Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Assignment: Covenant Summary

When my wife and I were in marriage counseling she made a comment in reference to one of the books our counselor assigned to us to read, and the gist of her comment was, "He [the book's author] keeps using the word covenant but he never defines it. I'm so confused." My wife was absolutely correct. And the deficit she noticed in that author is widespread; I've read mounds of books about the covenant but do so with the vaguest verbiage imaginable.

Yesterday I met with a friend from church and he asked me to define the covenant. I gave a somewhat long-winded answer: I started with the Creator-creation distinction and then moved on to describe the Covenant of Works with Adam and the Covenant of Grace with Jesus Christ. I was consciously trying to summarize the Westminster Confession of Faith's teaching on the covenant. We probably discussed that for 5-10 minutes, and at the conclusion my friend said, "So, how would you summarize that in two sentences?" That was my assignment for the day. So, I took a stab at it and this is what I've formulated, leaning heavily upon what I've picked up from WCF and in John Frame's writings.

First, God is the Creator, He is the Divine Head, the Lord of all of creation, and as Lord he self-discloses himself to man "by way [mode] of covenant" (Westminster Confession of Faith). 
Second, The two essential elements of a covenant are 1) conditions and 2) promises; God's relation as Creator to created man is by the way of conditions and promises, which means, on the one hand, that for obedience man is promised life and salvation, but, on the other hand, for disobedience man is promised death and damnation.
What do you think? Clear as mud? Is that a helpful summary, or am I missing something?

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Serfs of the Web - Blog Update

An official blog update. As you can see (literally speaking), the plate tectonics at CCS | Tree & The Seed Blogger have been rattling around like loose change in a junk drawer. Some red hot magma from my to-do-list finally made it to the surface of this blog, e.g. blog title change, new background, added Links, layout tweaking, and now that I've checked this off my list it is my hope that something obsidian-like. Please be shiny and pleasant to the eye balls.

In any case, on to much more important matters. The background is a drawing by my wife--the beautiful and talented Julie L. Martinez--titled "tree and the seed". The image is tiled for the background, so for your benefit I am posting image here. Ain't it a beauty. 


Spoils of War and Life Outside of the Academy


There is a saying, "In war, the spoils go to the victor," and generally that is the case. However, sometimes spoils go to Lepers who by good fortune wander in to a deserted Syrian camp (2 Kings 7:3-8); and those guys sure made out well--eating, drinking, carrying off silver and gold! I feel a bit like that today. Yesterday I obtained a free copy of Black & Tan, generously provided for free (for a short time) in response to recent controversies. And sure, I know "it isn't a perfect analogy" . . . I am not a Leper, no silver, no gold, but surely you get the gist.
[I]f there is a young Christian to-day in a typical evangelical church who is thinking about joining the Marines and going to Iraq, he does not have to get a Ph.D. in American foreign policy studies first. He can make an honorable decision without that. Now this has ramifications for the study of history, but I am in no way commending it as a basic method of studying history. An infantryman doesn't need to be a historian to help make history. But historians should be competent historians as they study it, and in their study, meticulous attention to the facts matters. At the same time, “competence” cannot be defined from some neutral place. There is no detached realm of “neutral facts” where believer and unbeliever alike can go and find the pristine data. This is not a historical claim; it is a theological claim about history. We are called to live our lives in a way that realizes there is a world outside the academy. Most of the people in the economy are not economists. Most people who have made history are not historians (Douglas Wilson, Black & Tan, 6).

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Jay E. Adams: Handbook of Church Discipline – A Right and Privilege of Every Church Member

At church we've started a new men's book study over Jay E. Adams' Handbook of Church Discipline. The book was on my assigned reading list during my second year of ministerial training, so I have read it once and benefited greatly. Adams' has three objectives for the book: 1) “to present a clear, concise biblical description of church discipline,” 2) “to provide a ready reference to which you may turn for help in situations requiring church discipline,” and 3) “to convince the dubious that church discipline is not only a biblical requirement (and therefore feasible) but also a right and a privilege of every member of the church of Christ, and therefore, a blessing that should not be withheld” (8).

I believe Adams wonderfully accomplishes his three-fold aim in this important book. Despite the books shelf life (originally published in the 1970s), I had not heard of it until I saw it listed on my syllabus for ministerial training. I find myself, however, wishing that I had been exposed to the book earlier in life. 

I was raised in a United Methodist Church in rural Indiana. Without reservation I believe that it was a wonderful local church, despite the hiccups. On the one hand, as a child I learned both at home and church how to trust in and obey Jesus Christ, but, on the other hand, at times things arose that were very troublesome. For example, when I was in eighth grade I attended my first “abstinence” men's retreat, which was a retreat put on every other year by our church, which provided a platform for leaders in the church to provide instruction to young men on God's design for sexual purity and marriage. The retreat had plenary sessions that all of the young men attended together, but they also had breakout groups divided up by age/maturity, that way they could accommodate and be sensitive to the differences between the maturity, experiences, and the differences in the type of questions asked by, for example, a sixth grader instead of a senior in high school. The retreats typically ran Friday through Saturday evening, and at the end of the retreat they had, for lack of a better phrase, an “altar call” for Sexual Abstinence, where each of the boys/young men were given the opportunity to sign an “abstinence card” which stated that they would wait until they were married to have sex. One of the Lay Elders (that is Methodist-speak for someone who is not a pastor but is formally part of the church rule and leadership) was our breakout group leader; each of the breakout group leaders were called “counselors” and they were the ones who oversaw and facilitated the card signing.

Fast-Forward two or three years: the Lay Elder who led/taught the breakout session I attended, the very same man who signed my “abstinence card” as a witness, the very same man who had been my “counselor” for the two day retreat . . . that man abandoned his wife and their children, and he abandoned them so he could shack up with a woman he met on the Internet. I was deeply troubled by this for several reasons, but what troubled me the most, even at such a tender age, was that formal church discipline was never adjudicated. And when I say none, I mean Zip, Zero, Nothing-at-All.

