Happy Late Birthday, John Calvin

Calvin's 500th birthday was this year. There have been conferences and celebrations all over the world, and rightly so.

I'll steal wisdom from Ghandi here. Of Christianity, he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike Christ."

I feel the same way about John Calvin. He was a faithful pastor who wanted to preach the Bible. Yet many people who want to go by his name are arrogant knuckleheads. He would've hated the title "protestant" and loved the title "reformer." He was way more Catholic than Presbyterians and Catholics are willing to admit. Timothy George correctly states that Calvin was "a theologian of both/and, not either/or: divine sovereignty and human responsibility, written Word and living Spirit, the Church invisible and the Church congregational, already and not yet."

George's full article can be read here. He discusses Calvinism as it relates to capitalism, Calvin and Servetus, and three reasons Calvin's ideas are getting traction again today.

GOSPEL COALiTiON

I just went to Chicago for a pastor's conference - The Gospel Coalition. It was a really sweet time. A few of my seminary pals and I try to go to one every year for good fellowship and encouragement. The Spirit really challenged me to "fan into flame the gift of God" [2 Tim 1.6] and "fight the good fight" [2 Tim 4.7].

The conference theme was "Entrusted with the Gospel: Living the Vision of 2 Timothy."

One thing I absolutely detest about these conferences is that usually it feels like Calvinists patting other Calvinists on the back for being Calvinists. How utterly stupid. I usually walk into the huge conference hall and am immediately drenched with pride. I feel like I know more than at least 80% of these yahoos, who have only read every John Piper book and can give you 8 proof texts for each point in TULIP.

I was talking to this one guy who was probably about my age. I asked him what had encouraged him the most thus far. He mumbled off something vague and then jokingly said that he wasn't going to wash his hand because he shook Mark Driscoll's. I wanted to equally throw up, cry, and kick him in the face.

But our God is good and wise. The way that He humbled me in all of this, which was almost worth the trip itself, was through music. On one side you have the older pastors with their high-water pleated pants, braided belts, and "casual" Sunday morning blazers. On the other hand you have your late 20s/early 30s, black rimmed glasses, bed-headed [or faux hawk] church planters who are going to change the world because they have a tattoo.

BUT...

When all 4,000 of us came together to sing, those oddities didn't mean a thing. I just can't have pride in my heart at the Mark Driscoll-look-alike seven seats down when we're all belting out "He breaks the power of cancelled sin. He sets the prisoner free. His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me."

Slowly, my arrogance was shot down. And it was not only shot down, but transformed. By the end of our time, I didn't look at those different from me and think, "What the heck? Are you kidding me?!" I was able to look them eye-to-eye, smile, and ask our Father in my heart to mold them, use them, and humble them.

Lastly, the reason that guys like Tim Keller, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll are loved is because they DO love Jesus and the Spirit has empowered them for kingdom work. So, it was a great blessing to sit under their teaching and wisdom. Did I agree with every small detail they said? No. Am I still a young idealist? Yes. Was I hugely convicted and prodded to more diligently put my hands to the plow and plead for grace in the journey? Absolutely.

Go listen and read [also here and here]. Good times.

NEW CALViNiSM?

What an odd designation for anything. Well, like it or not, it is what Time Magazine calls the third most important idea that is changing the Western world right now.



Mark Driscoll and his trendy pals have some thoughts on it here. I thank God for the work being done through Mars Hill Church in Seattle even if it is not always your cup of tea. They would be "pro-New Calvinism."

He might not say that he is "anti-New Calvinism" because that might be too mean, but Scot McKnight gives his opinions here and here. McKnight is likewise an excellent and aware thinker of culture and theology.

Ok. That's enough. I feel ridiculous writing as much as I have. I'll stop now.

email discussion on DETERMINISM

There's a pal of mine who is a sophomore in college. He's the man and has a hunger for knowledge and for the Lord. He emailed me this question this week. I was happy with the answer our Father gave me to give him. So, here's nuttin:

FRIEND: "How much of a determinist would you consider yourself? Someone told me today, in a very summarized way, what determinism is and I've just been contemplating it."

MYSELF: "Determinism is more of a scientific and philosophical [and generally post-Enlightenment] category. It is the agnostic version of fatalism. Both are non-theological categories. Some would say that people who are rigid Calvinists are merely spiritual and/or theological determinists. This is looking through a scratched lens. Knowing and cherishing God's beautiful providence and sovereignty [which transcends the puny category of Calvinism] is a relational reality. Determinism and fatalism are are merely theoretical and not relational. They have no capacity for intimacy or fellowship. However, being in love with and being bought by a God who is in control of every falling sparrow and every hair follicle - this is what we were made for and it surpasses all categories and theories. It might have to be described by categories and theology sometimes, but it is most certainly not bound by them."

St Paul First Reformed Bapti-costal Holiness Tabernacle of the Second Coming

Here's a random list of things I believe. I think it is important try to articulate some of this stuff. I try to explain why at the bottom. And if these beliefs had a local church name, I'm hoping it would be the one above :)

Eschatologically, I'm probably an optimistic Amellinialist. People get beat up for that sometimes. But Augustine, Greg Beale, NT Wright, and Tim Keller are decent company. Moreover, we are the temple [1 Cor 3.16, 6.19]. He has made us a kingdom of priests [Rev 1.6-9]. The kingdom is here AND it is coming [Mt 4.17, 6.10].

