Thought Question for the Day

I’m at home sick today and spending more time than I ought reading blogs.

Anyway, Darryl Hart had a very penetrating question on his blog today: “Is neo-Calvinism proximately responsible for the triumph of bad taste and poor music in Reformed churches?”

…or, for that matter, in many evangelical churches?

Read the whole thing here.

Follow-Up on Evangelical Secondary Separation

In November last year I asked you, the readers, a couple of questions about conservative evangelicalism and what any given conservative evangelical would have to change before ecclesiastical fellowship could ensue.

The response was not overwhelming, but the persistent answer was that secondary separation was the critical issue. Specifically, he needed to either purge or withdraw from alliances that include believers who grant Christian recognition to people who are demonstrably not Christians. The particular concern in view was James MacDonald, a founding member of the Gospel Coalition, who insisted on calling a oneness Pentecostal by the label brother. Today the news came out that James MacDonald has withdrawn from the Gospel Coalition.

Nowhere is it communicated by this statement or by those who accepted the resignation that MacDonald was "forced out," nor is there any statement of censure. If these occurred, they were private in nature, and as such can at best be inferred. This will no doubt be a stumbling block to some. But let me ask the questions anyway: (1) Is this secondary separation? And, as a follow-up, (2) what more would you, the reader, require in order to pave the way for fellowship?

Christianity and Rawlsianism

As a Baptist and proponent of the two-kingom model of civil engagement I believe strongly in the separation of Church and State. But I don't believe in the separation of religion and state. In fact, I don't believe in the separation of religion from anything. While there is undoubtedly a civic sphere answerable immediately to Caesar and an ecclesiastical sphere answerable immediately to Christ, there truly is “not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry out: ‘Mine!’” (Kuyper). Everything that a person does in life is a testimony to whether or not he believes this fact, i.e., whether or not he fully embraces Christian religion. Political theory cannot be excepted from this rule.

While evangelicals have historically tended to vote as something of a conservative block, the idea of an evangelical "right" has been slowly eroding. Part of this is surely due to the fact that economic and foreign policies rather than social policies are "trending" right now. But even when one looks strictly at social concerns, the consistently evangelical right is disappearing. Two key issues seem to be feeding this trend: (1) abortion fatigue and (2) a considerable uptick in concern about social justice. About the former I can say nothing except that we simply cannot afford to become fatigued into ambivalence about the consent to and even advocacy of infanticide. I realize that in this election cycle "it's the economy, stupid." But it's hard to imagine how any issue can possibly ever eclipse mass murder of the helpless such that it becomes an ancillary issue.

But this post isn't about abortion. This post is about the second factor: social justice. The Bible is, of course, replete with divine expectations of justice, and at first blush, the political left seems far more attuned to this concern than is the political right. In fact, the genius of American political liberalism, expressed most neatly (perhaps) in John Rawls's Theory of Justice, is that the purpose of human government is to enforce "justice as fairness" in every sphere of life. To this end, society must be structured to attend to the most disadvantaged in society, irrespective (for Rawls at least) of the circumstances of their disadvantage. No greater good exists in society than equity or fairness, and the best government is the one that most successfully facilitates such fairness. In this model, the highest form of societal evil is for the socially advantaged to (1) refuse to share their wealth with the disadvantaged or to (2) discriminate in the sharing of their wealth. This is the prevailing political theory undergirding, for instance, the "Occupy" Movement.

Surely, no one wants to be perceived as an opponent of social justice. But here's the thing. Not everyone who champions social justice, and Rawls most especially, is championing the kind of social justice promoted in the Christian Scriptures. Note the following:

(1) Rawlsianism misdefines justice. The biblical concept of justice is not fairness/equity, but the establishment of moral rectitude in keeping with God's holy and revealed standard--a standard that almost immediately informs us that social welfare is not a matter of moral right, but of common grace. It is never truly deserved and is at times even inappropriate (after all, if an [able-bodied] man will not work, he should not eat--2 Thess 3:10), though select circumstances render it both appropriate and good.