I even went to my parents and asked them why our pastors hadn't handled the situation in accordance with the instructions provided in Matthew 18. I had attended a two week leadership and worldview camp hosted by David Noebel at Summit Ministries in Colorado, and it was while there that one of our instructors taught how the church had been invested with the power by Jesus Christ to bind and to loose, that is, to execute church discipline. I had never heard about church discipline at church; it was not taught and was not practiced. So, I asked my parents something to the effect of, “After confronting Mr. _____ about his sin, which he then refused to confess, why didn't the Elders/Pastors bring this situation before the members of the church?” My parents tried to answer to the best of their abilities, but in the aftermath I just kept wondering to myself if the outcome would have been different if the Pastors/Elders of the church had brought the situation before the entire church, as they are clearly instructed to do so in Matthew 18.

Typically I am not much of a proponent for “what if” questions, but I believe in this case, in light of the circumstances, it is valid. To paraphrase Jay Adams, church discipline is a “right and a privilege” of members of a church—it is a blessing! But in the situation I have been describing, that right and privilege, that blessing, it was withheld by the pastors from the Lay Elder that had fallen in to sin when they failed to exercise church discipline. 

In the case of this Lay Elder, even though he was removed from church leadership it left a huge question mark over his head in the minds of a lot of people from the church. Since formal church discipline never occurred, many people at the church were absolutely clueless about his sin. Eventually the church was told Mr. _____ was no longer a Lay Elder, they knew, obviously, that he wasn't attending church regularly, but all of this coincided with him taking a new job outside of the State so that wouldn't have raised red flags for a person that wasn't in the know. And so what you had in effect was this: sometimes he would attend church when he was in town and people who didn't know any better would interact with him as if everything was fine and dandy. In this case, the Sheep were not being protected from a Wolf.

I now attend a church where the Elders do exercise church discipline, and it has been blessing to my family, as well as a means of protection. As a result of formal church discipline several Wolves have been scattered from our church. I am thankful for the right and privilege of church discipline, first, because I know that it is one of the means by which God oftentimes calls men to repent and turn away from their sins (and no Christian is so holy that he does not have to worry about falling in to sin and needing the mutual support and love of others to encourage and implore them to repentance), and, second, speaking as a husband and father, I am thankful for church discipline because it provides much comfort to know that my wife and our children are being protected from Wolves. Not only does Christ protect us by sending us the Holy Spirit, in order that we might have discernment and be made wise according to the fear of God and knowledge of the Scriptures, but he has also provided Under-Shepherds, the Elders/Pastors, who are ambassadors to us that care for and protect us through teaching, rebuke, and admonishment. Church discipline is a blessing, and that is why I wish I, as well as others, had been introduced to Adams' “clear, concise biblical description of church discipline” at a much earlier point in my life.

This is the rub. Church discipline not only protects the Sheep from the Wolves, but it honors and glorifies God. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance for Christians to attend churches that practice church discipline. Like Adams says, it is a biblical requirement, it is feasible. I would encourage anyone that is a member of a church that does not practice church discipline to talk to the church officers (pastors, elders, etc.) about the biblical requirement, and if you discover that they are not reasonable men, that they do not care to honor and glorify God, that they do not care to gather the sheep and scatter the wolves, then I would recommend that you look for a new church to attend, one which practices church discipline. If you do transition, there must be a dialogue with your current church officers and the officers of the church you intend to transfer your membership to, and in everything you must conduct yourself with gentleness, respect, and the peace of Christ. 

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Laughing Out Loud: July 19, 2012

Today I went to McDonalds during my lunch break to grab a drink and read. I was in line ready to place my order, John R. Muether's biography of Cornelius Van Til in my left hand, and the lady taking my order struck up a conversation:
Lady: What are you reading?
CCS: A biography on Cornelius Van Til.
Lady: Who is that?
CCS: He lived in Indiana for a while when he was young, he was a Reformed Apologist and taught at  Westminster Theological Seminary for several decades.
Lady: An anthropologist?
CCS: No. I said he was a Reformed Apologist.
Lady: What?
CCS: A Christian Apologist.
Lady: Like a philosopher?
CCS: Uhm, sort of.
Lady: Ah, okay. So, like Schopenhauer?

Sunday, July 15, 2012

ClearNote Fellowship 2012 Conference, Again

As promised, here is the online audio for the ClearNote Fellowship 2012 Conference I attended last week. Each plenary session was excellent, however, if you only have time to listen to one session, then I recommend you listen to David Bayly's "The Father and the Son."

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Conclusion: John Calvin at "Home" in American Culture

Chapter 11 review here. Chapter 10 review here. Chapter 9 review here. Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Thomas J. Davis, who edited this book, pens the final ado; it is an apt conclusion and he does it in just under four pages to boot! Kudos to Davis for writing a real conclusion; kudos for not giving in to the temptation of penning a verbose editorial tome.

In the Introduction, Davis stated that "the point of this book is that, despite all of the changes and challenges; despite Calvinism's ultimate failure to hold the American consciousness . . . the fact remains that Calvinism in America has had an impact on American society and culture in every century, even if at times it has gone unrecognized. And behind Calvinism stands Calvin" (11). This book has certainly pointed that very thing out; each of the authors has provided an excellent article highlighting Calvin's significance and the permanence of Calvin's legacy in America, a legacy that has made its mark upon American culture, theology, and literature.

Davis' "short conclusion" utilizes the work of Marilynne Robinson--whose "attempt to restore Calvin to a place in the American consciousness free from stereotypes" (13) is a perfect capstone to the proceeding eleven chapters. Davis examines several works by Robinson and quickly tells how she has put forth the effort to have Calvin "reinsert[ed] . . . into the cultural conversation," displaying her "concern for the dignity and well-being of the human creature in Calvin's thought--and the thoughts of his heirs--that could well serve as a bulwark against the dehumanizing and depersonalizing forces of the modern world" (268). In Robinson's work, which oftentimes meditates on the relations between fathers, families, and friends, the "house" and "home" are landscape-ish, they function as the perfect context and backdrop within which to best display Calvin and Calvinism. Davis echoes Robinson's artistic imagination, concurring that: 
Calvinism wrapped up in family rather than abstraction appears more genuinely human and, thus, acceptable. Perhaps through the work of Robinson, it will be easier to think of John Calvin and Calvinism as being at home in the American consciousness--as one of many influences that should have a recognized seat at the family table of American traditions (270). 

