Grateful 4 Grace

http://www.koinoniablog.net/2012/05/wednesday-giveaway-grasping-gods-word-3rd-edition.html

I don’t know what triggers certain thoughts in my head, but this morning it occurred to me while driving to work that it doesn’t mean anything to be a Baptist other than that you’re against something. All I know about Baptists is that they oppose baptising children, not because they can find any specific commandment in Scripture prohibiting the practice, but rather because it makes them feel queasy, sort of like a bad burrito. Apart from that, to believe anything else is either to hold to the teachings of a single preacher (MacArthur, Piper, Lawson, et al), or to make up your own theology. Which doesn’t make the remainder of what Baptists believe unbiblical, but rather ordinary. For if what they believe is Biblical is, indeed, Biblical, it isn’t unique to the Baptists as is the belief in not baptising babies. All those Biblical doctrines? You can thank the “small c” catholic church and the “big R” Reformed … who, by the way, baptise babies.

Just read a proof of a children’s book from Sovereign Community Church called “Proof of Grace: A Pirate Adventure.” I always like looking at how Christians try to teach God’s Word to children. Sometimes I encounter things that are highly useful; at other times, I find things that make me shrug or wonder whether even the author understands God’s story.

I read through the PDF, which wasn’t too long. Overall, it’s okay. It’s the story of a boy who continually disobeys his parents until he breaks something treasured by his mom. He feels so bad that even though his parents tell him that he’s forgiven, he finds it difficult to accept. So to teach him about grace, his parents plan a treasure hunt for him the next morning in which he discovers that God planned to give grace before the world was made; that grace results in our resurrection from the dead; is outrageous in that it required the perfect Lamb of God to hang on a cross for our sins; and is sufficient to overcome our sins so that we have assurance of being God’s children in eternity.

All doctrinally correct, but what’s missing? Here’s a snippet from the author’s introduction:

“I learned about what has been called the doctrines of grace—the simple message that who we are as Christians is not determined by what we do or what we look like, but by what God has done for us. These doctrines changed my life. By God’s grace, I’ve learned to believe God’s promises for
me are true. What God has determined for me through the work of His Son Jesus makes me who I am. I am loved even when my performance doesn’t stack up. After all, Jesus came to save sinners, not those who get everything right.”

Check out Sovereign Church and its associated “ministries” online and you’ll see that it’s one of these Calvinistic churches but not particularly aligned with a denomination. That really means it’s its own denomination, which is fine, but in trying to reduce the Bible to the doctrines of grace (what is inappropriately called “Calvinism”; “inappropriate” because Calvin wrote about the entirety of God’s Word, not just about salvation), such churches try to be all things to all people. And perhaps that should help you think through what’s missing.

Let me ask this question: why are the doctrines of grace true? Why did God save sinners? Read the author’s intro again and you’ll see what’s wrong with modern evangelicalism, even those Christian churches that maintain a focus on God’s Word. Okay, here’s the answer: they make it all about us! The Bible tells us that God saves us FOR HIS GLORY. This fact does not make the doctrines of grace any less true, but focusing upon His glory rather than our own comfort leads to: i) accepting what God’s Word says about heaven and hell even if such facts can’t be explained or make us feel uncomfortable; and ii) doing what God commands us for His glory even if we don’t completely comprehend how they contribute to our salvation.

I’ve already taken a shot at evangelicals, so let me go after my other favorite whipping “boy”: Baptists. Why do Baptists claim to believe God’s Word and yet refuse to baptize infants? In prior posts I’ve pointed out that God’s Word clearly commands us to baptize all whom we disciple (Matt. 28:19-20), that we are to disciple children (Deut. 6:6-7), and that Scripture nowhere commands us to withhold this sacrament from children. I’ve also pointed out that Baptists arguments focus on narrative portions of Scripture, never law, and as a result hold less water than Reformed arguments in that narratives must be interpreted in light of God’s revelation of His will. The answer is that Baptist theology is not centered (I’m not saying it isn’t concerned, but there’s a difference between being concerned and being centered) on God’s glory. That is the warp and woof of Reformed theology; all things for God’s glory. Hence, even the fact that Reformed Christians place such an emphasis on God’s glory informs why they prioritize the Word of God in their worship and piety.

