culture

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: The Pauline Epistles, Part IV – Romans 13

/ theroadofgrace / 13 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

___________________________________________________________________

 

As we round out our discussion of Romans note that, in our last three articles, we highlighted Paul’s desire to preach the gospel to the church at Rome. Paul’s mention of his desire in Romans 1:15-17 functions as the thesis statement of the letter:

So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith,’ (Romans 1:15-17; NASB).

In the first two articles on Romans, we noted four themes in this thesis statement: a gospel for the church, the gospel as God’s power unto salvation, salvation to all without distinction and how, in this way, God will save all His chosen people. These four major themes help us to understand why Paul takes both the first eight chapters of Romans explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ and the following three chapters explaining the relationship between Israel and the church. Since the thesis statement of Romans 1:15-17 sets the framework for all that follows, we are in our present study using it as the lens through which we examine the rest of the book of Romans. In our last article and this one, we are focusing on the theme from faith to faith. Last article, we examined what chapters 12 and 14-16 taught on the matter. This article will focus exclusively on on how the theme is addressed in Romans 13.

In  chapter 13, Paul turns  the church’s gaze to the government and encourages them to see it as a minister of God for justice. He does not tell them to take the government by the reigns and wield its sword for the cause of social justice. Rather, more radically, he encourages them to submit to the government in all things lawful.

Paul sets the context of this passage in the preceding chapter , which discusses the characteristics of a true Christian lived “from faith to faith.” In Chapter 12, Paul addresses how Christians should conduct themselves in society and in the Church. In this chapter, Paul continues to address the characteristics of a true Christian by discussing how a Christian should conduct themselves with respect to the governing authorities. Furthermore, it’s important to note to whom Paul is writing. He is addressing Christians who are living under the Roman Empire during the 1st century. In some sense, Paul is exhorting the Roman Christians to apply the precepts of Romans 12 to the governing authorities. Finally, it’s important to note that Romans 13 does not contain all of the Bible’s teaching on this topic nor does Romans 13 only speak about the Christian’s conduct in regards to the State.

On Submission to Governing Authorities

Paul opens Romans 13 with a very clear imperative:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1-2; NASB).

Paul did not write this as a suggestion for the believer; rather, it is a command to all Roman believers and it has application to all Christians at all times.  Paul grounds this command in the sovereignty of God. According to Paul, all authority is derived from God, and therefore, if an authority is in power, it is because God has instituted that authority. In other words, rebellion against authority is rebellion against the One who instituted the authority. Paul’s essential exhortation is that the default Christian position towards governing authorities is submission.

This is a point worth emphasizing because for many American Christians, the default Christian position is skepticism or contempt for authority. When many Christians read this passage, the instinctive response is to discuss the limits of governmental authority, rather than considering Paul’s first exhortation concerning our submission to authority. The Christian must submit to God’s authority because it is God Himself who instituted this authority (cf. Num. 12:1-16). Moreover, God does not establish an authority arbitrarily; rather He has a goal in mind and the Christian is called to humble himself before the Lord and His plans.

This posture of humility and submission not only applies to our response to the government;  it is also observed throughout  Scripture for other institutions in which God has established authority. Within the home, the wife is called to submit to her husband’s authority (cf. Ephesians 5:22) and children are called to obey their parents  (cf. Ephesians 6:1). Within the local church, members are called to submit to the authority of the elders (cf. 1 Peter 5:5; Hebrews 13:7, 17). Hence, Paul’s command concerning submission to the governing authorities is not unique to the government.  This command regards every institution that God has established. Just as it would be sinful and unacceptable for children to disobey their parents and wives to disrespect  their husbands, it is sinful for Christians to rebel against the authority that God has established in the government. Finally, it’s also important to note that Paul does not ground this command based on the worthiness of the authority figure. In other words, governments do not have to prove their worthiness before we agree to submit to them. A beautiful summary of the posture that Christians ought to have towards the government is expressed in the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 127:

Q: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?

A: The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.

On the Exercise of Authority

In discussing the exercise of authority, Paul continues

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (Rom. 13:3-5; NASB).

In this section, Paul describes the nature of governmental authority and how this authority is exercised. First, it should be noted that essential purpose of governmental authority is to punish evil. According to the above passage, the governing authorities are the means by which God punishes evildoers within society. In particular, it is through the governing authorities that fear is struck in the hearts of evildoers. It’s also important to note that this passage explicitly indicates that the government (not the Church or any other institution) wields the sword. This statement gives a very practical prescription for the purpose of government:  government must be a terror to bad conduct and plays an important role in the life of any given society.

This positive prescription tells us that those who hold positions in governing authority are responsible for carrying out their job description. The government’s essential duty is to initiate force against evildoers and to be an avenger against evildoers. This responsibility is not limited to theocratic Israel or a hypothetical Christian society, but it applies to all governing civil authorities that will ever exist. However, it should be noted that the wrath poured out on evildoers by the civil authority is punitive in nature. The purpose here is not to reconcile God and man (since God’s wrath against those who have offended Him is yet to come), but rather it is meant to bring restitution. Civil officials ought to be “devoted to this task” (13:6). It does not have the right to “wield the sword” towards good behavior nor do they have the right to permit bad conduct. This essential purpose of government was understood by previous generations and it gave rise to the rule of law within Western societies. The presence of fixed and respected laws in society (which commends good behavior and punishes bad behavior) tends to curb the actions and whims of tyrannical civil authorities who call evil “good” and good “evil”.

On the Support of Authority

From this job description, a question naturally arises. It is clear to all that there are different standards of good and bad behavior. We know that governing authorities will always wield the sword towards evildoers. What if the governing authorities create its own standards for good and evil, in contradiction to God’s Word? It is at this point in which Christians are best equipped to support the civil authority. First, because Christians are charged to maintain a humble and submissive posture towards the civil authority, this implies that Christians are charged to be good citizens, giving “tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom is due; fear to whom fear is due; honor to whom honor is due” (13:7). Second, because Christians are commanded to love their neighbor with words and deeds, this implies that Christians will “do no wrong to the neighbor” (13:10) and defend those who have been defrauded or wronged by evildoers.

Thirdly, because Christians possess the perfect standard of right and wrong (as expressed in the Scriptures) and have the moral law written about their heart, Christians are best equipped to inform civil authorities of their role and responsibility and society. This also suggests that God may use His children within the Church in order to serve their fellow man (and thus love their neighbor) by serving as a civil authority. However, it should be emphasized that when a Christian serves as a civil authority, he is not serving in an attempt to fulfill the Great Commission (which is a task given to the Church); he is fulfilling the Great Commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (13:9)

Furthermore, because Christians are given the proper perspective on the role of government, Christians ought to be best equipped in providing checks and balances to the expansion of government power beyond its proper bounds. Just as it is possible for the local church to extend its influence beyond its proper bounds and engage in “mission creep”, it is also true that the government can also engage in “mission creep”. The civil authority is not given the charge to care for the poor, to educate its citizens, or to do a number of other things that is responsibility of families and individuals. We can say that a Christian’s submission to the government is unconditional yet limited to its proper bounds. It is only when the civil authority oversteps its bounds (by commanding what God forbids and forbidding what God requires) that the Christian can (and must) appeal to authority, confront authority, and, perhaps, flee from authority. In this way, Christians can engage with the civil authority without becoming the civil authority or without rebelling against the civil authority.