Ecclesiastically, I am congregational and baptistic. Of course, if we are in Christ, we must all be catholic with a little "c" because this just means universal. When Paul wrote to Thessalonica, he addressed them as the church. He also said that Jesus died for the church. These aren't the same. We are part of A church local and THE church universal and eternal.

Soteriologically, I'm more Reformed. God saves people for the great glory of Jesus. Quit fighting about it already. Just believe and behave the gospel.

Spiritually and affectionately, I have a little charismatic in me. The gifts of the Spirit are still here. He Himself is still here and moving mightily! Get your head out of the theoretical and Dispensational ground. They were not just for the apostles. They are for us too [Rom 8, Gal 3, 1 Cor 12-14, Jn 14-17, 1 Ths 5, Rom 12]! If you abide by a system, you don't abide fully in Christ.

Sacramentally, I believe that baptism should follow faith and repentance. This seems to be the pattern in Acts and the NT. But as far as the weight given to the Lord's Table and Baptism, I'm somewhere between an Anglican and a Baptist [don't worry Presby friends, I understand the covenantal hermeneutic as well]. I enjoy some of the liturgy as well. I also respect how the Free Will Baptist denomination holds a third ordinance: foot-washing [Jn 13, 1 Tim 5.10].

Regarding church polity and church offices, the NT always refers to elders in the plural. I'm all for that. I believe women can and should be deacons [Rom 16.1-5]. I believe the office of elder-bishop-pastor-shepherd should only be held by a man. Call me sexist.

I say all of this for several reasons:

1. I've been thinking for a while about what a theological mutt I am. It makes me laugh.
   
2. Nobody fits a mold. Fitting a mold is arelational and not gospel-centered.
3. I'm not trying to be Brian McLaren and throw everybody's name in the hat so I'll be loved by millions [I'm sure Brian is a nice guy, but he needs to read the pastoral epistles and get a theological backbone].
4. I am saying this because I feel [after being with God, with His church, and in His Scriptures] that these are views that most honor Jesus in some way or another. Go ahead and shoot me for this, but this is what we're called to do - not just give a WHAT we believe, but a WHY we believe it.

SO... to Him and for Him and from Him are all things. To Him be glory in the Church both now and forevermore. Amen.

"WORLD" iN JOHN [seeking a robust johannine biblical cosmology]

What in the heck does the Apostle John mean when he uses the word "world"? Obviously, we can't pour our understanding of that word into his. Here's the classic example.

This is the way God loved the world - He gave His only unique Son that whoever is believing in Him will not perish, but have life unto the ages. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him [3.16-17].

Now, all the Arminians and Calvinists can be up in arms about their abiblical categories that they bring to the text. Did Jesus die for everybody or just the elect? Please fight about that on your own time and terms. The question here is not immediately doctrinal. The question is a question of intentionality. What does John mean by "world"? Here's another good one:

My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil [7.6-7].

This seems like a different "world" than 3.16-17. Other good examples of this apparent contradiction include 4.42, 8.12, 9.39, 16.33, and 17.9-11. Is Jesus just inconsistent in how He talks? Is John inconsistent in how he writes? What's the deal Johnny?


The deal is that this is one of John's favorite words. He uses it 78x in his gospel account. The first 4 uses come in John 1.9-10. Here, there are at least 2, probably 3 or 4, definitions of world within one breath:

There was the true Light, which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

With this verse, John implies that there is one world that corresponds with being enlightened; one that is social and inhabited; one that is created; and one that does not know the true Light. So, where does the saved and believing "world" of 3.16-17 fit? Where does the "world" that Jesus doesn't pray for in 17.9 fit in this?

What I want to suggest by not giving precise answers is that when we do read the Bible [which is shocking enough in itself], we read with millions of presuppositions flogging the back of the text. Because we are derived and sinful beings, they aren't going to all go away. But we must, at a bare minimum, acknowledge our presuppositions and come to the word of God on its terms and not ours. He has stooped to reveal Himself in time, so we must humble ourselves as we seek to grasp what He has revealed. It is not an academic exercise and it is not spiritually effortless, but it is a rewarding pursuit.

Please help us, Holy Spirit.

"iN CHRiST" [a book on pauline theology soon to be published by john paulling and myself]

I'm finding, the more I read the Apostle Paul, that his ultimate picture and primary means of articulating the majority of God's salvific activity is by alluding to the concept or directly using the phrase "in Messiah" [or "in Christ"]. Not only do I see this as Paul's principal reference point, but I see it as the place where people could come to terms each other. Tom Wright and the New Perspectival brothers ought to go out of their way to highlight the reality that God's "covenant faithfulness" is only "in Christ." In the same way, all the hyper-Reformed brethren with the Westminster confession tattooed on their back and a Romans 9 plaque in their living room - they must take their grasp of imputation and justification here as well. It is too huge of a theological and rhetorical emphasis in Paul not to do so. Living "in Messiah" and being "in Messiah" both individually and corporately seem to be the fountain of his soteriology, ecclesiology, and much more. Hopefully, this helps....

THOSE THiNGS WHiCH ARE AN iMMEDiATE CONSEQUENCE OF THE FALL AND OF CAPiTALiSM

1. cell phones
2. dress codes at work
3. really dumb interpretations of the book of Revelation
4. mini-vans with two sliding doors and more remote controls and tv screens than Best Buy
   
5. telemarketers
6. inconsistent/ignorant Calvinists
7. too much hand sanitizer
   
8. TBN