(2) Rawlsianism offers an inadequate standard for justice. Rawls claims that the principles of justice are chosen from behind a "veil of ignorance," and represent the consensus of the "reasonable" from a "fair position." Of peculiar interest here is Rawls's insistence that private religion is a primary obstacle to social justice. For Rawls, the best politician is the one who can most completely excise private religion from his political theory. While Rawls is not opposed to "reasonable" religion (i.e., religion that can be normed by independent, socio-cultural standards), he sees "unreasonable" religion (which I most ardently and unapologetically practice) as one of the greatest enemies of justice. This is a serious problem for any true believer.

(3) In keeping with the previous point, Rawlsianism tends to deflect attention away from other biblically prescribed social structures such as the family and the church, vesting government with the social responsibilities that previously belonged to these other structures. As such, Rawlsianism actually tends to undermine the explicitly stated NT purposes for government, viz., to establish an environment in which "we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Tim 2:2) and to, according to divine standards of righteousness, "punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right" (1 Pet 2:14).

(4) Rawlsianism confuses ontological equality with economic equity. While all mankind are created equally in God's image and have intrinsically identical worth (ontological equality), this does not mean that all share identity of station in life (economic equity). As nothing less than the Trinitarian arrangement informs us, there is no injustice in economic inequality. In fact, it is a necessary part of every orderly society.

(5) Finally, Rawlsianism operates on the presupposition of the goodness of man. The very idea that man can be expected to be rightly "reasonable" apart from dependence (witting or unwitting) upon the Christian worldview is absurd. Depraved man's tendency is always to exchange the truth of God for a lie.

I hasten to add here that this is not an argument for absolutely free capitalism. Untethered capitalism fares no better than Rawlsianism in the matter of depravity, creating a certain vulnerability to private oppression just as surely as Rawlsianism creates a certain vulnerability to public oppression. We cannot afford to be blind to this fact. More troubling still is libertarianism, which foolishly ignores human fallenness and pretends that government is therefore unnecessary. As Paul clearly opines, we cannot hope for moral rectitude to prevail in society without secular governors functioning (unwittingly at times) as "ministers of God for good" (Rom 13:4). Ironically, however, the presence of government, itself a manifestation of common grace, can effectively stifle other operations of common grace if it exceeds its biblical purposes.

This is by no means an argument for any particular candidate in either primary or general election. I can honestly say that I am still somewhat undecided at this point. What I am saying is that for the believer, politics cannot possibly be thought of as an activity independent of one's Christian worldview. Voting is no less a religious discipline than is preaching. And it is high time we realize it.

Back from Overseas

Just got back yesterday from two weeks overseas. Thanks for all who prayed. Sorry about the silence. Happily I missed the Tebow 316-yard performance against my Steelers (which some likened to John 3:16). Instead I saw his 136-yard performance against New England, which undoubtedly should be connected with Matthew 13:6: "But when the sun rose they were scorched, and since they had no root they withered away." Which tells you what I really think about the hermeneutics of Tebowmania.

For what I think about the apologetics of Tebowmania, see this.

Sorry, that's all I have today. Just went 36 hours without sleep!

"He Had to Be Made Like His Brothers in Every Way."

Also posted at our new Detroit Baptist Seminary blog, Theologically Driven 

My pre-Christmas series on the virgin birth focused on preserving (1) the preincarnate divine personhood of Christ and (2) his impeccability. But the virgin birth also guaranteed that Jesus would be fully man as well. Christ was tempted at every point like as we are, with only one exception—unlike us he had no sin nature (Heb 4:15): Christ as God did not and could not have sinned. But apart from this exception, Jesus was "made like his brothers in every way"; indeed, the author of Hebrews can countenance nothing less (2:17).