It should also be noted that, as Americans, we have both the privilege and responsibility of living within representative form of government. This form of government is a relatively modern concept and contrary to any form of government that is observed in Scripture. In particular, within our Constitution, citizens have the protected right to petition the government. Moreover, since we elect our officials (rather than having our civil authorities imposed upon us), we have a form of government in which the civil authorities answer to their citizens. Therefore, if we were to apply the precepts of this chapter to our current society, Christian citizens must know what are the essential responsibilities of civil magistrates . Just as civil authorities will be held responsible for fulfilling their job description, citizens will also answer to God for how they have chosen their civil authorities. Hence, American Christians, as members of the American ruling class, should provide a practice check on the influence of governing authorities first by respectfully confronting authority when it exceeds its proper domain and second by electing civil authorities who will fulfill their essential job descriptions.

Our Final Hope

Paul concludes Chapter 13 with an exhortation regarding the future hope of believers. Christians are called to conduct themselves in a godly manner with respect to the world and the civil authority because “salvation is nearer to us than when we believed” (13:11). In much of our discussion regarding the Christian’s engage with the culture, it’s important to never forget the ultimate end – our full and final salvation. The gospel is proclaimed, not only because we desire to see the evil of this present age curbed; rather, it is proclaimed because “the night is almost gone, and the day is near.” The day of our salvation as well as the day of eschatological judgment is near. We proclaim the gospel and engage with our culture and the civil authorities because we desire that they would know the salvation that has been purchased with Christ’s blood.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: The Pauline Epistles, Part III – Romans 12, 14-16

/ William F. Leonhart III / 13 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

___________________________________________________________________

 

As we observed in our last two articles, Paul’s desire to preach the gospel to the church at Rome provided him the necessary motivation to write his letter to the Romans. In fact, Paul’s mention of his desire in Romans 1:15-17 functions as the thesis statement of the letter:

“So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith,’” (Romans 1:15-17; NASB).

In the first two articles on Romans, we considered four themes found in this thesis statement: the gospel preached to the church, the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, God’s salvation to all without distinction and, in this way, God will save all His chosen people. These four major themes help us to understand why Paul spends the first eight chapters of Romans explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ and the following three chapters describing the relationship between Israel and the church. Since the thesis statement of Romans 1:15-17 sets the framework for all that follows, we are in our present study using it as the lens through which we examine the rest of the book of Romans. In this offering, we will focus on principles found in these verses that help us to understand why Paul teaches what he teaches in chapters 12, and 14-16.

From Faith to Faith

The gospel results in a life lived in the light of a justification that comes by faith. Paul writes that, in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith (1:17). As we learn of God’s righteousness, that He is both just and the Justifier of sinful men (Rom. 3:26), we are freed from the shackles of sin to walk by faith in the justification we have received through Christ. We are saved by faith; we are also called to walk by faith. Paul spends the last five chapters of Romans explaining how it is that we who have been saved by gospel faith might also walk by that very gospel faith.

Some mistakenly believe that, because they have been justified by faith, they do not have a responsibility to live by faith. This false notion is contrary to the teachings of Romans. The late Jerry Bridges wrote of a time in his life when he had adopted this false notion:

“During a certain period in my Christian life, I thought that any effort on my part to live a holy life was ‘of the flesh’ and that ‘the flesh profits nothing.’ I thought God would not bless any effort on my part to live the Christian life, just as He would not bless any effort on my part to become a Christian by good works. Just as I received Christ by faith, so I was to seek a holy life only by faith. Any effort on my part was just getting in God’s way,” (Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness, pp. 78-79).

Well, Bridges was right about one thing during this time of his life: we can only accomplish what God has called us to do by faith. However, God precepts require that we walk according to faith, that we do according to faith, that we actively work according to faith. So, just as we are justified according to faith, we are called to live the Christian life according to faith. As we will see in this article and the next, this Christian life is one of relationships: relationships within the local church, within the church universal, and between us and governing authorities.

Body Life

In Romans 12, he urges by the mercies of God that the church of Rome be merciful toward one another in the local church. In this way, he first turns the church inward, drawing them to one another for strength and support for the road ahead. First, he tells them not to be conformed to the image of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of their minds (vs. 2). Paul does not tell his readers to remove themselves from the world, but rather to resist being conformed by it. Thus, they will escape two errors: conformity to the world and isolation from it. The task to which we are called requires much more faith and trust than merely seceding from the public square. Having been saved by faith, we are called to resist conformity to the world by faith while we sojourn in it. This imperative is necessary in our day, for one reason, because our conformity to the world can easily sap the strength of our Christian witness.

Notice that Paul’s first exhortation focuses on the mind of the believer. Prior to our initial repentance, we thought according to the precepts of this world, but when the Holy Spirit awakened us, our minds were changed. The mind is central because transformation comes from a renewed mind.

The first step in renewing one’s mind and resisting the influence of the world is that of recognizing the fact that we are each members of  the body of Christ. As members, we have each been granted a measure of faith, gifts of the Spirit. Now, there are myriad tests that have been developed to help people try to discern their spiritual gifts. All of these tests are flawed. The true test is found in living out one’s faith in the body of Christ.

Each local body of Christ has its own individual needs. As each Christian lives and serves among the body of Christ, certain needs naturally arise among that body. Not every Christian is meant to bear the full weight of every burden in the body but, as Christians seek to find ways to serve the body of Christ, they will naturally gravitate toward those needs that are most suitable to their unique giftings. It is through this process, not canned tests, that Christians throughout the ages have discerned their unique giftings in the body of Christ.

In chapter 13, Paul addresses the Christian’s unique relationship to the government. Given that this relationship is a paramount point in our discussion, we will devote an entire article to it separate from this discussion.

Christian Liberty

In Romans 14 and 15, Paul expounds on principles of Christian liberty urging concessions for and patience with weaker brothers and a godly practice of liberty in all things done in good faith. This too was meant to break down barriers between Jews and Gentiles. Many Jews, freed from the law, wished to practice their newfound liberty in eating meat. Believing Gentiles, having participated in pagan sacrifices and knowing those meats were likely sacrificed to idols, might not have known such liberty of conscience. Both were called to be mindful of their brothers in the faith for the sake of the gospel.

In our present day, there is an added dimension. Many Dispensationalists and New Covenanters, arguing from a subjective interpretation of the “Law of Love,” have become professional “weaker brothers.” They make much of their abstinence from things, when properly used, God has explicitly blessed in His word. They use passages like Romans 14 and 15 to argue that Christians’ love for one another means they can forbid their brothers from partaking in things God has blessed. This is not the spirit with which Paul is writing.

In Acts 10, Peter had a vision in which he was shown several animals whose consumption was forbidden in the Ceremonial Law of Israel. Peter was told to rise, kill, and eat the animals, and he begged God that he not be made to eat anything unclean. A voice came from heaven saying, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy,” (Acts 10:9-16; NASB). Were Paul in Romans 14 and 15 saying that weaker brothers could simply declare for themselves what is holy and unholy and impose their subjective standards of holy and unholy on their brothers, Peter’s vision would make no sense. Rather, Paul is recognizing that some of the novices in the church still considered certain things unholy that, used properly, were actually holy. Paul is calling for the more mature brethren to bear with these younger believers. He certainly was not giving license to Seminary professors and Seminary presidents to bind the consciences of mature believers on matters of consumption. If a believer partakes of food or drink to the glory of God, it is holy, and no one is to pass judgment.

