Where I have Failed...

Every once in a while (about once every three months), I listen to John Piper's biography on Athanasius. I've found it to be a tremendous encouragement (and have even petitioned my wife that this could be the name of our next son!). As Piper was speaking, he made this point:

Joyful courage is the calling of a faithful shepherd.

Athanasius stared down murderous intruders into his church. He stood before emperors who could have killed him as easily as exiled him. He risked the wrath of parents and other clergy by consciously training young people to give their all for Christ, including martyrdom. He celebrated the fruit of his ministry with these words: “in youth they are self-restrained, in temptations endure, in labors persevere, when insulted are patient, when robbed make light of it: and, wonderful as it is, they despise even death and become martyrs of Christ”34—martyrs not who kill as they die, but who love has they die.

Athanasius contra mundum should inspire every pastor to stand your ground meekly and humbly and courageously whenever a biblical truth is at stake. But be sure that you always out-rejoice your adversaries. If something is worth fighting for, it worth rejoicing over. And the joy is essential in the battle, for nothing is worth fighting for that will not increase our joy in God. Our people must see that.

Courage in conflict must mingle with joy in Christ. This is what Athanasius loved about Antony and what he sought to be himself. This was part of his battle strategy with his adversaries:

Let us be courageous and rejoice always. . . . Let us consider and lay to heart that while the Lord is with us, our foes can do us no hurt. . . . But if they see us rejoicingin the Lord, contemplating the bliss of the future, mindful of the Lord, deeming all things in His hand . . . —they are discomfited and turned backwards.35

So, brothers, even if at times it may feel as though we are alone contra mundum, let us stand courageous and out-rejoice our adversaries.

I confess, I have sought to be courageous, but being joyful can sometimes be the challenge for my sin-filled soul.

Lord forgive me for the times I have called people toward truth but my bitter attitude has made that truth unattractive.

Lord help people see that the reason I fight is because I know no greater love than You!

Piper on Machen on Relativism

From Piper's message "The Challenge of Relativism" (transcript and audio) given at Ligonier National Conference:

Piper:

This gives rise to every manner of spin. The goal of language is no longer the communication of reality, but the manipulation of reality. It no longer functions in the glorious capacity of affirming the embrace of confessional truth, but now it functions in the devious capacity of concealing defection from the truth.

Eighty years ago, J. Gresham Machen described this relativistic corruption of language in relation to confessional affirmations:

It makes very little difference how much or how little of the creeds of the Church the Modernist preacher affirms. . . . He might affirm every jot and tittle of the Westminster Confession, for example, and yet be separated by a great gulf from the Reformed Faith. It is not that part is denied and the rest affirmed; but all is denied, because all is affirmed merely as useful or symbolic and not as true.

This utilitarian view of language is the direct fruit of relativism. It leads to evasive, vague speech that enables the relativist to mislead people into thinking he is still orthodox. Listen to Machen’s amazingly up-to-date description of the mindset that comes from relativism:

This temper of mind is hostile to precise definitions. Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms. . . . Men discourse very eloquently today upon such subjects as God, religion, Christianity, atonement, redemption, faith; but are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simple language what they mean by these terms.

This is nothing new. Athanasius dealt with this regarding Arianism. Men would sign the Nicene Creed, even though they would redefine what it meant. Machen was writing his response to modernists, nearly a century ago. What makes us think it is not happening today?

When the Reformation Began

by Danny Wright

When Luther nailed his ninety-five thesis to the Castle Church door, many count that as the start of the Reformation. From that perspective, the Reformation started 489 years ago. Of course, Luther wasn’t alone. David gave us well known names…Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, as well as some names many are not as familiar with…Grebel, Mack, Karlstadt, and Manz.

Some have suggested that the Reformation is over. Though many try to minimize the wedge between Rome and Protestants, there is still a great divide in theology and practice. Perhaps, if we knew when the Reformation began, we’d be able to capture when it ends.

As Jason pointed out, a key to understanding the reformation is found in understanding God’s righteousness and man’s depravity. Brad showed how such a distortion creates further perverse doctrines and practices. But when did we first see a variance from orthodox theology and practice.

The first challenge comes in practice. The church had grown at record pace. Along with new people added daily, there was the added strain of articulating and defending doctrine. But as the church continued to grow, so did her complexity of need. But what would be the practice? Would the elders reject the ministry of the gospel to make sure widows were fed? Would widows be left to fend for themselves, as the elders would not have any time to assist their need? Neither. The church reforms, developing the ministry of deacons so that widows can be fed and elders can focus on the ministry of the Word and prayer.

