PROPHEZEI

I have argued below that perhaps the best strategy for influence and change in your church is to stay put where you are, but there are a good amount of people in the American evangelical world that move from Baptist or free church traditions into Bible churches and later Reformed or Presbyterian churches. Most of the time it has to do with deeper teaching and what is seen by some as closer fidelity to the truths of the gospel. Scientifically speaking, I can’t say who’s gone back in the reverse direction but I know this–most people who consider moving into Reformed churches just don’t know what they’re getting into and they have little to go on except the excited urgings of Reformed elders and congregants that are happy to see them cross the aisle to join their particular faith community.

Many years ago, I considered going to Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and I asked James White what he thought about it. He suggested I talk to someone about “Presbyterian ethos” and see if it was really the right move or not because things were different in a Presbyterian environment than what I was accustomed to in the Southern Baptist world. I didn’t know it at the time, but this was exceptionally good advice. Unfortunately, this pointed me in the direction of a particular Reformed pastor that made all things Reformed look good on the surface but later I found out otherwise and in spades.

My guess is that very few people joining a Reformed or Presbyterian church consider both the positive and negative issues surrounding a move from one particular faith tradition to another. Some of these reasons only become obvious once you’ve really been in a Reformed environment for a number of years. Of course, the grass always looks greener on the other side and it’s easy to do things in a hurry. Don’t get me wrong. I understand the desire to be in the right place as the Lord leads, but the question you have to ask yourself is really, “Have I considered everything here?”. So, in the interest of helping others to make careful decisions by providing them with more information than they’d have otherwise, as a devil’s advocate I’m putting forward reasons why you wouldn’t want to join a Reformed or Presbyterian church.

1. Reformed churches aren’t really Reformed and their pastors have received in general a very narrow theological education from their seminaries based on particularly modern American or Puritan understandings of what it means to be Reformed. Of course, Reformed pastors all across this planet will dispute this notion because it doesn’t speak very highly of the education they value and treasure. But, the notion that a seminary education provides a pastor with an appropriate background, theology, and history of the people of God in general is simply a misnomer. It’s just not true. Most pastors in Presbyterian and Reformed churches haven’t read deeply into the Reformed tradition and are largely ignorant of the magisterial Reformers in terms of their conception of the Church and a great variety of other issues. Reading outside the box of modern Reformed history and theology just isn’t normally a part of the mix in Reformed seminaries and congregations around the country suffer as a result. Instead, pastors focus on the very basics of what it means to be Reformed and leave advanced and in-depth studies to the theological academic community who plods along with its own inefficiencies and prejudices. Not to be forgotten, everyone in Reformedville operates with a particular bias and values some Reformed traditions over others. The sad result is that Reformed churches are often presented with theory and practice that is presented as the gospel truth of the matter rather than making clear that what is being presented is actually the modern Reformed pastor’s pet understanding.

2. Reformed churches have an undue focus on fidelity to the classic Reformed confessions that rivals Roman Catholic tradition. In the beginning, confessions of faith during the magisterial Reformation were actually the way that a given church expressed its living out of a lively Christian faith. No one looked at these professions of faith as absolute doctrinal guides that work to interpret or classify the teaching of Scripture in one way or another. Yes, that’s right. I said that today’s Reformed churches use their confessions to interpret the Bible and as a result wind up with the sort of tradition that is part and parcel very similar to a Roman Catholic understanding. This becomes plain as soon as you disagree with your pastor on a fundamental point of what the Confession has to say–never mind what the Bible might say about it.

3. While the Church in America and around the world over the last century was fighting the bigger battles in the war against the powers of this world, Reformed churches were involved in some of the most inane controversies on the planet. Take some Excedrin Migraine medicine first and then take more time and read Machen’s Warrior Children by John Frame and read about one example of an entire Reformed denomination sunk in the mire of controversy after controversy that served to distract churches and denominations from their most basic and fundamental missions. Are you sure you want to grow up with your children watching you fight those sorts of battles right along with the rest of Reformed churches because Presbyterian and Reformed churches get consumed in pitched battles that many never step away from?

4. Reformed churches split every two weeks. Okay, that’s an exaggeration but the truth is over the last one hundred years Reformed and Presbyterian churches in America have gone one of two different directions. The denomination either trends toward abandoning orthodoxy or fighting so hard against unorthodoxy that churches split and split and split and split until there are ‘us four and no more’. You pick where you want to wind up.