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy – Chapter 11 – Cold Comforts: John Updike, Protestant Thought, and the Semantics of Paradox

Chapter 10 review here. Chapter 9 review here. Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Kyle A. Pasewark opens his article on Protestant/Calvinistic thought and author John Updike with a zinger of an observation: “Americans are not a people whose palates are sensitive to the taste of paradox.” Pasewark, unflinchingly, elaborates:
The strong and unambiguous flavors of progressivism, optimism, pessimism—all, in their way, opposites of paradox—are more our style, and we prefer them laid on a plate, or at the buffet stand, clearly distinguished [emphasis CCS] from one another so that we can have one flavor at a time rather than components stacked upon each other or flavors melded to confront us with first salty, then sweet, then both together (257).
If that doesn't make you twinge, then consider the weight of Pasewark's additional observation that Americans, precisely because of their Protestant heritage, ought to have a more developed palate:
This American preference is a little bit unexpected, since the United States is often portrayed—and portrays itself—as a “Christian nation,” and one would think that the key Christian and, even more, the central Protestant category of “paradox” would fare a little better in American culture, that “paradox” would be a word that one hears more frequently (257).
I must interject with affirmation: I rarely hear the word “paradox” when I am out-and-about. For example, I never hear the word “paradox” when I am at the grocery store in the north-most part of the Bible Belt, that is, in Warsaw/Winona Lake, Indiana, both cities with rich and deep heritage in American Revivalism—only miles form my residence is a Monument/Sanctuary dedicated to celebrating Billy Sunday's life and work; and I never hear the word paradox when I am at work where I am employed by a Fortune 500 Company and where I interact with co-workers in markets spread out across 27 of the States . . . okay, that is not accurate, I have heard one individual use the term “paradox” but that was only once in the past two and half years—in that instance “paradox” was a word in cliché phrase he used to describe an intermittent network issue we were troubleshooting, so that doesn't really count. I have only heard the word “paradox” used regularly in Wesleyan-Armenian circles during my days at university (Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, IN), and then after college in Reformed – G. K. Chesterton-reading-and-chronically-quoting circles, which I now call home, that is, within the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). All of that to simply say, Pasewark is correct—Americans are not a people whose palates are sensitive to the taste of paradox.

Pasewark strings together a collection of zingers like pearls on a necklace in the first 3 or 4 pages of his article. He says, “Nowhere is the American preference for the directness of the nonparadoxical more in evidence than in the American understanding of freedom.” He then goes on to dismantle the uncouthness of how most Americans think about freedom, for we, I mean Americans, “do not approach these contradictions [our use of freedom to indicate many things that we believe are all “good” but are in fact contradictory] as contradictions but as modalities of the same thing” (257). Pasewark, again, shows that Americans are not as sophisticated as we would like to think we are.

These comments prep the ground for Pasewark's ensuing excavation, examining the “cold comforts” of John Updike, Protestant Thought, and the Semantics of Paradox. Pasewark begins with two premises: 1) “paradox is the fabric of John Updike's fiction” (258), and 2) “the classic doctrine of election is paradoxical” (259). To understand the latter premise Pasewark reminds his audience, “one's election [is] the condition for freedom, not its eradication” (259). Pasewark then goes into a couple examinations of characters from John Updike's writings to illustrate what happens when people with nonparadoxical understandings of freedom worship freedom (like Americans often do), “as seekers of freedom, his major characters ask for nothing more than to be alone, but they still require others, and though they begin by demanding freedom, they become ugly dominators of others and, ultimately, self-destructive as well” (260). This perverse and bizarre nonparadoxical freedom is their highest good and becomes their religion, and as Pasewark comments, this type of freedom is “asocial and apolitical” (262). Pasewark also notes:
This lack of political consciousness is not a weakness in Updike's work but an expression of his characters' deepest American contemporaneousness. For them, too, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are personal, not social (263).
Pasewark follows up this thought with an additional comment, “This, too, is a reversal and cancellation of Calvinistic Protestantism from Geneva through the Puritans,” which means when you try to create a just society with men and women who live with the effects of their death nature and the sin of their federal head Adam, “the actualization of social and political life is not ecstatic but effortful” (263). This is why freedom is paradoxical—one's election is the condition for freedom, for effort, for labor, etc., and it will be fruitful, productive. Contrast that with a nonparadoxical freedom, which, according to Pasewark, “devours not only itself but also the others whom it touches” (263).

Paswark then turns his eyes to the contemporary and provides examples of this naughty “freedom” running wild within American Republical political party (e.g. George W. Bush, activities of the CIA of late, etc.) and the resultant destructiveness. Bad “freedom is bad for people, personally, but also corporately, by that I mean bad “freedom” is bad for society. Personal and social havoc occurs when paradox is not the calibrating instrument of freedom, however, Pasewark tries to leave his audience with a hopeful thought:
. . . just how far from Calvin's view of freedom and government “this great roughly rectangular country severed from Christ by the breadth of the sea” has come. We can hope, however, that the full glory of the ultimate destructiveness of the nonparadoxical understanding of freedom is now clear to us, and perhaps the way is clear for a conception of freedom that is both paradoxical and political (265).

Monday, July 9, 2012

ClearNote Fellowship 2012 Conference

Our family returned late yesterday evening from attending ClearNote Fellowship's summer conference in Bloomington, Indiana. The conference title was "I Believe in God the Father Almighty" and you can follow the link for additional information on the speakers and topics from the various plenary and breakout session. I believe eventually they will post conference audio; if so, then I will add a follow-up post.

The conference was fun, Christian fellowship was rich, and our family fed well upon God's Word. Many thanks to ClearNote Fellowship for putting this on and I highly recommend next year's conference to anyone that might be interested and/or able to attend--2013 conference is "She [the Church] is Our Mother."

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy – Chapter 10 - “Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Baxter & Co.”: Mark Twain and the Comedy of Calvinism

Chapter 9 review here. Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.