On the other hand, we must be careful how we use liberty. In the hands of the immature, Christian liberty can be a very dangerous thing. Historically, the church has labored long to mine and consolidate from Scripture its teaching on Christian liberty. Apart from the teaching of the church on this matter throughout church history, one might take it merely to be a license to sin. Such is not the case. Consider the teaching of The Baptist Confession on the matter:

“The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law, and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation: as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind,” (The Baptist Confession, 21.1). Keep reading…

We must understand that we live in a very reactionary culture. For decades, we have been inundated with notions of political correctness, and this inundation has led to an unholy push for political incorrectness. Rather than policing our tongues, many in Western culture have taken to purposefully setting out to offend others. This is a clear violation of the principles Paul is teaching in Romans 14 and 15. To be sure, we do not want to be ruled by the weaker brother. However, neither is the Christian called to purposefully offend him. We are called to bear with him, lovingly, in his immaturity.

If he has not arrived yet at the place where he understands that all things properly used are holy unto God, we must bear with him until he does understand these things. We should not entice him to partake in something he still perceives to be unholy because, at least in his mind, he would be doing it out of rebellion against God. We are to help him to avoid any such rebellious attitudes toward God while he matures in his understanding of Christian liberty.

The Universal Church

Having examined two major points on relationships in the local church, let us now focus in on a matter that is also of vital importance to Christians: the universal church. Paul ends his letter, in Romans 16, by commending brothers and sisters in the faith to the church in Rome. His commendations are not without significance to us today.

If you have been in the church for any amount of time, you may have wondered why it is that churches require letters of transfer from other churches commending new members to their fellowship. This is not a purely modern practice. In Romans and in Colossians, Paul establishes this practice. He encourages local churches to receive and greet specific saints and offers words of commendation on their behalf (Rom. 16:1-24; Col. 4:7-14).

The other side of this coin is where the apostles specifically warn against certain individuals who have caused major problems either for him or for the church as a whole (1Tim. 1:18-20; 2Tim. 2:16-18; 4:10). This information was of vital importance for local churches, and it still is today. One of the roles of elders in a local church is that of shepherd, and shepherds are tasked with the unenviable duty of warding off wolves who come in seeking to devour the flock (Acts 20:17, 29). In this age of consumerism, wolves easily move from church to church sowing division and dissention. Pastors must be careful to examine each new member of the flock and determine their ecclesiastical history in order to guard the sheep from potential wolves.

In our next article in this series, we will continue to examine what it means to live from “faith to faith.” Specifically, we will zero in on the faith needed to live according to Paul’s teachings regarding the relationship between Christians and governing authorities in Romans 13.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: The Pauline Epistles, Part II – Romans 9-11

/ William F. Leonhart III / 15 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

___________________________________________________________________

As we mentioned in our last article, Paul’s desire to preach the gospel to the church at Rome was the impetus for the letter he wrote to the Romans. Scholars have even proposed that Paul’s mention of this desire in Romans 1:15-17 functions as the thesis statement of the letter:

“So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith,’” (Romans 1:15-17; NASB).

In the last article, we considered two themes that arise out of this thesis statement: the gospel preached to the church and the gospel as the power of God unto salvation. These two major themes help us to understand why Paul spends the first eight chapters of Romans explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ. Being that these verses set the framework for all that follows, we are in our present study using them as the lens through which we examine the rest of the book of Romans. In this article, we will focus on principles found in this thesis statement that help us to understand why Paul teaches what he teaches in chapters 9-11.

Salvation to All without Distinction

First, the gospel proclamation began in Jerusalem and spread throughout all the known world (Acts 1:8; Col. 1:3-6). Not only is this true geographically, but Paul’s custom when he went from town to town was to preach the gospel first in the synagogues and, only after he was rejected by the Jews, he would turn and take the gospel the Gentiles (Acts 9:20; Acts 13:5, 13-52; 14:1-7; 17:1-9, 10-14, 16-17; 18:1-7, 19-21; 19:8-10).

Paul was not a Christian Zionist like many of the televangelists we see on TV today. He was not concerned with supporting his kinsmen with money, political power, and military might like so many politicians running for office today. Paul was concerned that his kinsmen according to the flesh be supported by the proclamation of the gospel, the planting of new churches, and the ministry of the Word. To bring the discussion home, a 21st century American Paul would not be so concerned to combat an intangible, unquantifiable notion of American systemic racism against his kinsmen according to the flesh as he would have been to see them saved from their sins and (as we will see in Romans 13) respect those whom God had put in authority over them so that they might lead quiet, peaceful lives..

Paul was so concerned to see his “kinsmen according to the flesh” come to salvation in their Messiah that he might have even wished himself “accursed, separated from Christ” for their sakes (Rom. 9:3; NASB). Paul loved the Jews, because ethnically-speaking he is a Jew. He had no desire, in the flesh, to see them forsaken on account of their disobedience for the eternal benefit of pagan Gentiles. To use modern American language, Paul was born into “covenant privilege,” and he did not feel the need to apologize for it in the least. He desired to see all, Jews and Gentiles, saved. Yet, he was willing to accept that the partial reprobation of Israel was the will of God for the salvation of all of God’s elect (Rom. 11:25-27).

One might expect that Paul’s love for his kinsmen according to the flesh would have derailed him on his mission as the apostle to the Gentiles. It did not. Paul was content with God’s sovereign decree, even if that decree meant that a large portion of the Jews would be broken off from the covenant tree. Afterall, who is he but a man (Rom. 9:19-20)?

This discussion of the Jews and Gentiles did not begin in Romans 9. Rather, Paul interweaves his discussion of this topic throughout his letter to the Romans, from chapter 2 all the way to chapter 11. From chapters 2 to 8, he addresses false notions Jews and Gentiles had of the law and the gospel. However, once he gets to chapter 9, he commits himself to addressing a very specific question regarding the application of the atonement:

In this Way

Second, the gospel spread as a result of a partial hardening of the Jews. If many of the Jews’ hearts were not hardened toward the gospel proclamation, the church might never have been persecuted, and the gospel might not have gone forth to the Gentiles (Acts 8:1-4; 11:19). It is this thread that weaves its way throughout the book of Romans. In addressing the gospel of Christ, Paul also sees fit to address the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, and he does so from several different angles.

It is for the sake of the gospel, not social justice, that racial barriers needed to be broken down between believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Jews were considered the minority culture in ancient Rome. They were looked upon as insurrectionists and trouble-makers. The Jews, on the other hand, saw themselves as religiously privileged, the people of promise. From a religious standpoint, the Jews looked down upon the Gentiles. From a cultural standpoint, the Gentiles looked down upon the Jews.

The first century gospel preacher had to forget all of these social stigmas. The Gentile-born Christian could not rightly look down upon the Jews, even if they were of the hardened segment of the Jews, the broken off branches. Likewise, the Hebrew-born Christians had no right to look down upon the Gentiles. As Christians, they had to accept that they were now engrafted into one new tree. They were brothers in Christ, regardless of the earthly families, tribes, or ethnicities into which they were born.