The danger in a children’s book that focuses on our sin and salvation is that we leave people thinking that Christianity is a religion about comfort. It’s not – it’s a theology about God’s glory. And the funny thing is, God was glorified when Jesus hung on the cross. Hence, Luther made a distinction between a theology of glory and a theology of the cross. Reformed theology, like Luterhan theology, is a theology of the cross, for the “glory” in the term “theology of glory” refers to man’s glory. Many forms of Christianity remain focused upon man (hence Baptists justify withholding baptism from infants because it’s more valuable to the person being baptized if they experience their own baptism, even if Scripture gives no evidence that this should be the motivator for the sacrament).

I applaud the author for focusing upon sin, but we need to explain sin in terms of God’s Word and as expressing our heart attitude toward God’s glory. I love the way WSC explains sin: “Q14. What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” It’s not enough that you make mistakes; it’s that your mistakes violate God’s sacred Word. I suspect the fact that the author does not priority the glory of God and discuss sin and salvation in terms of a theology of the cross contributes to the fact that there are exactly three references to Jesus Christ in the book, and one of them is in the introduction. That leaves two in the text. Two. How can a book even broach the topic of sin and salvation without it dripping with a crucified Saviour?

I know you’re objecting in your mind that OF COURSE evangelicals and Baptists focus on Jesus. Really? My daughter goes to an evangelical and Baptist preschool and has “chapel” (don’t get me started) every Tuesday. I’ve had the horror – er, pleasure – of visiting chapel on a few occasions. I recall one such occasion when I noticed after the three or four songs that they lead the children through that there were exactly zero mentions of Jesus. All the songs were about how great God is (true) and how much He loves us (also true). But seriously, how do I know the God that they’re speaking of is the one who became flesh and hung on a cross for my sins? The only way is by proclaiming one name, Jesus Christ. Most often, evangelical mentions of Jesus are oriented around His friendship or love. Both true, but neither explains why He lived righteously under God’s law and died according to His Word. Neither explains how (yes, HOW) He was raised from the dead. To merely say He loves us, while fundamental to the nature of God and thus contributing to our understanding, is like teaching a child how to swim in deep waters by standing in the shallow end of a swimming pool.

Overall, the book is fine, but any parent that uses it with their kids has a responsibility to offer the entire counsel of God according to His Word. Teaching theology through a children’s story, even one more Biblically accurate, falls way short. There is, at the end of our days, nothing that can replace the priority of God’s Word in its entirety, for there we find the true God, and all for His glory.

I had a fascinating conversation with my wife last night. I’ve taken to refraining from singing in worship because most of my church’s activities, including worship (it’s PCA, mind you, the denomination that supposedly holds to the theology of Jesus, Paul, Augustine and Calvin) reminds me instead of Charles Finney. (If you don’t know who he is, look him up.) I’m very uncomfortable participating in worship that isn’t glorifying to God.

My wife asked a penetrating question, but as is typical, I fumbled through a response while we spoke only to think with greater clarity later on. I have many of these “Jerk Store” moments. (If you don’t know what that is, watch Seinfeld re-runs.) Not that anything I said was necessarily untrue, but it’s possible to assert a bunch of indicatives from Scripture without answering the question at hand, leading the one who asks the question to think, “Huh?”

So here’s the question in a nutshell. Assume for a second that I’m right and our music does not glorify God. Is it a sin for her, our kids, or anyone else in our service to participate? If not, then why do I refuse to participate? We know that sinning does not glorify God, but can not sinning not glorify God as well? I’m sure there are other ways to ask the question, but hopefully you get the point.

I wrestled with this issue this morning. In addition to not singing, I also don’t talk to anyone during the meet-and-greet. Why not? Because worship is about God, not socializing with others. As John wrote, if we have fellowship with God through His Son, then as a necessary consequence we have fellowship with others who also have fellowship with God through the Son. My focus, though, must remain on the Son, not on others, for it is possible to have a relationship with others without having a relationship with the Son. We see this same principle in the two tables of the Law. If we truly love God, we shall love our neighbor, but it is possible to “love” our neighbor without loving God (although whether such love is the proper love is a different story).

Am I right for not singing with the church if the theology is flawed? Am I right for not socializing with the church? If I can voluntarily excuse myself from certain things the church does, why not all things? Clearly God commands us to come before Him each Lord’s Day to receive His Word and His sacraments through the ordinary means of grace, so how can we separate what we are commanded to do in worship from what we actually do in worship?