Joe B. Fulton serves up an article piping hot with Twainian wit and comic relief that is, refreshingly, tossed with a respectable amount of sobriety. The article's sub-heading comes from a comment by Twain:
In modern times the halls of heavens are warmed by registers connected with hell--& it is greatly applauded by Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Baxter, & Co. because it adds a new pang to the sinner's sufferings to know that the very fire which tortures him is the means of making the righteous comfortable (240).
Early on Fulton comments, “Twain delights in putting Calvinist definitions in the mouths of characters such as drunken miners and Satan” (241), but don't let observations like this mislead you in to thinking that Fulton is leveraging Mark Twain's literary legacy merely to bash him some Calvin. In fact, quite the opposite is at play.

Fulton argues that the “contribution” by Calvin(ism) to American literature has been (largely) misunderstood, e.g., “its [the contribution of Calvinism to American literature] influence is tracked inversely: American literature terminates, thrives, then flowers precisely as it sheds the dead husk of Calvinism in which it had been entombed” (242), and Fulton decries these literary histories written during the early twentieth century, the proponents of hasty inversion.

Contrarily, Fulton argues throughout his article that Mark Twain was “more alike than different” those men who contributed to the Calvinistic “husk” frowned upon by the early twentieth century literary historians, and that instead of being mere husk, “Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Baxter, & Co.,” because they “[both Calvinist theology and Mark Twain] shared a theological vocabulary, metaphysical assumptions, and a view of God as sovereign. Their disagreements were substantial, but Mark Twain and the Calvinists were partners in the same enterprise” (253), is proof that Calvinism was a contributing (perhaps even a determinable) element of that savory kernel which is Twain's comic voice. (Fulton provides plenty of examples from Twain's catalog, both fiction and non-fiction, in support of his argument.)

Fulton is rather astute in all of this, and mentions, “Twain's criticism of Edwards and Calvinism is so compelling because it is a disagreement among writers who share most of the same fundamental theological conceptions” (252). This is invaluable for understanding the contributory-relationship between Calvin(ism) and American literature. It is, however, important to note that Fulton acknowledges that Twain's Calvinism is a “twisted version of Calvinist theology” (252), but this outlook only reinforces Fulton's argument that Twain was not merely dismissing Calvinism as an author within the American literary tradition but took it seriously.

In interacting with Calvinistic theology, Twain's wit and comedy was a true and serated edge, however, he is a far cry from the “shock and awe” which characterizes a villain from contemporary slasher/horror film—Twain's slashes are purposeful, calculated, like the creative activity of the Triune God of Calvinistic Theology--Twain's slashes are not random. This means, as Fulton says, “Twain's grappling with Calvinism is earnest” (245).

My thoughts: I enjoyed this article. I have not read anything by Twain since middle school (and what I read at that time were the three or four classics), but Fulton has inspired to me to “take up and read” Twain, again. A lazy Saturday may be on the horizon, and, if so, then I feel that I may read me some Tom Sawyer.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy – Chapter 9 – Geneva's Crystalline Clarity: Harriet Beecher Stowe and Max Weber on Calvinism and the American Character


Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

With chiastic-like structure, Peter J. Thuesen's article opens and closes recounting the same historical scene: Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom's Cabin) visiting John Calvin's Geneva, in June 1853. Stowe, who took a break for travel on the Continent during a publicity tour in England, wrote, while overlooking Geneva, “Calvinism, in its essential features, will never cease from the earth, because the great fundamental facts of nature are Calvinistic, and men with strong minds and wills always discover it” (219).

And so Thuesen begins his article, introducing Stowe's judgments (both positive and negative) of Calvin and Calvinism, and to which he quickly adjoins similar judgments by the famous sociologist Max Weber (author of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Stowe's and Weber's relationship to their Calvinistic American heritage was not simple, Thuesen even calls the former's a “tortured relationship”--but nevertheless a “recurring theme of her writings”--one which Thuesen believes “anticipated in striking ways the arguments” of Max Weber.

Thuesen reviews the works of both authors within their conflicted circumstances, which are twofold, first, primarily, their American context, and then, secondarily, within the context of their literary peers (Thuesen provides abundant examples of the anti-Calvinistic spirit in American literature at that time). In the midst of these conflicted circumstances, however, according to the imaginations of both authors Calvinism “offered the best foundation for a virtuous society” (220). 

Thuesen drafts what he calls the “Stowe-Weber Thesis”--characterized by two authors who “were complex thinkers whose deepest religious sympathies were clearly mixed” (232), and who both had been “steeped in Protestant triumphalism that equated popery with intellectual and political slavery,” but who arrived at the mutual conclusion that the positive American character traits, e.g., thrift, hard-work, intellectual cultivation, etc., were the “inevitable result” of Calvinism. Thuesen notes that both Weber and Stowe have provoked scholarly debates because their theory and judgment of Calvin/Calvinism, as Alastair Hamilton notes, “is just as difficult to demolish as it is to substantiate” (232). 

My thoughts: I think Stowe and Weber are good illustrations of "complex thinkers whose deepest religious sympathies were clearly mixed," and Thuesen adequately demonstrates that truth and the correlating conundrum these two authors have created for scholars. 

Friday, June 29, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Chapter 8 - "Strange Providence": Indigenist Calvinism in the Writings of Mohegan Minister Samson Occom (1723-1792)

Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

This is the first chapter from Part III, concerning Calvin's legacy in American letters. Denise T. Askin is the author, and she provides a thorough and thoughtful analysis of both published and unpublished writings (sermons, sermon notes, journals and personal reflections, etc.) by Samson Occom, who lived during the eighteenth-century and was an Indian and an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Occom is a fascinating character, and equally fascinating is, as Askin refers to it, his "Indigenist Calvinism". But the true jewel of captivation in this article is Askin's careful attention to the literary nuances found on the fruitful pages preserved from both Occom's pen and pulpit. Askin analyzes that literary fruit, and presents in a concise, well structured article the unique style and voice resident in the writings of Occom, the Calvinist Native American. Also, she provides abundant examples of the literary tools put to good use by Occom in his writings, e.g., his use of "irony and Pauline paradox" -- what Askin refers to as "earnest irony"-- and prophetic voice, which "Measuring Christian society by its own standard--the gospel--Occom finds it wanting" (210).

