurfacing.

So what are we to do? Is there some help we can gain from the Bible on this matter – after all (the confession we largely share with those we differ on the matter does say) – it is the sole rule for faith and life. It rules even over the decisions of Councils and Synods (or General Assemblies – for those of the Scottish tradition). What can we glean from the events of the early days of the new Church in Acts? Well, there *was* a controversy recorded in Acts 15 over the behavior of the new Churches. And it was a matter of “behave this way or you cannot be saved.” The Church was divided over the matter of Circumcision – the new Churches did not adhere to the Jewish practice, yet wanted to be recognized as being a part of the same group. Some said: “If you don’t do it, you don’t belong.”

Ironically one group that wishes to be associated with those of us who hold to the Presbyterian (or Continental Presbyterian) tradition also have a controversy with us over the rite of initiation into the Church. Now it is we who are saying: behave this way or you cannot be recognized as a part of the true Church. We are more polite than our Reforming forefathers but it still comes down to the same thing. We no longer deny, how can we, that people on the opposing side can, and do, adhere to a Christian soteriology. Yet surely to be born again is the only thing necessary in order to be a part of the same Church that Christ died for. And, sadly for our exclusionary viewpoint, the result of that process is measured for the most part by a correct soteriology.

So, what was the decision of that first council? “That we trouble not them which, from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that … they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood …” Are we prepared to take the same stance with our brethren from among the Baptist, Congregational and Episcopalian traditions when they are not asking even to be considered a part of the same ecclesiastical body. They wish to be recognized as standing for the same soteriology as we do – they are prepared to add a denominationally distinctive name to make it clear we don’t all teach exactly the same. The differences, while significant enough to stop us being able to work in the same denomination, are insignificant when it comes to belonging to the Body of Christ.

Surely, on that basis, we should have no objection when (say) Baptists wish to show their tie to the Reformers’ soteriology and (in many cases) even their appreciation of the insights of covenantal theology by using the adjective “Reformed” with the word “Baptist?” We should be applauding that they see the necessity to make the distinctions such a name implies even as we pray that the addition of “Baptist” may in the long run become unnecessary.

Is it not possible (at least) that it was sensitivity to the negative responses they received when they accepted the London Confession which made Baptists of that era choose “Particular” or Calvinistic” as the adjective of choice? Were our forefathers still prepared to label them as heretics, who were able to undersign so many of the key doctrines in the Westminster Confession holding they were not even Christian? Could it even be that our definition of a true Church is more restrictive than that of the Bible? They were prepared to accept Gentiles and Samaritans – and even John the Baptist’s converts as members in good standing.

By all means let us maintain in our own circles, our understanding of the word Reformed as a description of Presbyterian theology (allowing as we do for differing versions of the Westminster Confession – such as the sections dealing with established and disestablished Churches) in the hope that, as we discuss with brethren from different backgrounds, we may all at last come to share the same understand of all “Reformed” implies – even if that won’t be before Christ returns to usher in the Final Judgment.

Twining Baptist Bible Conference

Twining Baptist Church, site of the Conference

Twining Baptist Church held their annual Bible Conference this week. The subject this year was Pursuing Holiness and the format was appropriate for such a conference. Each session began with singing and prayer then the floor was handed over to the appropriate pastor who led the group through the Bible’s teaching on the particular aspect of holiness assigned for that session. After the exposition there was a further prayer and the group meeting finished.

With an average at each meeting of 20-30 people this was a significant conference, given the size of Twining Township. The attendees were treated to some extensive Bible exposition and a reminder that the purpose of Bible study is not to build knowledge alone but to change attitudes to the way life is lived.

The following is an extremely brief synopsis of the contribution of each speaker – a fuller account can be found by clicking on the title of each message..

The meeting was begun on Sunday morning, April 18 2010, by the local church pastor, Jeremy Lee, who spoke on the Holiness of God. He first defined Holiness as it referred to God’s transcendence and absolute moral purity and as it referred to our own moral purity. Then turning to the concept of pursuing holiness he spoke of our need to be born again, reminded the hearers of the means the Holy Spirit uses to cause growth and gave some reasons why it was important to pursue holiness.

The contribution Sunday evening was by Pastor John Botkin of Crossways Christian Church in Bay City. He covered the highlights of the book of Leviticus in his topic the Necessity for us to be Holy. He described God’s purpose in Leviticus as requiring us to become more holy – we should worship, serve and live as a Holy People.

On Monday evening, April 19 2010, Pastor Gary Page of Edwards Community Church, immersed his hearers in Scripture as he dealt with the way The Bible helps the Christian Pursue Holiness. He showed that the Bible informs us of holiness, instructs us in holiness, effects holiness in us and challenges us to act on its message.

Tuesday evening, April 20 2010, Pastor David Sarafolean, from Christ Covenant(PCA) Church, developed a view of The Lord’s Supper which should encourage us in our pursuit of holiness. He reminded his hearers the Supper is a visible word, that as such it is a sign of of salvation, representing the way Christ atoned for our sins; and a seal or oath made by God authenticating his sacrifice on our behalf.

The final message, on Wednesday, April 21 2010, saw Pastor Jeff Ryan of Calvary Bible Church, speaking of the relationship between pursuing holiness and Prayer. His points were, concerning holiness, there’s a reason we should pray and a particular way we should pray, there are hindrances to prayer and something which should mark our practice of Prayer.

In all it was a challenging and intellectually stimulating conference. It could never be said that the contributors took the teaching of the Bible lightly. It was the hope of the conference organizer, Pastor Lee, that all who attended would be encouraged to pursue after holiness. “This is because,” he said, “the Bible says without holiness no one will see God. As the conference text I Peter 1:15,16 puts it, ‘you shall be holy for I am holy.'”

Reformed Theology and Practice

The Westminster Assembly - drawn together "to bring peace ... in Christian England"

The Westminster Assembly was a gathering of the best theological minds in the United Kingdom to reach a consensus about the teaching of Scripture on certain matters which were making it difficult for Protestants of the Church of England, and non-conformist backgrounds to work in harmony.

The work of the Assembly produced a confession, two catechisms. a book of Church discipline, a directory for public worship and a song book for use in such services. Of all of these the best known is the confession which bears its name – on which several other confessions have since been modeled. Yet, the three books which made the biggest immediate impact on the life of the Church which accepted all six documents were the Book of Discipline, the Directory for Public Worship and the Book of Psalms in Meter. And, though it may be argued the Catechisms have had the longest lasting impact, the Book of Church Discipline and Directory for Public Worship still influence those churches which no longer even recognize they are a part of their heritage.

It is a clear case of theology being put into practice in life and the practice soon becomes tradition which governs us down through the ages. Interestingly, it was the Presbyterians who profited most directly from the Westminster Assembly even though they were never a majority in England where the Assembly met. And it has been the Presbyterians (by and large) who have had some of the most heated debates (at times) about how exactly we are to show our theological understanding in society.

The debates continue to the present with protagonists using “Two Kingdoms” or “Kuyperian” theology to distinguish the differences. In all debates there is the danger of letting our concern for guarding the truth override the responsibility to hear what the other person is saying. I trust that in our discussions on this topic we will not fall into that trap but, with patience and love, seek to discern what the voice of the “Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments” is saying to us today.