The answer, in my mind, comes down to this. I submit to our church in its preaching of the Word, its administration of the sacraments, and its non-coercive discipline. Those three church functions reflect solely the authority given to it by Christ, for they reflect the offices of prophet, priest and king, all of which were foreshadowed by separate individuals in the Old Covenant but brought to fulfillment in the one person of Christ in the New. To submit to the church in these matters is, for the individual, a matter of unconditional obedience. I do not choose to submit when I feel like it; I do so unconditionally because God commands it for my own welfare. Likewise, I tithe each week at the beginning of the service regardless of the fact that my church often fails to uphold its weekly worship responsibility because my tithe is not conditional upon the church’s performance. God does not need my money, but He demands it nonetheless through the church.

The question is: should I submit unconditionally to the church’s praise, prayer, and fellowship? Or are these elements of church piety conditional? I would encourage everyone to consider prayer. Every time an evangelical asks us to bow our head and join them in prayer, should we? A recent episode of the White Horse Inn dealt with this topic, which I’d been wrestling with before. I appreciated the perspective of the panel, which was “no.” There is a conditionality about prayer – namely, that you dare not go before God unless you are enjoined to the Son by the Spirit. Would I let a Catholic, a Mormon, a JW, a Christian Scientist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Muslim lead me in prayer? Clearly no, because they do not know God as Christians have been taught to confess Him from Holy Writ. Unfortunately rampant theological illiteracy in contemporary evangelical “Christianity” (I find it very difficult to pair those two words without using quote marks) has made me dubious every time an evangelical bows their head in prayer. Do they truly know Jesus?

Does this sound judgmental? Perhaps, but I think it actually reflects discernment. If I come to a wooden bridge that looks rickety, should I just cross it because everyone else is doing so? Or should I use discernment to escape a certain death? Going before a holy God who smites sinners shall result in sure death. The only thing that covers me from His wrath is the blood of the Son on the cross. It’s foolishness to approach God without being cognizant of our own sinful mortality and the only grounds by which I am entitled to approach Him at all.

So if joining into prayer is conditional, what about singing? I do believe it is a function of the church to pray corporately, but perhaps we need to distinguish what makes corporate acts truly “corporate.” God saves individual sinners in order to be enjoined to the Son. It is anathema to think that we can be saved apart from a body of like believers. I am often suspicious if self-professed Christians claim to be saved but have no regard for the church. Short answer: Christ doesn’t save people from the wrath of God in that way (or at least not ordinarily)! As a Reformed Christian, I believe God ordinarily uses Word and sacrament ministry, as well as church discipline, to save sinners. But as members of one body, we are yet individuals. We are sanctified differently and come before God, ultimately, as individuals. Hence, though the church may bring many together to respond to God together, such responses are still many individual responses to God’s grace. I consider prayer an individual act. Yes, Scripture gives countless examples of Christians praying together, but it’s still individual Christians praying together. We may pray with other Christians, but we are still lifting up our voices to God as individuals. If it was not that way, then the one praying would be acting as a mediator between God and those for whom he is praying. But there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Likewise, singing is an example of our response to God’s grace. It is not a law to sing; if it were, I would participate with Charles Finney – er, my worship leader – unconditionally DESPITE his lousy grasp on theology. But my participation with him is conditional. Can I join him in singing?

Now here’s a question. What if I’m not joining him? What if he’s leading, but I’m just singing to God? What if I’m not joining someone who’s praying incorrectly, but in my heart I am praying to God correctly? I certainly don’t think it’s impossible to consider such possibilities, which is why, to answer my initial question, I don’t think I can say I’m sinning to singing or sinning by not singing. If I always approach God rightly, then by singing or praying with one who does not approach God rightly doesn’t make me a sinner. But now I ask, why would I pretend to do so? This is not to condemn those who sing out to God regardless of what’s being proclaimed from up front, and since singing and praying are individual responses done corporately, surely that is exactly what’s happening. But if it troubles me to do that, then I believe it’s not unreasonable to refrain. Singing and praying with someone when you’re not truly enjoined to them is like telling them to go ahead and cross that rickety bridge while you cross a stable one right next to it. You’re not really with them, so why the pretense? And isn’t it better, if we are truly to love one another and bear one another’s burdens, to help them see that the bridge they want to cross shall fall while the other offers sure footing? Though we may respond to God’s grace as individuals, should we not still love other parts of the body by helping them see Christ crucified for our sins?