5. Reformed churches are often overly intellectual in their worship, their practice of Christianity, and their emphases in the life of the church. This is part and parcel why these congregations and their pastors get into controversies that really aren’t as important when seen from the wider world of church and society in America and around the world. Reformed folks like to accuse evangelicals of gnosticism but Reformed churches do a great job of intellectualizing the Christian faith on a regular basis and forget that doctrinal fidelity to a confession or catechism is not necessarily the same as fidelity to our God and love for others. In the name of truth, some of the nastiest fights I’ve ever witnessed have taken place in Reformed churches. ‘Love your neighbor’–let alone ‘love your enemies’–can be completely lost in Reformed and Presbyterian churches once you cross the right elder or disagree publicly with the ministers of the church.

6. Reformed faith communities are often too insular and can lose contact with the outside world. Reformed and Presbyterian churches can become almost monastic in having such tight knit communities. And, this can be very healing and a great thing for those coming from environments where community means showing up for a Promise Keeper’s rally. But, there is a flip side to this. If and when you fall out of favor with the community, you and your family can become isolated and lost from the community’s sight. In short, you can face a virtual excommunication in a very short period of time and you’ll find that people are more loyal to the community as a whole than they are to their brothers and sisters in the community. This is part of what it means to express a covenantal theology in the life of your church and it represents the dark side of a Reformed environment that very few people find out about until they actually experience it.

7. Reformed churches are not evangelistic and are generally uninterested in expanding outside the walls of their churches. Most Reformed churches I know about expect to cull new members from other churches and are constantly on the lookout for ways to proselytize and attract the ideal church member instead of focusing on the lost and forgotten of our society.

8. Reformed churches can tend toward an intellectual arrogance that gives the impression that they are always and at all times completely in the right and other churches are exceptionally wrong in terms of doctrine, life, and practice. Not only do some Presbyterian churches act as if they alone have the keys to the kingdom, they also pretend to think they have all the good secrets that others could have if only they agreed with them in the first place. If that’s not gnosticism, I don’t know what is.

9. The real ministry in many Reformed churches is done by the elders and laypeople are consigned to listening and following. Since many Reformed or Presbyterian churches see church ministry primarily as the preaching/teaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments–a professional clergy is required to make sure all of that is done correctly. You will never get asked to teach a Bible Study or other class in a Reformed church without being seriously vetted as to your fidelity to the confessions and whether or not you measure up to their standards. Never mind what the Bible has to say. Your giftedness in the matter is frankly irrelevant. About the only thing you may be able to do is lead music in the church since most Reformed elders are horribly unprepared and ignorant of music and its place in the church in general. The elders lead and you must follow. That is the nature of ministry in a Reformed or Presbyterian church and if you wind up leading because you are gifted without the elders’ say-so you will find yourself in hot water.

10. Joining a Reformed church may mean making vows in regards to church membership you can’t keep. I address this particular point in full in a sermon on church membership that I may post again at some point, but to join a Reformed or Presbyterian church you must swear publicly to obey the elders in all matters of faith and practice. Given that you don’t exactly know what this will mean until it happens, you can find yourself disagreeing with an elder but still obligated by your own word to follow what he may say no matter how wrong he may be. This can also be a very dangerous position to be in if the elder or minister is spiritually abusive and a micro-manager who looks into every nook and cranny of your life. If you think that specificity in terms of doctrinal accuracy is the only thing that elders are concerned about in a Reformed or Presbyterian church, you might take just a second to think about the consequences of having an explanation for every theological problem and whether or not that might have anything to do with taking a microscope to your own life at the hands of overly zealous legalistic elders.

Of course, not every Reformed or Presbyterian church resembles the list above but many do. Your average well-intended evangelical that is just trying to be faithful needs to understand the risks inherent in moving in such a drastic direction from his faith community to another one that’s not really of “like faith and order”. Don’t buy into the lie that the grass is greener or the idea that this particular group of Christians is just more faithful to God’s Word. Remember God’s providential work around you and in your own church now and think twice about moving to unfamiliar territory.

We live in a day where frank and honest discourse is undoubtedly discouraged and polite walkabouts in the never-never-land of political wrangling just mutter on and on in the press and on our television sets. Real discussions rarely ever happen and it creates nothing but ignorance and powerlessness among the people. I just watched the McCain/Obama townhall format and for all the politeness I wish there had been enough of an effort to really get down and dirty in handling any of the issues. But, that sort of approach would undoubtedly lose an election not win it.