After inspecting Occom's sermon style, she then "[traces] the scripture-based narrative that Occom evolved over a lifetime to unify his responsibilities and his identity as both Native American and Christian," a two-fold narrative which emphasized, on the one hand, the Creation account, that is, the Genesis narrative, and, on the other hand, the narrative of "Isaiah's prophecy of the regeneration of Israel"; Occom emphasized this over the archetypal Calvinistic narrative--the "covenant narrative". Askin points to this practice in order to illustrate Occom's indigenist Calvinism, which she believes "[served] a typological purpose as significant for the continuance of his people [Native Americans] as Exodus was for the Jews and the errand into the wilderness was for the earliest Calvinists of New England.

To conclude, Askin says,
Occom's writings reveal that he, like the Puritans, also looked through the lens of scripture and saw human events as eloquent both of God's will and of God's interaction with the community. He forged for his people a narrative that paralleled that of the founders of the New England colonies. . . . Occom's indigenist Calvinist imagination saw in the flat surface of life many layers of meaning that connected his present moment to the biblical past and project it forward toward an apocalyptic future. . . . The words of Occom--in sermons, letters, and diaries--reveal the complex nature of his "strange providence" as a Native American and a Calvinist in a fragile and changing world (215).
My Thoughts: Askin's article is great. Occom is such a fascinating character in American Church History, but what makes this article especially enjoyable is viewing Occom from a literary perspective. Oftentimes a Theologian or Church Historian will approach things from within their discipline and with what are more or less ready-made questions. However, when you change your approach, when you are challenged to view and approach a familiar subject matter from a different perspective, then, oftentimes, you find yourself asking different types of questions, or at least asking questions differently. (I'm replaying in my mind a scene from the movie Dead Poet's Society, "I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.") And so, I think that is what Askin has done with her article. She looks at things in a different way, asking new questions and asking old questions differently.


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

First Things: June/July 2012 - Life Too Inconvenient for Life - Poisonous Seed Indeed

I have subscribed to First Things for a couple years. Editor R. R. Reno pens the opening, editorial article "The Public Square" in the hard-copy publication. In the June/July 2012 publication, in "The Public Square" under the heading "Life Too Inconvenient for Life," Reno writes:
The Journal of Medical Ethics, an altogether mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarly publication, recently published an article justifying "after-birth abortion," a locution authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva use to describe killing newborns whose parents don't want them.
"Children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to not be worth living" can be "terminated," as the Groningen Protocol in the ever-merciful Netherlands currently allows. Then the authors follow the ruthless logic of the pro-abortion position to its conclusion. "If criteria such as costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy," they observe, and if we can't give a cogent explanation why a fetus suddenly becomes a person simply by passing through the birth canal, "then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
If we can kill a healthy child in the womb for a whole range of reasons, then why not in the hospital nursery? Why not abortions "after birth"?
At first I thought the article was meant as cutting humor. The clattering machinery of the simplistic syllogisms seem positively Swiftean, a satire of our present-day moralists. Want to kill newborns? OK, OK, give me a minute or two, and I'll give you the arguments.
But no, the editors of the Journal of Medical Ethics apparently think that these sorts of arguments should be taken seriously. They will of course say that the journal is committed to "stimulating discussion" and "airing controversial views." What's the harm in thinking it through? Aren't free exchanges like this good for us? Doesn't it help us refine our moral arguments and perhaps overcome our irrational responses of disgust and moral dismay?
In 1920, two distinguished German professors published an argument in favor of euthanasia. The argument turned on the clam  that there are some lives unworthy of life. Giubilini and Minerva use that haunting phrase, perhaps unaware of its origins. And they extend it. Their argument for "after-birth abortion" gives us permission to destroy newborns who aren't unworthy but are inconvenient.
As Jonathan Haidt observes, our moral culture is shaped primarily by emotion. Very few people reason out moral truths. Most of us have gut reactions. The fixed points in our moral universe are the deeds so heinous we can't imagine performing them. And I can't imagine killing a newborn. Which is precisely what Giubilini and Minerva and the editors of the Journal of Medical Ethics want us to coolly entertain as a real option.
Lebensunwerten Lebens: life unworthy of life. The idea expanded the German imagination, and in 1939 the Nazis gassed 75,000 mentally ill and handicapped Germans. They were burdensome, inconvenient, and an impediment to their goal of racial purity. Soon they focused their attention on another impediment, whose victims are counted in the millions.
There is nothing remotely original or philosophically sophisticated about Giubilini and Minerva's pedestrian reasoning. The editors' rationale for publishing their article advocating "after-birth abortion" was to break new ground, to "expand" our moral imaginations, to "problematize," as progressive professors like to say. That's what the distinguished German professors did in 1920. That's what our professional ethicists are doing today.
St. Paul teaches that we will reap what we have sown. This, dear readers, is a very poisonous seed indeed [Emphasis CCS].

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Chapter 7 - Whose Calvin, Which Calvinism? John Calvin and the Development of Twentieth-Century American Theology

Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Chapter 7 dovetails nicely with the preceding chapter's consideration of nineteenth-century Calvinistic theology in America, with many of David D. Hall's allusions for the twentieth-century fleshed out in this masterfully written article by Stephen D. Crocco, who provides the conclusion to the section on Calvin's influence on American Theology. In hindsight, Crocco's article is the standard by which the other two articles are plumbed and judged; each of the Theology articles were thoughtful, but Crocco's is exquisite, and much of my review will consist of lengthy quotations.

To begin. Crocco picks up where Hall concludes, denoting that there are many "readings" of John Calvin and his respective influence, hence, the title, Whose Calvin, Which Calvinism?, which we are told in an endnote is an allusion to Alasdair McIntyre's Whose Justice, Which Rationality? published in 1988. Crocco puts it like this:
There is simply no escaping the fact that, to one degree or another, Calvin "influenced" American Protestantism across virtually every theological spectrum imaginable, even traditions that were sustained in reaction against basic features of his thought. But questions of influence and development are notoriously complex and controversial. Put bluntly, one person's idea of influence and development is another person's plunge into apostasy or fundamentalism (165). 
 Crocco's article is structured threefold; the first division discusses those who discuss Calvin's influence on American theology, the second, which he says is "highly selective," considers those who discuss Calvin's legacy within the "context of the United States as a nation of immigrants," and the third, Crocco suggests a typological reading of Calvin as a "mountain dominating a theological landscape" (166).