I used to be a credobaptist until I, too, wrestled with the matter and found myself convicted by Scripture that paedobaptism was proper. Does that mean that credobaptists aren’t convicted by Scripture? I’d argue, yes. Here’s why:

Credobaptists frequently cite Biblical narratives to support their positions, esp. in Acts with such passages as “believe and be baptized.” Yet, while “all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable…”. we must give weight in terms of our practice to explicit commandments. God indeed commands infants and children to be baptized. Deut. 6:6-7 is His commandment to teach His commandments to our children. Matt. 28:19-20 (the Great Commission) is God’s commandment to make disciples of all nations by baptizing and teaching them His commandments. God never commands His people NOT to baptize children, but explicitly commands us to do so! That is, all who are being discipled by the church should be baptized.

Who should be discipled is not a question of age, but of intent. If one explicitly rejects being discipled (as an infant cannot do), they should not be baptized. But shouldn’t an infant accept being discipled as well? As any parent knows, there are some things we just teach our kids because it’s good for them – I didn’t wait for my daughter to accept that I am her teacher before proceeding to both teach her and hold her accountable to it. And you begin discipling your infants from an early age, even the womb!

While there is much to debate in terms of what baptism represents in the life of the church, this shouldn’t distract us from God’s commandment. I don’t need to reason into a paedobaptist argument; rather, it is a presupposition of the Christian life! Scripture is clear – baptize your children and all who are being discipled in the church. To do otherwise is to reject God’s Word.

The Reformed Forum: Baptism, Covenant and Election

Christian Focus Publications provided to me a complimentary e-copy of “Charles Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers,” by Christian Timothy George, for review. I am grateful for their generosity and submit this review in the spirit of Christian charity.

The book is part of the Trailblazers series, which I assume attempts to introduce children to famous Christians. For what purpose? The author asks his readers at the end of the book: “Has finding out about Spurgeon’s life and his Lord Jesus brought you to understand that you need to be saved from your sins?” If this question is indicative of the purpose, then I would conclude that its purpose is evangelical, to inspire readers to follow Jesus. Um, actually Spurgeon’s life cannot do that. Although a phenomenal preacher, he was, like me and any reader, a miserable sinner. The Law of God, by contrast, has the power to convict sinners of their need for a Saviour, but the Law is powerless to save. Only Jesus can do that. So to answer the author’s question, no.

And that pretty much sums up my feelings regarding this book. It’s definitely not worth the read. It is clear from the outset that this story is primarily fantasy. The author admits as much at the end of the book. The whole story line about the queen dressing up as a pauper is ridiculous, as are the forced conversations. I felt like I was reading a Hollywood script rather than a biography. This book does a disservice to readers who are legitimately interested in the lives of other Christians. For what purpose, I don’t know, as I’m not a fan of biographies. But some biographies are better than others, and I would heartily endorse other biographies before this one.

I’ll point to two other problems with this book. First, the plot jumps too much. It would seem, again, that the author was too influenced by Hollywood than by a desire to explain the life of a gifted preacher. Second, the characters (Spurgeon included) are introduced superficially. We may get to know Spurgeon the preacher, but not the man who was convicted by his sin. At best Spurgeon’s struggles are centered on what others may think of him. But from what I know of Spurgeon, this was less of a concern than what God thinks of him. The cross of Christ was truly more central to Spurgeon than would appear to be the case from reading this author’s fictitious account.

Okay, let me throw one more criticism at the book. Spurgeon was a great preacher. So why are the sermons so lame? Not once does the author produce a sermon that uses Scripture. It’s all thoughts about the Word rather than a careful exegesis of the Word. Perhaps that’s the problem with biographies like this one, as reading a carefully worded sermon may not make for good story-telling (actually I’d disagree with that). But if the author’s intent is to inspire children, then they’ll simply be inspired to be like typical American evangelicals who prefer their own reason to the Word itself. Hmm, maybe this book achieves its purpose after all.