This sort of bland swipe at the issues and persons that round out this “debating” is symptomatic of the way discourse in our society has changed over the last hundred years. Even in the Christian blogosphere, we have people writing about how to be nice to everyone when blogging along with moderated comment policies that feature the sort of irenicism that these campaigns would undoubtedly love. I’m convinced that if these same Christian bloggers were in charge of the current presidential campaigns both men would get elected because the differences between them would be blurred beyond all possible recognition, we would only hear the soft-spoken words of all that’s nice to say, and there would be lots of hugging and gushy accolades between McCain and Obama every time the two appeared on stage in front of the American people.

I’m not one to be mean unnecessarily, but part of our job here at PROPHEZEI is to speak the truth plainly and not be afraid to mix it up with the power brokers and others who would suppress that sort of free speech in our churches and on the Internet. Of course, that’s one reason why some people won’t discuss things with us here or link to PROPHEZEI. It also happens to keep some people from reading this blog.

But, I’d remind our readers that the prophets of old were no less affected by those who would have opted for the status quo or just didn’t want to rock the boat enough for anyone to fall out. In the life of the people of God, there have been times where one man had to say the things he said and he always had plenty of opponents with much bigger sticks than the sort of nasty grams provided to someone in the blogosphere who dares to speak up and against the prevailing tide of whatever the issue in question may be (aside from silence, the only time our irenic friends provide us with something disturbing to read or ponder).

So, instead of niceties and attempts to just get along with everyone–I say, fire the engine up and let the discussion fly. Let’s give some real wings to debates and discussions on the Internet and really explore and deal with issues in our churches. The Reformers weren’t afraid of real discussion and debate, why should we be?

Brett Bonecutter writes of traditional hymn music in a Reformed church:

Let me try to explain. One of the reasons “Evangelical” churches using pop music are bigger and more active than traditional “Reformed” churches is because their music is culturally accessible. More people would come to and grow into liturgical and Reformed churches if they could connect with the music. Visitors and neophytes simply cannot digest an anachronistic 4-point harmony written in 1820 with an organ or lame piano in the background. This becomes a huge barrier to them dealing with the ministry of word and sacrament. I challenge you. Go to the average traditional worship service and contrast it with a bigger Evangelical church with a “band.” I GUARANTEE you that the worshippers in the Evangelical service are more joyful, engaged, and emotive than folks in Reformed churches. Guarantee it.

We have to get over the impulse that pop music or even jazz in church is somehow beneath God. Yes, we should be intentional and strive for excellence, but no genre has a corner on holiness or propriety. It takes wisdom to discern what is out of bounds, but it also takes wisdom to know what can be included for the sake of edification. Simplistic thinking about this matter will not serve the church well.

There is something to be said for Brett’s comments here though I disagree with his impression that hymn music is generally “unsingable” and all the other negative adjectives he uses in his post. I agree on the whole that evangelicals are more joyful in worship and it’s high time for Reformed churches to consider looking at the beam in their own eye.

I’m not opposed to what I call “newer music” in churches per se–I happen to think however that the hymns and psalms of yesteryear on the whole are better for a church’s music diet than what is commonly found in evangelical churches today. However, that said, there is a fair amount of decent and more modern chorusy music that can be included in worship. Sovereign Grace Music is one place to find newer music that is fairly Reformed in orientation but still somewhat modern in its presentation.

In truth, though, Brett goes a bit far. The reason hymn-based Reformed churches are often inaccessible to outsiders really does have little to do with the music at least when the music is done well. The proof is in the singing of traditional Christmas carols–every evangelical church I know switches their music to sing carols during the season and everyone loves it because the music is familiar and nostalgic to most people even though the style is not much different than other normal hymns. That same nostalgia and familiarity can be transferred to hymn singing in general, it just takes hard work.

Additionally, I’ve found people particularly open to any form of music when it’s done well. But the same stunted growth is found in churches where modern music is done terribly and it resembles the balding bearded Will Farrell junior high teacher and his frumpy female sidekick. I’ve seen churches grow because they use hymns in music and they do it well and I’ve seen the same for more modern music in church.

It may be high time to admit that many Reformed churches have systemic issues for larger reasons than what kind of music they use in their services. Music can play a part and bad music will only help to further isolate a church from the culture around it but it is only a part of the bad stuff that may be going on. The inaccessibility in a Reformed church comes from an overall culture that keeps newcomers at arms’ length and unable to really integrate properly into a church. Now, that said, there are of course exceptions to the rule.