A second challenge came in doctrine. God’s sovereign salvation to Gentiles created an area of confusion for Jewish converts. (Take comfort brothers, even the early church struggled to clearly articulate the Israel/Church relationship!) Should the gentiles adhere to Jewish law and custom, potentially contaminating the church with legalism? Should the law be abandoned completely, leading to antinomianism? Again, the elders step up and present neither as an option. The apostles and elders circulate a letter to the churches instructing them to avoid legalism, yet deny antinomianism as well.

If the church, in the age of the apostles (which has passed) needed reform, what hope is there for us? There are two answers:

There is no hope.

There is nothing wrong with the plan of the church, nor with the truths of God. The church does not need reform because the culture shifted. Reformation is necessary because we are sinners. Until we lose this flesh, we will all be “prone to wonder.”

There is great hope.

If the apostles found the church in need of reformation, how can we say we have hope? Because we have the faith which was once for all handed down for the saints beautifully recorded for us in His Word (Jude 3). As long as we have the Word—and we always will (1 Peter 1:24-25)—we have cause for hope and our source for reformation. The apostles still speak to us, through the words inspired by the Holy Sprit, calling us to reformation.

The moment man followed the teaching, “Has not God said?” the call for reformation began. It carries through the saints of the Old and New Testaments. The torch was passed to men like Athanasius and Augustine, Luther and Calvin. It didn’t start with Luther and Calvin, so the question begs, “Does it end with them?”

The work is not done. Let us dive into the Word of God, with the battle cry for the church corporately and each of us individually…Semper Reformanda!

F&WOG--Genuine Conservatives

Typically, I do a book review after I have read an entire book. However, I do not seem able to restrain myself until after I complete this book. So, rather than the typical review (which may still happen), I've decided to provide excerpts from the book. The book is Fundamentalism and the Word of God by JI Packer.

It is a great mistake...to suppose that we who are called 'conservatives' hold desperately to certain beliefs merely because they are old, and are opposed to the discovery of new facts. On the contrary, we welcome new discoveries with all our hearts, and we believe that our cause will come to its rights again only when youth throws off its present intellectual lethargy, refuses to go thoughtlessly with the anti-intellectual current of the age, and recovers some genuine independence of mind. In one sense, indeed, we are traditionalists...But on the whole, in view of the conditions that now exist, it would perhaps be more correct to call us 'radicals' than to call us 'conservatives'...We are seeking in particular to arouse youth from its present uncritical repetition of current phrases into some genuine examination of the basis of life; and we believe that Christianity flourishes not in the darkness, but in the light. A revival of the Christian religion, we believe, will deliver mankind from its present bondage. Such a revival will not be the work of man, but the work of the Spirit of God. But one of the means which the Spirit will use, we believe, is an awakening of the intellect...The new Reformation, in other words, will be accompanied by a new Renaissance; and the last thing in the world we desire to do is discourage originality or independance of mind.

Here, Packer is actually quoting J Gresham Machen in What is Faith?. It seems, according to the comments I receive from people, that my views typically do not line up with my demographic. Like the sopranic voiced linebacker, whose voice betrays his stature, it seems that my blog causes some to picture me different. He must be older. He must be angry. He must be Amish! At my age, I many suggest, I should be questioning all that I have heard, trusting no one, and wanting to forge new paths. But this does not seem the radical way to me. "There is a way that seems right to a man." Our sin nature causes all of us to design a god to our liking, to assume our own reason can formulate a more divine being that the One revealed in Scripture.

Whether issues of egalitarianism, the atonement, and even the centrality of Scripture, it seems the assumption is toward that which is new. If you align yourself with the thoughts of Augustine, Athanasius, John Calvin or Charles Spurgeon, you are considered antiquated and must be handled with an air of suspicion. And certainly, we should not hold to a view simply because we trust the advocate, however, if it is "the faith once for all handed down to the saints" shouldn't we see the thread throughout history?

It is natural to see culture shift and immediately challenge our view of orthodoxy because there appears to be a contradiction. Quite frankly, it is the easier (and less intellectual) thing to do. One the surface, truth appears one way, so we immediately adjust our thinking. However, the more radical, the more difficult, the more intellectual work is to look for the thread of truth that runs throughout all cultures of all generations. It may be called conservative, but it is far from simple.