In Calvin studies, particularly modern scholarship, there is a distinction between Calvin and Calvinism. Crocco provides adequate coverage of this distinction, highlighting works by Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin, R. T. Kendell, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1694, and Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, and sets the stage for a round of important questions:
Any attempt to enlist Calvin into a modern theological program raises the questions: were additions to Calvin--the federalist view of the covenant or modern views of scripture--an extension or confirmation of what was important for Calvin, or were they parasitic accretions? Were the things  that were subtracted from Calvin for the twentieth-century--his views on civil government and double predestination and his anti-Romanist polemics--life-saving amputations, or did they drain the life blood of Calvin? . . . In the narratives behind all of these relationships [Augustine and the Augustinians, Edwards and the Edwardseans, Barth and the Barthians, Calvin and the Calvinists], there is considerable debate about what constitutes a tradition and, more particularly, what counts as progress or regression in it (167).
 Perhaps this dilemma might best be illustrated by the image of a person journeying on a road.  If a person is journeying on a road [the road is a reading of a person, like John Calvin, or a tradition derived/propagated from the writings and influence of said person], then what change in direction constitutes a departure from the road, that is, from the way the person was initially journeying? Or perhaps it is even more complicated than that; perhaps what constitutes a departure (progress or regression) for this person is simply traveling on the road differently. Perhaps now the person beings walking on the other side of the road. What does that imply? Is it a break from the tradition? or merely progress?

We see this type of dilemma frequently--doesn't matter what the topic is, it is evident even within intramural dialogue regarding video games (e.g., is Doctor Wario part of the Mario lineage? or a departure from that original 8-Bit NES greatness? But wait, is 8-Bit NES considered the genesis of Mario? or is that character rightly understood as having originated from the arcade console version of Donkey Kong?)

There certainly is "considerable debate" about what constitutes a tradition, which is why Crocco goes on to say that "in a number of conflicting cases" theologians, historians, economists, theorists, etc., try to "incorporate Calvin into their narratives," which leads to a "wax nose" type of Calvin--"The picture of a dozen or so Calvins sporting different noses is humorous but accurate" (167). Whose Calvin, Which Calvinism? Indeed.

Crocco is wise, noting  that "in addition to having a wax nose, Calvin is also a mirror that reflects the particular beliefs and agendas of those who claim him for their own" (169). It would seem, then, that how a person handles Calvin is a "tell" of what may be veiled or unveiled motives, sensibilities, presuppositions. Calvin wrote on a plethora of topics, and people frequently leverage him across a multitude of academic, spiritual, and political disciplines, and it is oftentimes the case that when people do so, rather than learning more about Calvin, we in fact learn more about the very persons discussing Calvin.

Perhaps one of the most captivating and fascinating parts of the article is Crocco's description of the Council of the Alliance of the Reformed Churches Holding the Presbyterian System in Philadelphia in 1880. Crocco describes and analyzes the imagery and symbolism displayed on the banners representing respective nationalities and theological heritages, ranging from "Bohemia and Moravia, England and Wales, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Spain," and points out the significance that "only two times Calvin was mentioned on a dozen banners"--Crocco concludes that this means that "Calvin was acknowledged as the great theologian behind these traditions. . . . [but] the banners showed that Calvin's influence was mediated [emphasis CCS] or related to particular communities and churches by people who had special historical or ecclesiastical connections to those communities" (171). Crocco continues:
The heroes of the faith of particular nations--figures such as Zacharias Ursinus and John Knox and creeds such as the Westminster Confession, the Synod of Dort, and the Heidelberg Confession--were the paths back to Calvin and the paths forward to the broader Reformed tradition. This patter--where Calvin is acknowledged as the great theologian of the Reformed tradition whose teachings were mediated both by indigenous influences and by subsequent theological development--is at the heart of his role in the development of American theology in the twentieth century just as it was in the nineteenth, eighteenth, and seventeenth centuries.
Thus Crocco shows that Reformed theology in America is best represented by a cacophony of  theological voices, albeit, voices that are harmonizing (for the most part) with Calvin, the mutually acknowledged great theologian of the Reformed tradition. It is important to note that at different times some of the voices had a more significant role and influence, e.g. "Until the early nineteenth century, American Protestantism was most heavily influenced by the Reformed traditions coming out of England and Scotland" (172), but we also see in different pockets across American influencing "undercurrents" from Holland, France, etc. Crocco provides surveys of this theological development, recounting the histories of the men and theologies who mediated Calvin, those variegated names and universities that have been associated with the differing Calvinistic camps in the American Reformed-landscape, e.g., Old Princeton, Neo-Calvinism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc.

Despite these intramural debates, and the many debates contended by theological liberals during the past 50 years, Calvin is still "lifted up as transformationist and associated with positive social change." However, Crocco adds, "To contend, as this chapter has done, that Calvin's role in American theology were largely mediated does not imply that they were entirely mediated." Calvin certainly was read. He was not merely received through said channels of mediation; Calvin's ideas were not always trafficked through the firewall of another author or tradition (that is, socially speaking, not at the presuppositional level that occurs within every person's private reading). Crocco lists the various published writings by Calvin that were available in America, specifically throughout the past century, and that it was especially during that century that Calvin was mediated anew by men like Karl Barth and H. Richard Neibuhr and Emil Brunner. And so Crocco closes:
Twentieth-century Protestant theologians inherited a landscape in which Calvin was in the air they breathed; he affected every horizon, and the bedrock of his thought was just below the surface of every step they took. To speak in terms of a landscape lends itself to a picture of Calvin as a mountain that dominates the geography. Images of Mount Hood (Calvin) looming above the city of Portland (American Theology) . . . Although theologians and ecclesiastical movements have grown accustomed to the inspiring, hospitable, and malleable character of his writings, history has shown that, 500 years after his birth, Calvin is still capable of pint to a God who resists all efforts to be domesticated by the church or academy. Perhaps Mount Hood's neighbor, Mount St. Helens, provides an apt metaphor of the power that can be unleashed when God decides to speak through his gifted and faithful servants (185-86).
My Thoughts: Masterfully written; excellent research and composition. Crocco's analysis and thought are fair and charitable (and I can only hope someday to write both as well and thoughtfully as he has in this chapter).