I met with the men from my community group yesterday to continue discussing Michael Horton’s “Introducing Covenant Theology.” I’d already read the prior version of the book (“God of Promise”) when I was first becoming acquainted with covenant theology, but appreciate the opportunity to revisit some of the things I struggled with back then. On one hand, I’m not that excited to meet with these men every few weeks. Don’t get me wrong – they’re nice guys, although I don’t see myself becoming close friends with any of them. But my problem is two-fold. First, I have a problem with a “community group” (which is just a dumb way my church describes small groups”). This whole small group thing is a product of evangelicatholicism, whereby the ministry of the church left the church proper and dissipated into a bunch of house meetings. Given that our pastors are never present at our meetings and that we’re not a particularized church (which just means we don’t yet have elders), where’s the oversight? Oh yes, I forgot – who needs oversight in an evangelical church? What’s true is relative, right? God’s Word can’t actually convict us that we are miserable sinners in need of a Saviour, can it? But I digress. My other issue is that I’ve never perceived that this exercise in studying covenant theology would be all that fruitful. Horton’s book was recommended by our associate pastor, and clearly neither he nor our head pastor care a lick about the covenants of God (or if they did, they meticulously hide their concern each Lord’s Day). The men in my community group are, again, nice, but like most evangelicals, I doubt they care enough to confront the flaws in their theological viewpoints. I really wrestled with Scripture when I confronted the covenantal form that I’d never previously been taught, but I am skeptical that the men in my group would do the same.

So all that said, I was pleasantly surprised by yesterday’s discussion. I think the men are wrestling with what’s being said. I’m not yet convinced that this will convert them from evangelical quasi-Christians into Reformed-minded unabashed Christians, but maybe it’s a start. Yesterday’s discussion focused on the concept of covenant. The guy leading the discussion probed the suzerain-vassal relationship and contrasted it with social contracts (this is all straight from the book). I do my absolute best to stay silent because I know that the second I start speaking, everyone will be directing their gazes at me to figure out what I’d say about such and such. So I was quiet through this discussion until we got into discussing the social contract. The guys were convinced that the difference between societies then and our present society is one of authority. That is, we don’t respect authority, so we wouldn’t serve a suzerain even if we could. I interjected that what differentiates America from other societies isn’t questioning authority. After all, sin entered the world because of an authority issue. Clashes over authority have always plagued mankind. Rather, I asserted that what differentiates America from other societies is our ambivalence toward history. The Bible assumes that the covenants God has made with mankind progressively will be taught to future generations such that they may serve Him with the same fervor as those who first received them. Of course our sin prevents us from doing so, which is why God “renews” His covenant with us each Lord’s Day through Word and sacrament ministry (assuming a church actually does what a church is supposed to do). Societies that honor their past are more ripe, if you will, to understand the covenantal structure of Scripture. But Americans couldn’t care less. They think history started when they were born. This is why Americans are highly narcissistic, why we’ve witnessed an explosion of denominations in America alone in the past two hundred years (because every doctrine is debatable given that historic church practice isn’t a factor in our present practices), and why American Christianity is nothing more than spiritual navel-gazing (listening for God speaking to you and hopefully being able to discern that feeling from irritable bowel syndrome).

This point fostered a lot more discussion. In general the men were supportive of the idea, which gave me hope that perhaps they would see themselves (and me) as being as guilty of contributing to narcissism in our church. I didn’t bring it up because I try not to criticize our church in front of our church members lest I be considered a Berean, but our narcissism is exactly why our pastors spend more time preaching application statements than the Word of God. Who cares what God’s Word says, goes the American Christian refrain, just tell me what I need to do.

At this point I thought I could go back to being quiet, but again I had to raise a point. Unfortunately American evangelicals haven’t been trained to think let alone understand the Word of God. To wit: our discussion moved to the covenant of works/covenant of grace distinction. I explained that God “condescended” (in Westminster terms) to enter into covenant with Adam prior to the Fall but that the covenant was grounded on merit rather than grace since Adam wasn’t yet fallen and, accordingly, not in need of grace. He was perfectly able to keep God’s commands. To which one guy objected that he doesn’t buy it. After all, Adam could not have been perfect if he was able to sin. I responded that if that’s true, then God cannot be just to condemn sinners according to their works on the Day of Judgment. To which the guy replied that God’s justice is not something we can understand. WHAT?!!! For goodness sake, evangelicals! Our faith isn’t blind! The Scriptures TESTIFY to Christ. God didn’t just tell us to go leap off a building all the while believing in a mystery. He explained the entire story of redemption from Alpha to Omega so that our faith could be grounded on indicative propositions. So I responded that absolutely we can know God’s justice since the second table of the Law tells us what righteousness and justice look like in human relations. Yes, there are mysteries about God that we will never understand, but everything mankind requires has been given to us plainly. Anyway, I didn’t win any arguments here. The guy continued to question that Adam was made perfect, which just tells me that our church, which likes to pat itself on the back for its “ministry,” is thus far an abject failure.