It simply would not do for Jewish Christians to emphasize their Jewishness in relation to their Gentile brothers. Nor would the church function properly if the Gentile Christians had emphasized their pagan cultures over that of their Jewish brothers. They had to come to see themselves as something altogether new, and new wine is not fit for old wineskins (Mk. 2:21-22). Compare Paul’s teaching on the newness of the Christian identity with another notion prevalent in our culture today:

“Malcolm X was the prophet of black rage primarily because of his great love for black people. His love was neither abstract nor ephemeral. Rather, it was a concrete connection with a degraded and devalued people in need of a psychic conversion. This is why Malcolm X’s articulation of black rage was not directed first and foremost at white America. Rather, Malcolm believed that if black people felt the love that motivated that rage the love would produce a psychic conversion in black people; they would affirm themselves as human beings, no longer viewing their bodies, minds, and souls through white lenses, and believing themselves of taking control of their own destinies,” (Cornel West, Race Matters. Beacon Press, Boston, 1993, pp. 95-96).

Earlier in his book, West describes a Nihilism that is present in much of black culture. Anyone who is familiar with 20th century philosophical structures will recognize that, in promoting this view of Malcolm X, West has just promoted a form of ethnic Existentialism as the philosophical answer to ethnic Nihilism. If one’s view of ethnic strife leads one to have a bleak view of ethnic strife, the answer for West seems to be to adopt a carpe diem approach to ethnic strife. One must become the captain of one’s own destiny.

The Bible does not promote this “Take charge!” approach to ethnic strife. It does not present us as the masters of our own destinies. Rather, we are called to see our brothers and sisters in Christ as just that: brothers and sisters. This approach takes much more courage than West’s ethnic Existentialism. In this approach, God is the Master of our destinies. Our job is merely to trust and obey.

It was as a result of, and for the sake of, the gospel that many hard-hearted Jews (not all Jews, mind you) were broken off from God’s one covenant tree and Gentiles were grafted in (Rom. 11:11-24). This was not an easy pill for Paul to swallow. It was not easy for Paul to see Gentiles as being grafted into the one covenant tree of Israel at the expense of his kinsmen according to the flesh. In his weaker moments, perhaps he might have been tempted to succumb to a form of ethnic Existentialism rather than humbly receiving his “brothers from another mother.” This was not the way, though, that all Israel would be saved. The gospel of Jesus Christ broke down ethnic barriers between Jews and Gentiles so that they were no longer two but one new tree in Christ! So it is that, in this way, all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:25-27).

In our next installment, we will focus on principles found in Paul’s thesis statement that help us to understand why Paul teaches what he teaches in chapters 12, 14-16.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: The Ministry of Paul, Part I

/ theroadofgrace / 21 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

______________________________________________________________

In the previous blog, we examined the public ministry of Peter and John in order to develop an understanding of the public theology presented in Acts. As most readers of this blog know, the primary figure in the narrative of Acts switches from Peter to Paul after Acts 13. In this blog, we will begin our discussion on the public theology of Paul as presented in Acts. In particular, we will focus on four events during Paul’s first and second missionary journeys.

Paul at Lystra

We begin by examining the events surrounding Paul’s first missionary journey with Barnabas. In Acts 14:8-18, Luke records the account of a lame man being healed by the hands of Paul (much like the healing of the lame beggar in Acts 3). However, the major difference between Acts 3 and Acts 14 was the audience. In Acts 3, Peter is largely addressing a Jewish audience who has the same essential worldview that he does; however, in this scene, Paul is addressing a Gentile audience whose worldview is thoroughly influenced by the religious pluralism of the Roman Empire. The miracle astounded the crowd and the crowd believed that Hermes and Zeus have appeared in the likeness of Paul and Barnabas, respectively (v. 11-12). This illustrates that the Lycaonians were not intellectual philosophers like the Athenians, Corinthians, or Romans. They were most likely simple villagers who gave a spontaneous instinctive response consistent with their adherence to Greek mythology and superstitions. Based on the belief of the crowd, the priest of Zeus brought animals to Paul and Barnabas (v. 13). As individuals who believed in strict monotheism, Barnabas and Paul found this to be blasphemous and idolatrous. Paul used this example of clear paganism and heathenism to preach to the crowds.

Paul directly confronts the Lycaonians by calling their gods, nothing more than vain idols (v. 15). Here, we see that the preaching of Christ directly conflicted with the religious worldview of the Lycaonians. In other words, Paul’s preaching confronts the idolatry of the Lycaonians and calls them to repentance. Instead of give obeisance to Zeus and the various other gods accepted in the Roman system, Paul calls them to turn to the living God – the Creator of all things (v. 15). Here, we see the general pattern of Paul’s message: the call to repentance and the call to faith in Christ.

Paul at Athens

Some readers may think that Paul’s approach to the Lycaonians is based upon the pretext that he is addressing a religiously primitive people, which would be very dissimilar to a 21st century post-Christian culture. When Paul enters Athens in Acts 17, he enters a city which is renowned for its learning, philosophy, and fine arts, which would be much more similar to our culture today. However, he also observes that the Athenians are functionally just as superstitious as the Lycaonians because the city was wholly given to idolatry and philosophical speculation. In other words, the Athenians fit the description of fallen man as described in Romans 1:22-23

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

As Paul observes the idolatry around him, his spirit was provoked within him, until he could not forbear to speak any longer (v. 16). He immediately begins to reason and debate with Jews, devout persons, philosophers, and all others who would hear him concerning Jesus and the resurrection (v. 17-18). When he was finally brought to the Areopagus, he now gets to opportunity to address the seat of the venerable supreme court of Athens.

First, he directly addresses their superstitions since they have an altar built to the “unknown god” (v. 22-23). Second, he proclaims to them the one, true living God as the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Third, he directly confronts their folly in believing that “the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.” (v. 29). In each of his points, Paul is directly assailing their worldview of the Athenians. He then calls them to repentance because of the testimony of the resurrection. In many respects, Paul’s commentary to the Athenians (who are known as highly educated and philosophically sophisticated) is not much different than his address to the simple Lycaonians.

Paul at Philippi

Not only did Paul’s proclamation of the gospel confront the idolatry of his day, but it also interrupted the commerce in the cities that he visited.

One of the first cities that Paul visits in his second missionary journey with Silas was Philippi. After receiving the Macedonian vision in Acts 16, he begins to preach the gospel in Philippi, which is a major city in Macedonia and a Roman colony. Paul initially preaches the gospel on the Sabbath to god-fearing women who had come together for a time of prayer and the Lord opened the eyes of Lydia in order to pay attention to what was said by Paul (v. 13-14). At this point, it appears that Paul’s preaching did not disrupt the normal activities of Philippi. However, Paul’s consistent preaching of the gospel in this town eventually interrupts commerce in the city.