I had a good friend visit a Reformed church here in town where they were celebrating the Lord’s Supper that day. In order to participate, my friend was asked to sign a page-length document stating he was indeed a baptized Christian, in total agreement with the Reformed faith, etc. etc. etc. I thought this only happened in Lutheran churches and only with a card! The Reformed church is always outdoing someone else! :) But, this sort of practice is part and parcel of a culture that says “We’re your elders, we know better, and you must be in line before you can enter and participate in the life of the church”. My friend, of course, is a great guy and wasn’t bothered by this at all but other people in the evangelical world would likely have been greatly offended.

Some of the strengths of Reformed churches can turn into weaknesses. Heady sermons and advanced teaching in Christian theology can be good as a steady diet for regular faithful members but not everyone in the evangelical world is ready for such solid food. The Reformed could learn a lot from the Anglican homily and its place in their expression of the Western liturgy. Not every sermon needs to be 55 minutes or longer focusing on the way John Calvin, the Westminster Confession, and Stephen Charnock understand the attributes of God. I’m not saying that you must cancel good teaching in order to bring in others to your churches, only that we must think strategically about where and when that teaching is available.

Then, some Reformed churches get so closed and inward-looking that guests rarely come and when they do instead of being greeted by anyone other than the properly designated person, they get stared at by members with the sort of look that says, “Who in the world is THAT?”. Add this to a general environment where the elders do the ministry and the members are ministered to and you create an environment that is difficult for evangelicals to exist in because evangelicals are taught the reverse–everyone is a servant and minister in the church.

Perhaps the worst element of a Reformed church is its seeming inability to have any effort in real evangelism in the community. Many Reformed churches do not reach out to those around them in any substantive way except to argue with others about how right they are. Reformed churches on the whole aren’t looking for new converts and in fact seek converts from other churches much like Roman Catholics who try to pull Christians out of their already existing faith communities within Protestantism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that one of the reasons Reformed churches don’t grow and find themselves discouraging people because of bad music and some of the other reasons I mention above is exactly because they resemble a Roman Catholic church more than they ought as a Protestant and Reformed church.

In many Reformed churches, the Westminster Confession (or other similar confessional standards) is the Magisterium and crossing a line to even question different ways of understanding the confession (let alone questioning the nature and place of that confession within the life of the church) puts you in hot water in most Reformed churches. Music is downplayed within the liturgy because the focus is normally on proper theology and study. So, music is generally bad or barely acceptable in the first place–and Reformed folks want to call evangelicals gnostic! The people come to get ministered to instead of working to serve others in the life of the church. And, you’re never really accepted in a Reformed church until you believe “exactly like we do” and we’ve made sure of that before you can really participate in the life of the church to any real degree. So, the problem is not hymn music in and of itself but the stodginess of traditional hymnody gone bad can certainly be a symptom that deeper issues exist in the life of a Reformed church.

It is interesting to watch other people interpret primary source material and how the assumptions of one particular view can weigh in on what exactly an author wrote about in the past. Recently, Dr. Ben Witherington writes about Clement and his apparent view of a church hierarchy early on in the life of the church (prior to or near to the close of the first century). Ben Witherington writes:

What conclusions should we draw from this important authentic early Christian document from the first century A.D. written by a co-worker of Paul’s?

Firstly, the notion that there was no leadership hierarchy in the earliest period of Christian history is an absolute myth. The evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical insofar as it discusses such a matter confirms this fact. Secondly, the notion that everyone was called to take up leadership roles in the early church is also a myth. No, there were specific persons called to do this. Thirdly, the hierarchy existed not only in general between the linked house churches, but within them as well, from what we can tell. This is definitely what Clement believes if you read 1 Clement carefully. Fourthly, this sort of structure should not be blamed on the growing pagan influence on the church as time went on. This too is absolutely false. Clement sees it rather as a continuation of the Jewish leadership structures both spoken of and prophesied in the OT. As an associate of both Peter and Paul, Clement was in a position to know what the mind of Peter and Paul was on the issue of leadership structures in a way that we certainly are not.

Ergo, we do not assume such structures are later and pagan developments, any more than the very Jewish Christian author of the Didache did. To the contrary, this is precisely the sort of ordering of the church that the apostles themselves had in mind and put in place, and which Peter believed Christ himself had inaugurated in the first place, when he gave him the keys to the kingdom and the power of binding and loosing in the first place.