I am, at the end of the day, looking forward to where this discussion will go, but I refuse to get my hopes up. I’ve been burned enough times by evangelicalism, and am not going to kid myself that perhaps American evangelicalism is trending in the right direction. Thankfully, my hope isn’t in American evangelicalism, but a God who is faithful to HIS covenants and powerful enough to overcome even the most stubborn Christian minds.

Christian Focus Publications provided to me a complimentary e-copy of “From the Resurrection to His Return,” by Don Carson, for review. I am grateful for their generosity and submit this review in the spirit of Christian charity.

The first thing that struck me was the book’s brevity (at least on my Kindle). The book covers five chapters dealing with what it means to be living in these last days. First, Carson addresses what it means to be in the last days, and the remaining four chapters cover implications therein: being mentored by spiritually mature Christians, having the proper “worldview,” maintaining a focus on the Word of God as the measuring rod for righteousness, and extending the Word of God to others through evangelism.

Whew! In a nutshell, I wholeheartedly commend this book. Carson is absolutely sound theologically. He approaches the end times with the proper Biblical hermeneutic (aka “Reformed”) and does not even entertain many of the ridiculous end-times theories that abound in the present day. That said, in the remainder of my post I will focus on particular items that caught my attention throughout the book.

Carson’s primary text is 2 Tim 3:1:4-8, in which the Apostle Paul warned his disciple, Timothy, to be aware of the dangers of living in the end times, and to be unwavering as he presented Christ crucified for sins through church ministry and daily life. In the first chapter, Carson makes the following statement: “The idea is that the coming of Christ is so world transforming, now that the kingdom has already dawned, that the old world is petering out; it is coming to an end. We are now, already, in the last days.” True, but this statement would be applauded by both postmillennialists and amillennialists alike (premillennialists would take issue with the idea that the kingdom has already come, but again, Carson doesn’t give short shrift to such an unbiblical idea). I approach Scripture from an amillennial (two kingdoms) perspective, so yes, Christ is transforming the world specifically through the church’s Word and sacrament ministry through which the elect are called to Christ and built up into His likeness. The kingdom of God is indeed here, and the church presents it to the visible members each Lord’s Day by proclaiming Christ crucified for our sins and raised on the third day through Word and sacrament.

Later in chapter 1, Carson observes: “The reason the commandment to love God is first – that is, first in importance – is because it’s the one that we always break when we break any other. Whatever we do that is wicked demonstrates that we do not truly love God.” This is indeed true – one cannot love neighbor as God intended without loving God first. It is a message that must be proclaimed to evangelicals today, who use unbiblical terms such as “missional,” or phrases such as “living the Gospel,” non-chalantly. To truly love one’s neighbor, one must give them the good news of Christ. That is the ministry of the church at large, to which each member contributes through their gifting. Missional, then, properly refers to ordinary life, and one can no more live the Gospel than I can live a newspaper. The Gospel is news, not life-change! It may promote life change, but your changed life isn’t the Gospel. To love your neighbor, you must give them the Gospel, and that requires knowing the Gospel, and that requires knowing the Son of God whom the Gospel is about. To know the Son is to love God. Carson concludes: “The antithesis of loving God is worse than not loving God: it is loving something else supremely, most commonly ourselves that we covet.” Exactly. It’s called sin.

At the end of the first chapter, Carson wrote: “The more you probe into people’s lives, the more you discover that this [the depravity in the hearts of all men save the Son of God who became incarnate for us] is a painfully accurate picture. Now what do you do about it?” Any time I read a question like that in a “Christian” publication, I cringe. Oh oh, I think, here comes law. Someone’s going to tell me to do something that the Law of God does not specifically command, and on this side of the cross that can only mean that Christ’s atoning death was insufficient for my salvation. Thankfully, my tension dissipated as I read the remainder of the book. Carson focuses not on what we should “do” per se, but rather what God has done for us. He gives us His Word. He gives us an institution (the church) that should hold up the Word of God as the God’s verdict regarding matters concerning these last days. He gives us the gift of time such that many in my church were becoming wise while I was not yet born, and I am becoming wise regarding the Gospel to the benefit of a future generation. The “dos” in the remainder of the book are restricted to living within the context God Himself has defined, rather than a man-centred device that evangelicals consider more sacramental than the holy sacraments (think small groups and Sunday School).