While preaching in Philippi, Paul and Silas were met by a slave girl who possessed by an evil spirit. Because the slave girl was disrupting the preaching of the gospel, Paul commands the unclean spirit to come out of the girl. This is important for at least two reasons: (1) The casting out of evil spirits is evidence that the kingdom of God is present among the Philippians (cf. Luke 11:20) and (2) The slave girl was believed to have a spirit of divination, which implies that she brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling (cf. Acts 16:16). In other words, men could tolerate varieties of worship or the speculations of philosophers, but they were roused to madness by that which threatened their business. Consider Albert Barnes’ notes on this section:

The charge which they wished to substantiate was that of being disturbers of the public peace. All at once they became conscientious. They forgot the subject of their gains, and were greatly distressed about the violation of the laws. There is nothing that will make people more hypocritically conscientious than to denounce, and detect, and destroy their unlawful and dishonest practices. People who are thus exposed become suddenly filled with reverence for the Law or for religion, and they who have heretofore cared nothing for either become greatly alarmed lest the public peace should be disturbed. People slumber quietly in sin, and pursue their wicked gains; they hate or despise all law and all forms of religion; but the moment their course of life is attacked and exposed, they become full of zeal for laws that they would not themselves hesitate to violate, and for the customs of religion which in their hearts they thoroughly despise. Worldly-minded people often thus complain that their neighborhoods are disturbed by revivals of religion; and the preaching of the truth, and the attacking of their vices, often arouses this hypocritical conscientiousness, and makes them alarmed for the laws, and for religion, and for order, which they at other times are the first to disturb and disregard.  

Paul at Ephesus

The above commentary from Albert Barnes also explains the events which occurred during Paul’s missionary journey in Ephesus. When Paul arrived in Acts 19, he initially preached the gospel and the kingdom of God in the synagogue and due to the opposition of the Jews, he was forced to continue preaching in the hall of Tyrannus (v. 8-10). Unlike many other regions in which he traveled, Paul stayed in Ephesus for two years, which means that the Word of God (accompanied with various signs and miracles) went forth throughout the entire city for an extended period of time. God used the preaching of the Word to bring many of the Ephesians to faith (v. 21). At this point, there is no controversy concerning Christianity within Ephesus; however, as Luke narrates, a number of believers who formerly practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all (v. 18-20).

The preaching of the word of God not only affected the private lives of believers, but it also affected the local commerce in the area. In particular, the spread of Christianity in Ephesus affected the craftsmen who profited from religious pluralism of the day (v. 23-27). Consider Matthew Henry’s commentary of the section:

Persons who came from afar to pay their devotions at the temple of Ephesus, bought little silver shrines, or models of the temple, to carry home with them. See how craftsmen make advantage to themselves of people’s superstition, and serve their worldly ends by it. Men are jealous for that by which they get their wealth; and many set themselves against the gospel of Christ, because it calls men from all unlawful crafts, however much wealth is to be gotten by them. There are persons who will stickle for what is most grossly absurd, unreasonable, and false; as this, that those are gods which are made with hands, if it has but worldly interest on its side. The whole city was full of confusion, the common and natural effect of zeal for false religion.

The threat of the gospel to the business of the merchants eventually leads to a riot in Ephesus (v. 28-41).

Concluding Thoughts

What might we conclude about Paul’s interactions with the public on his first and second missionary journeys? First, we must realize, as Henry van Til famously quipped, that culture is religion externalized. In other words, the conscious or unconscious relationship to God in a man’s heart determines all of his activities, such as philosophy, morality, aesthetics, and other cultural activities. This means that we should observe the culture around us as it truly is – as implications of a society’s religious worldview.

Second, we should reject the notion that any culture (or sub-culture) is religiously neutral and we should engage and confront the people of any culture with Christian truth and the worldview that is consistent with Christian truth. Whether we live in a primitive culture (like the Lycaonians) or a philosophically sophisticated culture (like the Athenians), the preaching of Christ challenges all human cultures because ultimately all human cultures have the same existential problems, which is sin and depravity.

Third, we should note that when God transforms and saves any person, it does not simply affect one’s personal, private life, but it affects the whole person. In other words, we expect that when the word of God transforms the individuals inside of a culture, it cannot be fully contained within the private life of the individual, but rather it will affect his cultural activities and how he relates to a given culture. It’s important to note that Paul did not have to preach on all of the various cultural issues of his day in order for there to be discernible changes within a given culture (such as commerce within Philippi and Ephesus). Paul focused his attention on the preaching of Christ and it was through this preaching that the private life of individuals and the social life of various cities were changed. Therefore, we should not be naïve to believe that public opposition to Christianity is based purely upon philosophical or intellectual reasons. If Christians live in the Kingdom of man as salt and light, then it will have a direct effect on public affairs (with a direct emphasis on dishonest businesses).

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part III)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 26 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

Discontinuity

As we continue in our examination of the life and teaching of our incarnate Lord, let us recall the fact that Christ’s primary mission was not that of social change. Rather, His primary goal was that of redeeming His bride (the church). However, given the fact that His bride is a multi-ethnic and multi-national bride, this work of redemption came with some very real implications for public theology because of some very real discontinuities with God’s former dealings with His covenant people.

Christ-centric Worship

The first among these discontinuities was the change of worship from being ethnocentric (for the Jews only) and geocentric (in Zion only) to being Christ-centric. Consider our Lord’s interaction with the woman at the well:

“The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth,’” (John 4:19-24; NASB).

In moving the center of worship from a people group or a location, our Lord mobilized the gospel. It was no longer a fixed temple, but was now a movable tabernacle. It was no longer bound up within borders and bloodlines, but now extended into the far reaches of the earth and was made effectual for saving men of all stripes. The church was now poised to penetrate through the barriers erected in relationships between Jew and Greek (ethnicity), slave and free, male and female (Gal. 3:28), and even Greeks and barbarians (tribes, tongues, and nationalities; see Rom. 1:14). The fact that our worship of God is Christ-centric rather than ethnocentric or geocentric will help us to make sense of the public theology of the apostles as we move forward in our study.

The CredoCovenant

Another shackle that our Lord shook off in order to mobilize the church was that of unbelievers within the covenant community. Christ interacted with many a Jewish leader who had been born Jewish, who could doubtless trace their genealogies back to kings and prophets, and who had doubtless received the covenant sign as an infant. Yet, He referred to them as whitewashed tombs. Why? Because of their unbelief. God’s people are marked by their belief in Christ, not their bloodlines, their ethnicities, or their nationalities. Jesus did not say, “Permit the children to come to the baptismal waters.” Rather, He said, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all,” (Mk. 10:14-15; NASB).

As Christians, our public theology should start in the home. We are daily to bring our children to Christ and bid them repent and believe on the Lord, for it is only those such as believe who are truly in the New Covenant community.

“‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more,’” (Jer. 31:33-34; NASB).

This is one reason Reformed Baptists see no inconsistency with our view of the Covenant and family worship. We are bid by our Lord to permit our children to come to Him in the hopes that, in so doing, they will receive the kingdom of God. It is no different than Presbyterians who allow unbelievers to enter their public worship in the hopes that, singing the hymns and hearing the preached word, they might “receive the kingdom of God like a child.” And having received the kingdom of God, “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.” Every member a believer, our Covenant is a CredoCovenant.

One New Man

Belief is the entrance into the Covenant not only for children, but also for the world. Let us recall that a dividing wall once existed between Jew and Gentile, the circumcision and the “uncircumcision,” those who were near and those who were far off (Eph. 2:11-18). Through faith, the two have become one new man, the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16-17; 28-29), one tree comprised of both natural and engrafted branches (Rom. 11:16-24).