Surely, we exclaim, there must be some additional exception to this statement! But as we look at the proposed exceptions, none seems to meet the test of Scripture:

• Some suggest that Christ never got sick. But the author of Hebrews says that Christ was acquainted with our weaknesses (Heb 4:15). His earthly body was not glorified until after the Resurrection, and his vital connection with Mary would suggest that his body broke down just as ours from the effects of hunger, thirst, disease, and injury. There is no reason to think that he had any sort of “super-immunity” to shield him from these things. And when his body was subjected to the torture of the Passion, his horribly battered body ultimately stopped working: he died. We must insist, of course, that he had no personal sin or imputed guilt, but this does not mean that he escaped the inherited effects of sin on the human race in general.

• Some suggest that Christ never suffered the effects of clumsiness and was always perfectly efficient in all that he did. But this does not follow either. Like the rest of us he tripped and stumbled as he learned to walk. In the carpenter’s shop, he did not at first hit all his nails squarely, and perhaps even struck his thumb or forefinger on occasion. That’s an ordinary part of learning, and there is no reason to think that he escaped this process of maturation (Luke 2:52). Surely he developed a healthy work ethic, but there is no reason to believe that he was anything more than an ordinary, hard-working carpenter’s apprentice (Isa 53:3–4).

• Others have suggested that his body and blood were constitutively different from ours and even “divine” in nature—that there was something in their physical properties that made them intrinsically more capable of atoning for sin. But Hebrews 2:17 tells us that the palpable reason why Christ was able to make atonement for sin is his absolute identification with his brothers. His blood atoned not because of its constitutive superiority, but because of the sinlessness of the person who spilled it. In fact, if his body and blood are constitutively different from ours, his death does not help us at all. Our very redemption is jeopardized if we confound the divine and human natures of Christ.

One might look at the points above with consternation and conclude that I am denigrating the greatness of our Lord Christ by humanizing him overly much. On the contrary, Paul teaches us that the degree of Christ’s exaltation is coordinate with and dependent on the degree of his humiliation:

      [Christ Jesus], being in very nature God,

            did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
      advantage;

      rather, he made himself nothing

            by taking the very nature of a servant,

            being made in human likeness.

      And being found in appearance as a man,

            he humbled himself

            by becoming obedient to death—

            even death on a cross!

      Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

            and gave him the name that is above every name,

      that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

            in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

      and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

            to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:6–11).

The Virgin Birth and the Christian Faith--Part 3

I wasn't planning to do a "part 3" on the virgin birth, but a recent kerfuffle in the blogosphere has raised an interesting concern that my previous posts have ignored. While I've been intent on addressing the secular/modernist concern that says too little about the virgin birth, I've neglected another class of religious thinkers, viz., those who say too much about the virgin birth--and sometimes with serious implications. Note the following:

•       As the link above reports, some suggest that any genetic connection of Christ with human parents would destroy his sinlessness, and thus propose that God inserted a "fully formed zygote cell" into Mary such that Christ "didn't inherit anything from either Mary or Joseph." Mary as such becomes nothing more than a surrogate mother of an alien humanoid that has no real solidarity with the human race. Were this the case, Christ's sinlessness would surely be preserved, but a crucial purpose of the incarnation would be jeopardized, viz., the solidarity of Christ with humanity necessary to redeeming it (so Rom 5, Heb 2, etc.). This is a troubling concern.

•       Others, noting this tension, suggest that when Christ's mother Mary became "full of grace," she was miraculously rendered sin-free sometime prior to Christ's conception, thereby insulating her child from sin. This Roman Catholic solution, however, leads to other tensions, most notably that Mary becomes a co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix with Christ in direct violation of the NT Scriptures (1 Tim 2:5-6, etc.). See a recent post by Bill Combs that addresses this concern.

•       Others erroneously suggest that Christ is saved from sinlessness because he was born of a woman only, and not of a man. The suggestion here seems to be that while women may be infected by sin, only men are "carriers" of the "sin gene." This is a popular (and clever) theory, but it rests on little by way of biblical support.  