I won’t cover the remaining chapters because, well, you get the point. It’s a short book, and these are really short chapters. Carson makes his argument often through stories, but each draws our attention not to fallen heroes, but to our Saviour God who works through humans by His Spirit. I commend Carson’s book to Christians of all ages. To the young, it provides a glimpse of the Christian life detailed in the pages of Scripture. To the mature, it is a helpful reminder to remain firm in God’s Word when the evangelical culture demands otherwise.

Zondervan provided to me a complimentary copy of “How to Read the Bible Through the Jesus Lens,” by Michael Williams, for review. Rather than review the whole book, they asked each reviewer to pick a particular section. I chose the Pentateuch. I am grateful for their generosity and submit this review in the spirit of Christian charity.

On first glance, the book is an excellent tool for ministers and laypersons to grasp the central purpose of each book of the Bible. Christian bookshelves are overstuffed with books that attempt to divert the central message of the Bible from Jesus the Son to this or that particular theological emphasis. Jesus is the Word and He is what the Word is about. If we, as Christians, fail to see the Bible through “the Jesus Lens,” we fail to understand the Word itself. The book is structured to provide the central theme of each book, a memory passage, how to see Christ, contemporary implications, and contemplative questions in just a few pages. Overall, it is a tremendously easy read and well worth the effort for Christians of all stripes.

I considered writing about each of the first five chapters, but my comments overlap in many places. So instead, I will work from Genesis through Deuteronomy and progressively make observations. The bulk of my comments will come from Genesis, which is appropriate not only because it is the first book in the Bible, but also because it sets the stage for understanding Scripture itself.

The author appropriately defines the theme of Genesis as one of “separating.” I appreciated that he included the Creation account in this to show that Creation itself provides an overview of what God is accomplishing in the world, rather than just being a historical dispute between Creationists and evolutionists. Yes, the Creation account is historical fact, but Christians need to understand why God even told us (through Moses) that the Creator formed the world in this way. Likewise, in the memory verse, the author points to the central promise of God as seen through various “I will” statements. Though not stated, this is the core of covenant theology, which is the proper perspective (the Jesus lens) of the Bible.

In the Jesus Lens section, the author points us to the fact that separation and covenant find their fulfillment in Christ. If one does not grasp the centrality of Christ to Genesis, they will indeed fail to see Christ as He has been revealed to us. However, I took issue with the Contemporary Implications and Hook Questions sections, and shall collapse my comments into one. The author seemed to equate God’s purpose of separating individuals with His plan to redeem a people to Himself corporately. God is indeed redeeming a people to Himself, and we (as individuals) participate in the ministry of reconciliation, but we do so through the church. Hence, though not stated in so many terms, I got the impression that the author would say that Christians can “live the Gospel” before their neighbors rather then doing what we are specifically asked to do: obey God in all things, and invite our neighbors to meet Christ through the church’s ministry of Word and sacrament. As a result, I felt that the Hook Questions could leave one with a sense of guilt (law) for not living as perfectly as God would have us live. The law no longer is our burden, but our blessing (third use). In general, it is not sufficient to just see the Bible as pointing to Christ, but letting us find our shalom with God in Him as well, even as we struggle to obey Him before our Lord returns in glory.

The author does an impressive job of relating the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the law and sacrifices at Sinai to the future work of Christ. I would, however, have preferred for the author to have built on the Genesis chapter. Specifically, he had pointed out the significance of God’s “I will” statements in Genesis, and he should have related this to God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt on account of remembering His covenant with Abraham (Ex. 2:24-25). Indeed, God affirms that His hesed, or covenant faithfulness, is the basis for rescuing Israel from Egypt (Ex. 6:5), and follows the statement with seven “I wills” pointing at their salvation (Ex. 6:6-8). Unlike the Genesis chapter, the Contemporary Implications and Hook Questions sections did not leave the reader with a sense of despair … unless they did not know Christ. And that is the measure of good law-Gospel preaching. However, it would be beneficial to the reader if the author had explained that the purpose and richness of life in which the Christian has assurance is found in Christ alone regardless of one’s temporal poverty or suffering.