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Chapter 6 - Calvin and Calvinism within Congregational and Unitarian Discourse in Nineteenth-Century America

Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Before canon-balling in to the deep end of his article, David D. Hall opens with two quotes: The first by John Cotton, "Let Calvin answer for me," originally given in 1637 in response to ministers questioning his orthodoxy; the second quotation by Perry Miller, who argued, in "The Marrow of Puritan Divinity," that Jonathan Edwards was the "first consistent and authentic Calvinist in New England," for Edwards was the first theologian with "nerve" to skip over New England theologians and considered their doctrinal source, Calvin, directly.

Hall begins his article introducing the "first-ever National Council of Congregational Churches" that met in Boston on June 14, 1865. The Council had several goals, meeting in the aftermath of the Civil War they were ambitiously looking to grow beyond their native homes in New England and deliberated over a Declaration of Faith. Although initial drafts referenced Calvinism, the final declaration did not. Hall says words like "Calvin," "Calvinism," and "references to the Westminster Confession" were "strikingly absent." Hall, therefore, wonders "What were the implications of this refusal for the future of Congregationalism and, a separate but related matter, the capacity of Congregationalists to understand their own origins in the seventeenth century?" These two questions, contrasted with the pro-Calvin opening quotations, have compelling effect--the reader knows he truly is heading in to the deep end of Calvinistic discourse. Hall sets things up nicely. The article follows the separate links in a chain of confusion tethered to the "reformers' nineteenth-century heirs within Congregationalism" (149), disclosing how this confusion, according to Hall, has been recapitulated by liberal theologians in the twentieth-century, and thus paving the path for what has led to our contemporary cloud of confusion hovering over modern Puritan studies and tis relation to Calvin and Calvinism.

Hall tackles this chain of confusion by narrating the outcome of the clash between liberal and evangelical "wings" of the New England tradition, an outcome that morphed, namely, into Unitarianism, which questioned the legitimacy and morality of Calvinism. Unitarians were no friend of Calvin, seeing Calvinism as being "arbitrary, dogmatic, metaphysical, deterministic, antimodern, of a persecuting temper" (152). Hall, then showing that Unitarianism was Congregationalism's schism, tells the reader that what he finds remarkable (and he assures us that he is supported by modern scholarship in thinking so) is the "persisting ignorance of the Calvin of Geneva" for both Congregationalists and the Unitarian/New Haven theologians, as well as the phenomenon that Congregationalists and Unitarians shared a mutual dissatisfaction for Calvin, and Edwards for that matter, and that this view was shared in spite of the former group being the "moderates" and the latter group being the "liberals." It would seem, then, that New England, both moderate and liberal wings, were fed up with Calvin and anything esteemed Calvinistic. How about that? So.

We see the Unitarian decrying of Calvinism in the 1820s/1830s, and then, in the1860s, we see Congregationalists side stepping the inclusion of Calvinistic verbiage in their declaration of faith, and, with the vantage point from which Hall chaperons the his readers into surveying the twentieth-century, we are then prepared to be introduced to Williston Walker's biography of Calvin (John Calvin: The Organiser of Reformed Protestantism) and Perry Miller's writings on New England and seventeenth-century religious thought.

In both of these authors we see some more of the recapitulated confusion referenced earlier by Hall; both of these men had unique readings of Calvin, and in Calvin saw elements that "pointed towards modernity" (159). Walker saw in Calvin the modern notion of the separation of church-and-state, while Miller traced Calvinistic colonial theology (by way of those who put emphasis on "covenant theology") up and through the "softer, milder Calvinism of the eighteenth century and the Unitarian liberalism of the nineteenth" (160).

All of this leaves us wondering, "Which reading of Calvin is correct?" Was Calvin's influence in America anti-modern? Or was it modern? For progressive theology? Or against it? Hall's conclusion reminds us that these different narratives of Calvin, these different assessments of Calvin's influence on American theology, "these crisscrossed stories . . . both have persisted into our own time," which means that, "Paradigms--or, better, stereotypes--do indeed die hard." It is hard to understand your origins, especially if there are contrary paradigms or stereotypes floating around.

My thoughts: Content was engaging bu the outline of material and unpacking of content made for a difficult read/made it difficult to follow. (Although, the weakness probably lies with my abilities to read critically/carefully, not Hall's ability to write). The conclusion is good though--and should encourage anybody who does history to do so carefully. After all, if you get something wrong, that thing may tint a different person's glasses, that inaccuracy may die hard.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Pro-God = Pro-Reality = Pro-Life

The Church is Pro-God, Pro-Reality, and Pro-Life.

The Church believes in God, in truth, in reality--"We believe in one God . . . maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"--the Church believes in God and creation. And this belief is the foundation for a Pro-Life ethic. Social Justice for the unborn (life-in-the-womb) must be rooted in this grammar--God is the sovereign creator of heaven and earth, of that which is seen and unseen, and He alone creates and defines this (all) reality.

That being the case, what does the Creator say about in utero? Is He silent about the reality of the life of cells multiplying in a womb? Hardly--See Exodus 21, Psalm 22, 139.

Nevin: Reformation Thought, Again - Secure to Old and Young Benefit of Religious Knowledge

The greatest attention was paid to catechetical instruction, in the Netherlands. The duty was pressed upon heads of families. Schools were required to cooperate with the churches, in carrying the system into full effect. The pastors must preach on the Catechism every sabbath afternoon; besides visiting the schools frequently, and holding catechetical exercises, if possible once a week, in private houses. All pains were required to be taken, to secure in this way to old and young the benefit of religious knowledge” (J. W. Nevin, History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism (Chambersburg, 1847), 98).

