Sean Michael Lucas on the identity of the PCA

Sean Michael Lucas, a church history professor at Covenant Seminary, has an excellent post on the Presbyterian Church in America's (PCA) search for identity. Lucas writes,

When our denomination was founded in December 1973, Jack Williamson’s opening address focused us on our mission as faithful and continuing Presbyterians: that we would be faithful to the Scriptures, true to the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission. I would suggest that over the past 35 years while we all have agreed with the motto’s first point—faithfulness to the Scriptures as the inerrant word of God—we’ve struggled to know exactly what it means to be true to the Reformed faith and obedient to the Great Commission.

I don’t know if it heartens anyone to realize that this struggle over our Presbyterian identity has gone on from the very beginning of the PCA... Part of the challenge of our life together is that at the beginning of the denomination’s life, we were fundamentalists learning to be Presbyterians. That may account for why we have appeared to some as “Machen’s warrior children.” It has not simply been that we like to fight with each other; rather, there has been a struggle to define what it means to be Presbyterian in a late modern or postmodern world.

Lucas goes on to argue for two areas where the PCA needs to refocus in order to be truly Presbyterian: faithfulness to the confessions, and truly connectional presbyterian government. He points out that suspicion of the confessions in some quarters of the denomination is troubling. On the issue of church government, he indicates the Southern Baptists may be more connectional than the PCA.

Based on my own experience within the PCA, Lucas's comments are accurate and appropriate. The PCA includes so many diverse groups, from Bob Jones type Calvinistic fundamentalists to rigorously Reformed exclusive psalmists to Calvinistic contemporary evangelicals. On commitment to the confessions, presbyterian church government, and Reformed worship, there is significant diversity.

The question, of course, is what does it mean to be truly Presbyterian? The Orthodox Presbyterian Church would give a different answer from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, or from the Free Church of Scotland. One wonders what direction the PCA will end up moving.

Situation in Escondido seems to be improving

The Westminster Seminary webpage posts the following update for today:

As of October 24th, 11am:

• The fires of the Escondido area have subsided. Though the “burn line” came within 1 mile of the campus, the WSC campus no longer faces an immediate threat.
• Along with most of the schools in the county, we will remain closed for the week.
• We are thankful that none in our immediate community have reported injuries.
• Many students, along with a number of faculty and staff, remain displaced from their homes. Some in our community still have significant concerns for their homes as evacuations in Escondido and the broader areas continue to be mandatory.
• Please continue to pray for our safety and wisdom as plans are underway to reopen the campus on Monday.

Update re: Escondido Fire

I'm finally getting to a post here, and it's relative to the fire in Escondido. I left Escondido Monday afternoon because the smoke was so bad, and drove up to Oregon where I have to preach this weekend anyway. I was able to get the best of my books and my stuff, though I really didn't think the fire would come near us.

It turns out a house a couple houses down the street from us lost it's roof, and there were evacuations in our area, but our house is fine. The fire came over the hills about 2 miles to the northeast. The worst damage, in Rancho Bernado, where 400 homes were destroyed, reportedly, is 5-10 miles away from us I think. Some people in our church lost their home, and many in the seminary and church communities have had to eavacuate. Some do not know the present status of their homes.

It seems the fire is somewhat contained, and the fireline on all the maps forms a ring around Escondido on three sides. Please continue to pray for those who are threatened, as well as for the firefighters. Hopefully today the fires get under control.

Another Democrat Claims Jesus' Mission

“I’m a Democrat because Democrats invest in people; I’m a Democrat because I’m a Christian," says John Arthur Eaves Jr. “Jesus came to help the people. He healed the sick, and he tried to help the poor. The Democrats’ core fiber is to help people. That was Jesus’ mission.”

Eaves is running for governor of Mississippi against a Republican incumbant. He is convinced he has to appeal to the Evangelical vote in the South to stand a chance. As the New York Times puts it:

The candidate is running to serve his Creator. He is running to restore prayer in schools, bring Jesus into public discourse, force the “money changers” from the state capitol, and move his extensive gun collection into the governor’s mansion.

Both Republicans and Democrats love to sound religious when they are in Bible belt regions. Rarely do those of either party ever present anything deeper than sound bites, cliches, or political slogans. And when they go farther, in both parties, it often sounds scary. President Bush himself has referred to America as the light of the world, as a young writer my readers will be familiar with wrote in the Covenant College Bagpipe many years ago. And in the president's own words:

... the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.

America desperately needs some conversation about religion and politics that actually has depth. It is not that certain people aren't trying. Richard John Neuhaus, for example, has offered a penetrating critique of the "Naked Public Square" for years now.

The problem is, American politics ultimately isn't about substance. American voters don't demand substance. As long as that's the case, nothing will change.

"We can create a Kingdom right here on Earth!"

So says Barack Obama, who is getting quite religious, according to CNN. Obama has long been trying to regain Evangelicalism for the Democratic Party, arguing that it is a false perception that most Christians are Republicans. He is certainly talking the talk.

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

It's likely that Obama is on the right track when he uses such religious language, especially if he is trying to appeal to middle America. A politician doesn't need to show that he interprets Scripture rightly; he simply needs to show that religion, even the Christian religion, influences his attitude to politics.