This teaching did not begin with the apostles. It was there in seed form in the ministry of Christ. Already, in the earthly ministry of our Lord, He was breaking down barriers between ethnicities for the furtherance of His gospel. This point is important. Christ did not break down cultural barriers for the sake of mere social reform. Christ broke down cultural barriers for the sake of expanding His kingdom in a lost and dying world.

This is one reason the fixation on the part of many Dispensationalists on Jesus’ ethnicity is so disturbing. They make much of the fact that Jesus was of Jewish descent, but that gets the order of precedence backward. The Messiah does not get His identity from the Jews; rather, the Jews were meant to find their identity in the Messiah.

Christ Breaking Down Barriers

The woman at the well understood this fact. When Christ demolished the idea of geocentric worship, telling her that the time had come when men would worship in spirit and truth rather than on this mountain or that mountain, her thoughts automatically went to the Messiah:

“The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’
Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He,’” (John 4:25-26; NKJV).

Even a half-breed Samaritan woman of questionable morals understood that discontinuity would accompany the coming Messiah. In this one interaction, Christ breaks down geocentric, ethnocentric, and gender barriers. It is no surprise that Christ’s disciples were baffled to find him talking alone with a woman upon their return from the village, let alone a Samaritan “dog.”

Tellingly, this was not the only instance in which Christ broke down barriers between ethnicities in His teaching and practice. It was a major point of the parable of the Prodigal Son, which very interestingly parallels the book of Jonah (Lk. 15:11-32; cf. Jon. 4:1-11). It was also a major point in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37). We also see Christ making much of the ethnicity of a Canaanite mother of the demon-possessed girl just before he praises her for her great faith (Mt. 15:21-28).

Jesus did not have to cast out her daughter’s demons, nor did He have to heal the centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5-13). “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places,” (Ps. 135:6; NKJV). It pleased Christ to shake the cultural foundations of the ancient world in order that the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile might crumble and men and women of every tribe, tongue, and nation might become one new man in Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

Given the discontinuities we have cited, God’s people do not fight to establish His kingdom on this earth. That is not to say that we do not work within our individual spheres of influence to effect change in this world, but our national allegiance is now other-worldly. We are like the exiles of the Old Testament. We have gone from a geocentric, ethnocentric worship to a worship that looks to the new heavens and the new earth where we will worship with the saints triumphant from every tribe, tongue, and nationality, and where we will see God face-to-face, and He will walk among His people.

Our place here today is to spread the gospel and to see that as many as possible receive the kingdom of God. Thus, we must strive to use the Law to prick the consciences of the lost and to prepare them, as a tutor, for the work of the gospel on their hearts. Thus, our marching orders are to take both the Law and the Gospel into a lost and dying world that the Spirit might convict them through the Law and convince them by the Gospel.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part II)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 26 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

Continuity

As we consider the life and teaching of our incarnate Lord, let us keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that Christ’s primary mission was not that of social change. Rather, His primary goal was that of redeeming His bride (the church). However, given the fact that His relationship with His bride is a covenant relationship, this work of redemption came with some very real implications for Covenant Theology.

Whether referring to the saints of the Old or of the New Testament, 17th century Particular Baptists designated them the Church. The radical divide presented in Dispensationalism between ethnic, national Israel and the Church would not only have been absolutely foreign to our Particular Baptist forefathers. It would have been downright abhorrent. Insofar as the saints of the Old Testament period believed on Yahweh alone for their righteous standing before God, they were truly circumcised of the heart.

Continuity through General Equity

There was no sense, in the Old Testament, in which man was saved by the Law or in which he could merit his own salvation. There were consequences built into the civil law that provided for the regulation of proper conduct within God’s covenant community then just as there are consequences built into the New Testament policy of church discipline for the regulation of proper conduct within God’s covenant community today. Whether it was a matter of corporal punishment in the nation of Israel or excommunication from the ranks of the New Covenant church, the requirement of three or more witnesses is the same.

As such, our incarnate Lord made clear that the Civil Law of national Israel was given as a shadow of the greater reality of church discipline in Christ. In this sense, Christ did not abolish the Civil and Ceremonial Law so much as make application from them to local congregations. In so doing, Christ did not use the greater reality of national Jewish law to point to shadows in the New Covenant church. Rather, the Civil and Ceremonial Laws were given as shadows in order that they might highlight the greater reality of church discipline in Christ. This is the Reformation principle known as “general equity.” The letter of the Old Covenant law is no longer binding on the Christian church, but the eternal, moral principles behind them are.

“To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use,” (The Baptist Confession, 19.4).

Why, though, does church discipline exist? Church discipline exists in order that Christ may present His bride to His Father as pure, spotless, and without blemish. This is not to say that we will be sinlessly perfect in this life. We will not obtain perfection until glory. However, it does mean that we will be distinguished from the world.

God’s Set Apart People

One of the reasons Israel was given the Civil and Ceremonial Laws was to distinguish her from the surrounding nations. They were told that they were to be different from the nations around them who sacrificed their children to their false gods (Lev. 20:2-5). In giving them this instruction, Moses did not assume that Israel would automatically be enticed to go and sacrifice their babies to Molech. Rather, it would be over time, as they allowed for more and more syncretism over the years, they would eventually find little difference between them and their pagan neighbors, even sacrificing their babies on the altar (1Kgs. 11:7; 2Kgs. 23:10; Jer. 32:35).

In the same way, one of the reasons church discipline has been given to the church is to distinguish her from the world. “Therefore ‘Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you,’” (2Cor. 6:17; NKJV). Our Lord told His disciples that the world would hate them just as they hated Him (John 15:18). An essential mark of Christ’s disciples is that they will be set apart (sanctified) from the world. Christ’s true disciples will be distinguished by a Bible-centered worldview (John 17:17).

As such, the social ills that plague our society (e.g. racism, chauvinism, divorce, etc.) ought all to be issues addressed in church discipline. We are not here calling for the knee-jerk excommunication of such as commit these sins. Rather, we are calling for the biblical practice of church discipline to be applied in these cases.

Biblical Church Discipline

The biblical practice of church discipline is four-fold. It starts with what has come to be known as formative church discipline. That is the discipline of the Spirit applied to the hearts and minds of church members as they sit under the regular preaching of God’s word. Of course, if the Spirit is to discipline His people through the preached word on these matters, pastors have a duty to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This means that, where opportunity arises in the text to address racism, chauvinism, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc., pastors must seize these opportunities and emphasize the biblical standard in their preaching of the word.

Where sins of this nature persist within the body in spite of the preached word, they must be addressed in a much more personal space. The Bible regularly exhorts the body toward personal admonition (Rom. 15:14; Col. 3:16; 2Thess. 3:15; Tit. 2:4; 3:10). According to our Lord, there are three phases to personal admonition: (1) go to your brother in private and, if he listens to you, you have won your brother; (2) if he does not listen to you, take another brother with you so that, by the word of two or more witnesses, every matter may be established; and (3) if he still does not listen to you, take the matter before the church (see Mt. 18:15-20).

We must remember, anytime we discuss church discipline, that it was given for the purity of the church. Again, the church is to be pure; the church is to be set apart from the world. As such, as we have already stated, the world will hate us.

God’s Hated People

Of course, God’s people have always been hated by the world. We have always been hated, because we have always been set apart by His word (John 17:14, 17). We have also been hated because of the work of the devil. Our Lord told the Jewish leaders of His day that they were of their father: the devil (John 8:44). It was because the Jewish leaders were sons of Satan, the brood of vipers (Mt. 3:7), that they murdered the prophets (Mt. 23:29-36). In the same way, our Lord told His disciples that they would be dragged before rulers by the Jewish leaders of their day (Mt. 5:11-12; 23:34).