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin’s American Legacy – Chapter 5 – “Falling away from the General Faith of the Reformation”? The Contest over Calvinism in Nineteenth-Century America

Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Douglas A. Sweeney contributes the fifth chapter “Falling Away from the General Faith of the Reformation”? The Contest over Calvinism in Nineteenth-Century America, and it is an excellent read. The eye of Sweeney’s historical analysis is cast over nineteenth-century American Calvinism, an epoch referred to by D. G. Hart as being “the critical period for Protestant thought in America” (112). Sweeney does an excellent job of showing that to be the case, and then some.

The “bravado” of Princeton’s Charles Hodge is the nucleus of Sweeney’s article. Hodge was a gravitational center around which other Calvinistic views rotated, though not entirely planetary-like. Their paths did cross and collide; the hard molecules of the nineteenth-century German Reformed Mercersburg Theology and Congregationalist New England were frequently bumping in to the monolith of Hodge’s Presbyterian Princeton. Oftentimes historians allude to this refraction as evidence of Calvinism’s decline in nineteenth-century America. But Sweeney disagrees. He believes the opposite, that the nineteenth-century Calvinistic contentions are indicators of vitality. That they are evidence of livelihood, which Sweeney refers to throughout the article as a “contest”—thus Sweeney says, “the biggest question on their [American Calvinists] minds was not whether American Calvinism would live to see the future, but who would control that future—and on what terms” (113).

Sweeney’s article has two movements before his conclusion: first, the rock-n-roll of the Princeton/Mercersburg pen-wars; second, the refrain of the Princeton/Congregationalist pen-wars. According to Sweeney, the former controversy had to do with Hodge’s defamation of the metaphysical tweaking of Calvin’s thought done by John Nevin (who had been a former student of Hodge and actually subbed a couple years for him at Princeton while he traveled to the Continent), and the latter controversy hinged upon what Hodge viewed as a propensity within New England theology to develop a not fully biblical and doctrinally incorrect view of feelings and sentiments, and how that view related to the intellectual life of a Christian.

Hodge equally disapproved both groups; the former group (Mercersburg/John Nevin) for adjusting the form of Calvinism and the latter group (Congregationalist New England/Edwardsean theologians) for adjusting the substance of Calvinism. (Although Hodge would have probably said that Nevin was tweaking substance, too.) Sweeney provides a detailed narrative, he adds the occasional comment on Hodge’s inconsistencies and blind sights and/or ahistorical misreadings, but he does so while smoothly displaying his aim—to demonstrate that this was a Calvinistic “contest” and evidence of life and relevance.

Sweeney concludes magnificently; he bemoans those who analyze this data and conclude that there is no Calvinistic center, or those who conclude the opposite, a Hodge-bravado-styled-center (e.g., this is Calvinism!!!). Sweeney calls the two views “two extremes” (130). Instead, Sweeney posits that one should note that each of the three groups were conservative Calvinists who “wanted to be faithful to the best of their traditions”—and Sweeney’s last words are a warning: “The churchmen most committed to conserving their tradition lost the power to shape the story told of their movement in the academy—and lost it to the people they most frequently opposed. This is an irony that scholars today, whatever their traditions, would do well to recognize” (130).

My thoughts: insightful and compelling, particularly the word of warning at the conclusion. And I agree with the overall aim; yes, the intramural-theological spats are evidence of vitality. Just like the Federal Vision controversy today, Calvinism in America is alive, her blood is pumping and may her tribe increase. 

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Chapter 4 - Practical Ecclesiology in John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards

Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

"Practical Ecclesiology in John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards" by Amy Plantinga Pauw is the first chapter from Part II on Calvin's legacy on American theology. Although Edwards was no carbon-copy of Calvin, Pauw emphasizes the "deep commonalities" between his and Calvin's thinking, particularly their mutual ability to balance in the face of tensions that both "inclusiveness" and the "holiness" are chief attributes of church life and Christian living. Pauw, therefore, argues that because of this mutual practical ecclesiology, it is Edwards who should be considered the "rightful heir to Calvin's theological legacy [in America]."

Reformed theology, particularly ecclesiology, creates the tension. Believers are told to remain in the Church, not because the Church magically ensures their election, but because by doing so they cling to God and his promises, and it is the church which is the society and communion of men and women struggling with and continually confessing sins that God has called out of and who are distinct and separate from the world.

Calvin emphasized the need for these individuals to grow and mature under the kind rule of their motherly church. This life of maturation, however, is not characterized by perfectionism. Holiness, yes. Death to sin, yes. But not perfectionism. On this point Pauw reminds us that Calvin thought that "the life of believers, longing constantly for their appointed state, is like adolescence" (95); Pauw elaborating that:
In the midst of turbulent spiritual emotions and repeated moral failures, Christians are to strive by God's grace to grow into a mature life of gratitude and holiness. Portraying the earthly church as a mother not of helpless infants but of a large band of unruly adolescents better reflects both Reformed ecclesiology and Calvin's and Edward's pastoral experiences.
At the center of God's "redemptive perseverance" is the visible church, warts and all. Pauw gives several illustrations to demonstrate that in many pastoral experiences Edwards (following Calvin) had to wrestle with the reality of the inclusiveness/holiness tension. The ongoing story of God' redeeming work will certainly have its share of sorrows (as pastors in local churches teach, lead, serve and care for the "unruly adolescents"), however, these are all subplots to the metanarrative, the unsurpassed and unspeakable joy of living in union with Christ within the society of those who hold onto the promises of being raised unto newness in life because of the victory of his life, death, and resurrection.

The church is in God's hands. Therefore, assurance can only be found in resting, that is, reposing in God's good providence (even in the midst of the inclusiveness/holiness tension), and that is the practical ecclesiology which defines Calvin' legacy in American theology and which was exhibited in John Edward's life and practice.

My thoughts: this was the most readable chapter. And I thought Pauw was spot on describing Reformed ecclesiology. God does not kick people out of the family for their sins, rather he tells them to repent and confess their sins. Salvation is all of grace, always.


Saturday, June 9, 2012

Pastors: Reminding Members – God is Father and Church is Mother


“I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined, let not man put asunder (Mark x. 9): to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a Mother" (John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), Book IV.I.1.).