I'm not sure what Obama means by creating a "Kingdom right here on Earth." I'm not sure he knows what he means. But somehow I'm skeptical that it's what Christian theology has typically meant by the Kingdom of God.

How about expiration dates on marriages?

It's always interesting, and somewhat sad, to watch how the Brits debate the institution of marriage. As I've read various commentary on marriage in the London Times over the past few years, there seems to be a growing appreciation for marriage as a necessary social institution.

That said, it is bizarre how those who want to save marriage, without being idealistic and conservative, talk about it. Take for example, India Knight's recent column. Knight makes an excellent point early on:

I would say this: all children, regardless of age, race, religion or background, are innately, profoundly, unimaginably conservative and want their parents to be together, both physically and in an official sense. This ambition doesn’t peter out in teenagehood, although it becomes more elastic in what it is able to encompass – my teenage children were constantly badgering me to get married to their sister’s father; I myself took my former stepfather’s surname as a teenager because it made me feel secure.

She goes on to analyze the comparative merits of cohabitation and marriage. Acknowledging that the old view of marriage seems naive, she maintains that cohabitation is somewhat immature for adults. Her conclusion?

Last month Gabriele Pauli, a German politician, called for “marriage expiry dates”.

“The basic approach is wrong . . . many marriages last just because people believe they are safe,” she said. “My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years.” The contract would be renewable if the marriage was thriving and would simply expire naturally if it were not.

I think this is a brilliant idea. Let’s talk about marriage, by all means, and praise its many and undeniable virtues – but if we want to encourage people to do it, it might be time to lose the rose-tinted specs and have a hard, realistic look at how best to help it to survive.

That's exactly what we need. Let's build the death of marriage right into its very structure. Oh those Europeans.

A Biblical Case for Natural Law: Book Review

A book review I wrote of David VanDrunen's A Biblical Defense of Natural Law has been posted at Creed or Chaos. This review originally appeared in the July/August issue of the Outlook, and is reprinted with permission. The first part appears here:

American Christians intent on calling their nation back to its Christian founding love to quote II Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and forgive their sin, and heal their land.” For sixty years Evangelicals led by men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell have appealed to the Scriptures to show the path the United States should follow, whether the issue is supporting Israel, opposing homosexual marriage, or fighting abortion.

The rise of the Christian right has provoked fanatical cries that Christians are seeking to reinstate an inquisition-bearing theocracy like Old Testament Israel. Others claim that Christian political efforts are destroying the sacred American separation between church and state. Even thoughtful Christians question whether we have gone too far, whether in the midst of our political efforts we have somehow forgotten the spiritual mission of the church.

I recall discussing with a friend at Covenant College the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, a decision which struck down state laws against homosexuality. My friend suggested that perhaps the Supreme Court’s ruling was right, since the job of the church is not to impose its religious morality on the world through political campaigns, but to preach salvation to sinners through Christ. Isn’t biblical morality, she suggested, supposed to grow out of the work of the Spirit, rather than be imposed apart from the cross?

See the rest of the review at Creed or Chaos.

What is the Kingdom of God Anyway?

Modern Christians and modern churches do not typically think of themselves first and foremost as representing a political entity. If we think of ourselves as being part of a kingdom at all, we typically think of the idea of a kingdom as being a merely spiritual reality, or even simply as a metaphor. If we think of our churches as political at all, it tends to be because they are improperly caught up in the politics of this world.

There are a number of problems here, at a number of levels. I hope to address some of those problems in the weeks to come. But I want to start with this point: Jesus' message to a significant degree made use of political ideas, depended on political hopes, and pointed forward to political dreams.

The Dutch Reformed New Testament scholar Herman Ridderbos writes, "it cannot be denied that the idea of the kingdom [in Scripture] ... is wider and more universal than ... that of the divine covenant, or that of justification of the sinner through faith, which elsewhere summarize and establish the great work of God's redemption."

Over the next few weeks I hope to write up some thougths on what precisely the kingdom of God is, and how it shapes the experience of believers in this world. What is the kingdom? To back up, what is the good news of the gospel? What is the message that Jesus brought that was so good?

In Mark 1:15 Jesus' message is summarized as this: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (or “good news”). There are two things going on here. First, the time is fulfilled and so the kingdom is here. Second, we must repent of our wickedness and believe in the gospel of the kingdom.

In the Old Testament the Jews looked forward to both spiritual and physical healing. On the spiritual side God would forgive their sins and write his law on their hearts so that they would obey him. On the physical side, God would heal all their diseases, take away their poverty, defeat their enemies, and build them up as a perfect kingdom around Jerusalem.

Those were the two aspects of the kingdom. To the Jews, physical and spiritual health went hand in hand. Before he died, as Deuteronomy records, Moses had promised that if the people obeyed God from the heart, God would bless them physically. They would prosper and they would live long in the promised land of Canaan. If they disobeyed, they'd get all kinds of diseases and would be impoverished, and exiled. To the Jews, if you were wealthy and healthy, you were good.

Think of the life of Job. Why did Job struggle so much from his suffering? Because it was an exception against the rule that God normally blesses those who are good. And at the end of the book of Job, he is vindicated because he gets all the good things of this life back.

Throughout the era of the old covenant the Jews grew in the realization that they could not perfectly obey God's law. They needed a Messiah, one who would bring both physical and spiritual healing.