Does this mean that we are to shun the Jews and the world at large? Should we retreat into monasteries never to be heard from again? No. Rather, our Lord gave us a commission to be His witnesses “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth,” (Acts 1:8b; NASB). Through the book of Acts and the epistles we will see, both in practice and in teaching, that the apostles had a heart for both the Jews and the Gentiles. They both taught and practiced taking the gospel “to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” (Rom. 1:16b; NASB). It was through the incremental expansion of God’s covenant people into every tribe, tongue, and nation, as seen in Acts, that God broke down the dividing wall of hostility that once existed between God’s Israelite covenant people and the nations around them (Eph. 2:11-22). In the same way, the world will hate us as long as their hearts remain unchanged by the gospel.

We will conclude in our next post by examining the discontinuities between the two epochs divided by our Lord’s incarnation.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part I)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 29 Comments

I realize it’s been a while since our last post on Public Theology. That’s because it was agreed ahead of time that I’d do this next series and, with two full-time jobs and a young family, anything from me will be slow coming. Enough about me, though. You can read the last post in this series here, or just pick up in your reading below. Enjoy.

Introduction

In the last two posts in our series on public theology, we examined the approaches to public theology employed by two notable prophets: John the Baptist and Amos. There are many approaches to the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Some argue for more radical discontinuity between the two epochs than others. Regardless of what approach we take to entering this discussion, Reformed Baptists must not deny the the existence of discontinuity between them.

For instance, Reformed Baptists overwhelmingly affirm the cessation of the theocratic relationship between God and the ethnic, geographically-identified nation of Israel (see The Baptist Confession, 19.4). With the cessation of this relationship, Gentiles were grafted into the covenant community of God and men ceased worshipping God “on this mountain or that mountain,” worshipping Him instead in truth and in spirit (John 4:19-24). This was certainly a massive shift. God’s people went from a covenant nation comprised of both believers and unbelievers primarily of one particular ethnicity and nationality to covenant communities (churches) comprised only of believers (a credocovenant relationship) from all ethnic groups and nations. The question is whether this shift simultaneously represented a shift in approach to public theology. Certainly, it must have.

In the remainder of our posts, we will attempt to determine the nature and extent of the shift in public theology that occurred between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the next two posts, we will look to our incarnate Lord and His approach to public theology while on this earth. Particularly, we will examine His approach to public theology during the period known as His incarnation.

First, we must recognize the fact that Christ, in the New Testament, is distinguished from His forerunners. He was different from the prophets who preceded Him.

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Hebrews 1:1-2; NASB).

Though Christ was different from the prophets that preceded Him, we also recognize that Christ came as the antitypical Prophet, Priest, and King. By this, we mean that the prophets, priests, and kings of Israel were types of the Christ to come. They foreshadowed Him in the roles they filled within the nation of Israel. As such, the roles to which they were called, and the laws governing those roles, point to the role Christ was to play. Hence, the author of Hebrews writes, “God. . . in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.”

This assertion is of paramount importance. The God of Israel, the immutable God of the Holy Scriptures, the God who spoke through the prophets of old, is the same God who spoke to us through His Son Jesus Christ. We must assume, then, that there must be some great continuity between the prophets and the Prophet. In the next two posts, we will examine both: the continuity and the discontinuity.

Cultural Footprints in Public Discourse

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

Take a brief moment today to consider name-calling as a rhetorical device. Most of us would agree that it is disgusting when a person calls another person a name simply for the purpose of stigmatizing his or her ideas. This is a terrible approach to debate and dialogue. It may work to solidify opposition among the less astute, but it is nonetheless little more than mud-slinging. Not every use of names can be reduced to mud-slinging, though.

We would do well to recognize that many very historical names leave behind massive cultural footprints. Granted, sometimes people can be falsely charged as Marxists, Pelagians, Hitlers, and the like. However, to evoke one of these names—and myriad others—in a spirited debate, is not necessarily reducible to mud-slinging. In fact, oftentimes, when we reduce the use of these historical names in the cultural dialogue to mere mud-slinging, we run headlong into the error of denying cultural footprints and we demonstrate that we are ignorant of history.

For instance, a person who has studied church history should be very aware of the Pelagian debate where Augustine asserted that men must be enabled by God to do what He requires us to do. Pelagias responded that God would not require anything of us that we are incapable of accomplishing. When some professors and seminary presidents respond to Calvinists with the same line of argumentation and, subsequently, they are told they are making Pelagian arguments, they will often accuse their brothers of mud-slinging. By accusing Calvinists of mud-slinging, simply because they did not (directly) receive their argumentation from Pelagius himself, they deny Pelagius’ cultural footprint and / or demonstrate that they are ignorant of a major debate in church history.

Likewise, a person who has studied political history should be very aware of the Marxist debate where Marx and Engels asserted that a narrative must be forwarded that pits oppressors against oppressed so that a one-world communist utopia could arise. Marx and Engels primarily focused on economics, but they were also for the toppling of other institutions as well, like the family and the church. For them, any destabilization would lead ultimately to revolution, and revolution could only make possible the rise of their desired utopia.

So, when Christian leaders start to smuggle this language of oppressor and oppressed into the church, the idea of a power struggle between classes even within God’s church, some have rightly called them on the use of a Marxist tactic. Yet, predictably, they claim that this recognition of Marxism is nothing more than mud-slinging. By accusing their detractors of mud-slinging, simply because they do not (directly) receive their argumentation from Marx and Engels, they deny Marx’s and Engel’s cultural footprints and / or demonstrate that they are ignorant of a major debate in political history.

Conclusion

The next time someone uses a name you consider to be very negative to describe your position, try not to respond with a knee-jerk reaction and accuse them of mud-slinging. Rather, ask them why they make that connection. You may have imbibed a cultural footprint of which you are unaware. You may have a blind spot in your understanding of history. The other person may have a very valid reason for the connection he or she is making and, if he or she doesn’t, you can offer a more gentle correction than merely accusing him or her of mudslinging.

Repost: Why Publicly Contend for Christian Morality?

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

I found this article, today, that I originally posted all the way back in 2011. It’s the earliest original article I posted on CredoCovenant, and it pretty much summarizes the reason for my participation in the current Public Theology series. As such, I thought it was worth a repost. Enjoy.

____________________________

In the subculture of evangelicalism I inhabit, the issue of publicly contending for Christian morality (i.e. abortion, the definition of marriage, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” etc.) surfaces from time to time. There seems to be basically two camps: those for it and those against it. On the surface, I tend to agree with many of the arguments made by those who are against making a public defense of the moral claims of the Bible. They say it detracts from our focus on the gospel. They say that it can often stem from post-millennial idealism. They say that it makes us look silly to a world that already hates us for the gospel. On the surface, I can agree with all of these arguments. However, allow me to offer some arguments for the other side in response:

  1. The gospel does not make sense apart from conviction of sin, and there is no conviction of sin in a society where the church is by-and-large silent on moral issues in the public sector.
  2. To want a better society for one’s children, and to want to see people live according to the precepts of Scripture, does not automatically make that one a post-millennialist.
  3. The authors of Scripture spent more time defending the moral assertions of the Bible than they did defending the epistemological assertions of the Bible. Think about it.
  4. The law and the gospel are not diametrically opposed to one another, but rather God uses both to bring people to repentance and faith. The problem comes when one is shared without the other.
  5. Throughout church history, church leaders have contended for biblical morality in their cultural settings.
  6. Someone’s worldview will be the current that drives the culture. Why not Christianity’s?