•       Others, more reasonably, find it necessary for the Holy Spirit to miraculously block the transmission of sin from Mary by a miracle additional to that of the virgin birth. While this proposal is plausible, I am not convinced it is necessary. Since sin and guilt are predicated of persons and not of natures, it seems reasonable to suggest that Christ's preincarnate person (room for which is provided by the virgin birth) would alone be adequate to insulate him from original sin. Surely the Spirit did something to preserve the holiness of the child (Luke 1:35); I'm convinced that His facilitation of the virgin birth alone was adequate to that end. 

To conclude, we must be cautious in our holy zeal to preserve the reality of Christ's virgin birth not to damage the delicate hypostatic union by saying more about the virgin birth than Scripture allows.

The Virgin Birth and the Christian Faith--Part 2

We've already observed that a miracle of the magnitude of a virgin birth "fits" within the Christian theistic framework and sets it stunningly apart from the naturalistic worldview embraced by Western secularism. And for this reason alone we should confidently welcome it. Belief in such a miracle does not render us anti-intellectuals (as the unimaginatively narrow-minded scoffer claims); rather, it renders us consistent supernaturalists. Of all the people in the world, Christians should be most comfortable with a miracle-working God. A virgin birth should not embarrass us, but embolden us. This is the kind of exploit that our God alone can do. "What?" we should rather say to the scoffer in a spirit reminiscent of Jeremiah 10: "Your god can't do this? How humiliating."

We must further accept the virgin birth because it is described as historical fact in clear, unambiguous terms in our New Testament. Mary became pregnant "before Mary and Joseph came together" (Matt 1:18), by a miracle of the Holy Spirit (v. 20), while she was yet a virgin (v. 23). There can be no doubt here--unlike the ever-so-slightly-less-than-lexically-certain term used in Isaiah 7:14, the Greek term leaves no doubt about Mary's status--she had never had sexual relations. And so it can be said without confusion that this miraculously conceived child was not the biological son of Joseph, but the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

As others have very carefully argued this season, to deny this one piece of the Christ-narrative is to compromise all the other pieces and throw the whole of the Christian faith into doubt. Truly, one cannot deny the inerrancy of any part of the Gospel account without jeopardizing the whole. The virgin birth, as such, stands as a prominent test-case for the doctrines of divine supernaturalism and biblical inerrancy. No one can deny the virgin birth and remain truly Christian.

Some stop at this point with an "Amen" and an exclamation point. And indeed, this truth is an important one. But the importance of the virgin birth, it would seem, has greater significance even than the foregoing. Why? Because the miracle of the virgin birth preserves (1) the preincarnate, divine personhood of Christ, and (2) frees him from the ravages of a sin nature.

When Jesus Christ was conceived in Mary, his personhood did not spring into existence at this point in history. Rather the pre-existent second person of the Trinity was "sent" by the Father to "take on flesh." Had Mary and Joseph "come together" to produce a new child, that new zygote would have been, by natural procreation, a new person. Were this the case, then the pre-existent person of Christ would have been imposed upon and forced to co-exist with this new human personality as some sort of schizophrenic monstrosity, thus violating the cardinal Christological rule of "neither dividing the person nor confounding the natures" of Christ. Worse yet, any person that Mary and Joseph could have produced (and we know that later they did), would naturally have been sinful (a hereditary trait predicated of all persons conceived by natural procreation). And so Christ would have been not only a schizophrenic monstrosity, but also an evil schizophrenic monstrosity.

Without the virgin birth, then, the person of Christ would have been so confounded and corrupted that his death would have had no value in the least for the world. To appropriately turn a phrase used by the Apostle Paul of the resurrection, if Christ is not virgin-born, "our preaching is worthless,... your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:12-19).

And so again, let us embrace the virgin birth. Not only because it reveals the supernatural power of our God, but because it magnifies the intricate wisdom by which he rendered redemption possible. It is a good thing not only to celebrate in this festive season, but also to ponder all that the virgin birth means to the Christian faith.