Like the Exodus chapter, the chapter on Leviticus boils down a lot of material into the Christ-centered focus the Spirit of God intended. I would have appreciated had the author related each specific sacrifice in the Levitical system to the finished work of Christ. Also, what is obviously lacking from this chapter’s Contemporary Implications section is the fact that modern worship on the Lord’s Day is the New Covenant version of the worship prescribed to the Old Covenant community. This would have been a sweet pill to swallow in an evangelical world that minimizes the significance of weekly worship.

The author rightfully summarizes Numbers as a book about obedience and judgment. I notice that the Contemporary Implications and Hook Questions sections are becoming more Christ-focused (rather than law-based) as I am working through the book. However, I note a glaring omission from this chapter: namely, any mention of God’s covenant. The author clearly has it in view from the Genesis chapter, but why not discuss obedience and judgment in covenant terms? Too many evangelicals today have little concept of covenant and thus define obedience and judgment in terms of human morality, according to which everyone is a saint! The church is sorely lacking for an appreciation of the covenant of works that hangs like a sword of Damacles above all mankind, and it is a shame that the author did not stress it more in the chapter on Numbers.

Lest you think I am disappointed with this book, think again. I was ecstatic after reading the chapter on Deuteronomy. The author brings the covenant of God squarely before his readers. Here we find an unabashed affirmation of the active obedience of Christ and the third use of the law. I could not state better the point of the book of Deuteronomy, especially as it sums up the covenantal structure of the Pentateuch.

Overall I was quite pleased to read the first five chapters of “How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens.” My only quibble is that the author should have carried the critical themes of the Bible (God’s covenant faithfulness, law and Gospel, Christ’s active obedience to the law, separation of the kingdom of man from the kingdom of heaven) throughout all five chapters and (I assume) the remainder of the book. I do intend to finish reading the book and may update my review on a later date. But if the first five chapters are any indication, I will enjoy the remainder of my task.

I posted earlier today on the need for Christians to stand firm on the indicatives of the faith in order to understand how to apply the imperatives. Hey, that’s just being Reformed. As an example, I contrasted the paedobaptist position that is clearly found in our Lord’s commandment with the credobaptist position, which ignores the indicatives. Don’t believe me? Here are some positions on baptism from renowned Baptist churches. Finding the indicative position in their statements is like finding Waldo. After reading these statements, I feel like that old lady from the Wendy’s commercial: “Where’s the Word of God?”

Heritage Baptist Church: “For more than thirty years Heritage Baptist Church has been baptizing only those who give credible evidence of true conversion. There is nothing remarkable about that claim. It is simply a part of what it means to be a biblical Baptist church. What might be noteworthy, however, is the fact that for the same period of time we have been baptizing everyone who gives credible evidence of true conversion – including young people and children.” Um, so do you or don’t you? And what role, if any, does the Bible play in this?

Capitol Hill Baptist Church: “While it is difficult to set a certain number of years which are required for baptism, it is appropriate to consider the candidate’s maturity. The kind of maturity that we feel it is wise to expect is the maturity which would allow that son or daughter to deal directly with the church as a whole, and not, fundamentally, to be under their parents’ authority. As they assume adult responsibilities (sometime in late high school with driving, employment, non-Christian friends, voting, legality of marriage), then part of this, we would think, would be to declare publicly their allegiance to Christ by baptism.” Can someone prove to me that God desires us to lead as “we feel it is wise,” for children to be freed from the shackles of their parents’ authority, and to baptize our children when they hit high school, start driving, get jobs, hang out with non-Christians, vote, and/or get married? Seriously, is that even Christian?

Grace Community Church: “Here at Grace Community Church, our general practice is to wait until a professing child has reached the age of twelve. Because baptism is seen as something clear and final, our primary concern is that when a younger child is baptized he tends to look to that experience as proof that he was saved. Therefore, in the case of an unre- generate child who is baptized—which is not uncommon in the church at large—baptism actually does him a disservice. It is better to wait until the reality to which baptism testifies can be more easily discerned.” Apparently God created John MacArthur to be His holy conscience. Clearly God didn’t realize the the irreparable damage to our children from circumcision. Let’s call baptism “Take 2.”

Baptists? Have you read God’s Word? Does it even matter?