Gospel Issues: An Open Letter to Western Evangelicals

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

With a small amount of interest, I have occasionally turned my gaze on the provocative happenings in the world of Evangelicalism. Just to be fair, by a very loose definition, I would be considered an Evangelical, though I prefer the term Protestant or, even better, Reformed Baptist. Read me right, though. I’m not bashing the movement. As one whose hope is set intently on the inheritance being kept for me, which works to embolden my faith in Christ Jesus, I have a love and fervent concern for all the saints (Col. 1:3-5). However, I grow weary when exposed too long to the internet sensationalism surrounding much of Western Evangelicalism. I trust that many of our readers can relate.

Gospel Minimalism

Evangelicals, at the very least, are marked by a central concern for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By this definition of Evangelicalism, I consider myself among the fold. However, many in recent days have taken to a minimalistic practice of Evangelicalism in which Christians are encouraged to focus almost exclusively on the Gospel, with very little emphasis on other very important doctrines in the Christian faith. Within this same fold are those who, wanting to minimize all non-Gospel issues as far secondary, have taken to labeling every issue under the sun a “Gospel issue.” So, they minimize all Christian doctrine that is not the Gospel while, at the same time, broadening the Gospel so that it encompasses far more than what the Bible teaches.

This is an understandable position to take if you are a Gospel-minimalist. If all issues are unimportant, or of minimal significance, unless they touch the Gospel in some way, you must demonstrate how any issue that is important to you touches the Gospel. As a result, Gospel-minimalists seem to be bending over backward to demonstrate how their pet issues are Gospel-issues. This hermeneutical technique requires such interpretive gymnastics in order to arrive at the intended conclusions that it can easily leave onlookers’ heads reeling.

I’m not arguing that the issues in question shouldn’t come under the umbrella and influence of the Gospel. They should, and all issues in that sense are Gospel-issues. Everything for the Christian, to a certain degree, is subject to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether we’re talking about race relations, the environment, gun control, taxes, family life, work, etc., etc., etc., the Gospel impacts every area of life. The problem arises when someone comes to endorse one particular solution to one of these issues—a solution that is not the direct result of their study of the Gospel—and then they claim that, because the issue itself is a “Gospel-issue,” Christians must without exception adopt the same solution to addressing the issue that they do.

Gospel-Issues or Gospel-Solutions

This line of argumentation fails to account for certain very important nuances within the Christian community. To say that racism is a Gospel-issue is not an incorrect statement. However, to say that only one approach to alleviating the church of racism is the correct “Gospel” approach is dishonest at the very least. Nor is it incorrect to say that orphans and widows are a Gospel-issue. However, to say that others don’t have a proper handle on the Gospel because they are convinced of the merits of a different solution than you is disingenuous at best.

The difference is a categorical difference. Simply because a brother in Christ has a different approach to solving the problem, which you both recognize as a problem, does not mean that he doesn’t recognize the implications the Gospel brings to bear on that issue. Rather, it means that his culture, his education and, more generally, his life experiences bring him to vastly different conclusions as to how to solve this Gospel-issue.

The issue itself is a Gospel-issue insofar as all things in the life of the Christian touch the Gospel at some point. However, the approach to solving it may not be shaped by the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel message itself often offers no practical, “how-to” solutions for the woes of society. It simply exposes them as woes in the minds and consciences of believers. The Gospel will often compel us to act without giving us the necessary guidelines on how to act in every particular instance.

Gospel Zeal

For instance, we understand that the two Great Commandments teach us to love God and love our neighbor. As a result of the regenerating work of the gospel and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians are now enabled to recognize where we need to grow in our love for God and love for neighbor, and we are now enabled to act out of love for God and love for our neighbor. The grace of God makes us zealous for good deeds (Tit. 2:11-14), but zeal without reason is foolhardy.

Christians are to temper our zeal with sound judgment. The gospel and the grace it bears emboldens Christians with a godly zeal necessary to live lives that are pleasing to our Father in heaven. However, without the tools for navigating the nuances of cultural discernment, many of us will fall into pitfalls and commit our Gospel-fueled zeal to unprofitable ends. We recognize that the Gospel emboldens us to take action and be “salt and light” in the world, so we ride off into battle without the proper weapons and armor of our warfare.

As a result, we call for action that does the opposite of what we intend. We don’t rightly understand economics, so we call for actions on the part of the government that we think help the poor when really they are the very things doing them the most harm. We don’t rightly understand the best means for preserving human life, so we call for measures to be put in place by the government that we think will minimize violent crimes and death, but those very measures make people more vulnerable to violent criminals and devalues human life. We don’t rightly understand the biblical teaching on ethnicity, so we call for measures from state and church authorities that encourage deeper divisions rather than promoting unity across ethnicities. And those are just three issues of concern.

The Gospel Hammer

Worst of all, many who promote these counter-productive solutions seek to reinforce their arguments for them by appealing to the Gospel. They (rightly) recognize that every Christian must come under the shadow of the cross when considering the issue about which they are concerned. Subsequently, they recognize that this issue touches the Gospel, in one way or another, the moment a Christian comes to consider it. Wrongly, though, they assume that their approach must be the only Gospel-centered approach to solving their issue.

This approach to addressing issues within our cultures and within our local churches has an undercurrent of gracelessness. It assumes, “If someone else’s approach to solving this Gospel-issue is different than mine, this person is not as Gospel-centered as I am.” Allow me to play the role of peacemaker, here, and call for a little more Christian charity and mercy in regard to these issues.

Simply because someone recognizes the Gospel compels us to act on an issue does not make their subsequent action necessarily right. Just because someone disagrees with your action when you were the first to point out the fact that the problem at hand is a Gospel-issue does not mean the person in question is not Gospel-centered. You don’t have the right to use the Gospel as a hammer to bash your brother in the faith simply because he endorses a different solution to the problem you both recognize. So allow me to call for a moratorium.

A Call for Gospel Grace

Let’s stop saying issues are Gospel-issues, as though not all issues should come under the authority of the cross in the Christian life. Let’s recognize that all issues to one degree or another are Gospel-issues, which means none of them are Gospel-issues in the way Western Evangelicals use (more appropriately: abuse) the term. Let’s stop telling Christians they have to endorse the exact same solutions we do, or they aren’t Gospel-centered enough. The world is more nuanced than that.

We should feel free to point out problems in our world, but then we should be humble enough to ask, “What can be done about this?” rather than shouting one another down when we have difficulty arriving at a consensus. Wasn’t it our Savior who said: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy”? Let’s endeavor to show one another a little more mercy. Let’s stop using the Gospel as a hammer to bash one another when we disagree on how to solve problems. Rather, let’s commit to listen to one another, pray, submit ourselves to the Gospel, educate ourselves so we can make the most informed decision possible, and commit to following our consciences in the zeal God has granted us by His grace.

Soli Deo Gloria