Now, the actual statement in question from Clement is as follows:

The apostles were given the gospel for us by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. Thus Christ came from God and the apostles from Christ. Both things happened then in an orderly way according to the will of God. When therefore the apostles received his commands and were fully convinced through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and persuaded by the Word of God, they went forth proclaiming the Good News that the Kingdom of God was about to come, brimming with confidence through the Holy Spirit. And as they preached throughout the countryside and in the cities, they appointed the first fruits of their ministries as bishops/overseers and deacons of those who were about to believe, testing them by the Spirit. And this was no recent development. For indeed, bishops/overseers and deacons have been mentioned in writings long before. For thus Scripture says in one place (Isaiah 60.17 LXX) “I will appoint their bishops/overseers in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

Now our good brother Ben was kind enough to note that the passage Clement quotes is actually a rendering from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament seen above as “LXX”), because really the verse in the original Hebrew does not provide the justification Clement provides as a result of quoting the passage. Look it up, you’ll see what I mean.

Additionally, I believe Witherington is bringing more to the text than necessary and relying on other sources to flesh out what is a very simple statement about leaders in local churches. The other thing that Witherington does not do is define what he means by a “hierarchy”. Early churches were hierarchical according to him and perhaps Clement but what does that really mean?

No one doubts that the Apostles in large part appointed the first leaders in churches and that elders and deacons existed but really, wasn’t this a matter of necessity rather than an institution of divine order being laid down? At the very least, Witherington must admit that the evidence is scant in the first three hundred years of the life of the Church–if not non-existent–to suggest that the order in mind was to be absolutely permanent given that we have a curious silence on these points in the New Testament and other founding documents of the Christian Church at least on the disputed points. The Apostles had to put forward the new leaders because in the first place the spark of leadership did not just spontaneously combust in early churches. This is the age of the Apostles in founding the church and we see that their own institution never made it past the last of the Apostles at the end of the first century. Why should other “hierarchies” in the Church assume permanence when the first and primary one never did?

And, there is nowhere in Clement where the text we have makes plain that such an order was of necessity permanent or that there is any supervisory role in the office of overseer beyond the representative context we see in the early churches and synagogues. Furthermore, there is very little information in 1 Clement that tells us exactly what that order of leadership was and how it existed in the life of the church. And, the fact that Witherington rightly notes the Jewish origin of much of the structure of early churches–this only strengthens the idea that a Christian episcopacy as it is understood today as hierarchy in various parts of the Church was likely the farthest from Clement’s mind in putting forward his statement. It’s clear from Clement’s writing that his purpose in making the statement above about Christian leadership was to avoid schism and a falling away and not to unnecessarily buttress a high view of the ministry or of Christian leadership and hierarchy in the Church.

Another thing to consider is the fact that Clement constantly addresses his letter to the brothers at the Corinthian church instead of to the elders/bishops or deacons themselves. If in fact there was such a hierarchy as Witherington supposes (if we for the moment pretend he has given us a definition of what “hierarchy” means), it is strange that Clement addressed the entire church specifically in several places in the letter instead of the very men who were supposed to be providing leadership.

And, this likely has to do with the nature of Jewish synagogues in the first century. Any leadership that did exist in those synagogues was first representative in nature and couldn’t even exist without the presence of ten men from the congregation or assembly of the people of Israel. The community was the actual leader and the leader always represented the community when he acted in a supervisory capacity. What happened in Judaism that gave men any more power in their communities was a special giftedness and charisma–no doubt inspired by the Holy Spirit–rabbis like our Lord who clearly demonstrated influence and power well beyond the normal activities of rabbis and other leaders throughout the life of a given community.

But it should be no surprise that just as the Lord spoke in “various and sundry ways” to usher in our Lord Christ that at different ages and in different times in His providence He has provided the Church with several different ways of being led. And, though Clement is an early witness he is certainly not the only witness as to the nature of the church and her leaders nor is he of necessity even a primary witness though the ancient nature of his statements should weigh somewhat upon us.

Like other ancient documents, however, Clement writes with a lack of specificity and quite likely with an inability to speak to the pastoral concerns of our own day except in the most basic and simple ways. We know from Clement that as a result of normal Christian order, members of congregations should follow their leaders and that the charge of leaders was found initially in the work of our Lord and the continuation of that work through the Apostles. Little else however is in 1 Clement to give us more than that in any definitive sense.

Last, I believe it is a real stretch to say that Clement must have known the mind of Peter and Paul on these issues in any way that is helpful to us in garnering more truth on these issues than what I outline above. There is certainly no hard evidence for this and making such a statement is allowable only when we understand how tenous a conclusion this is. Clement could have been quite familiar with Peter and Paul and their opinions on these issues or not. First century Christianity was characterized by a vast upheaval of Palestine, the martyrdom of key figures who could have fleshed things out further for us had they lived longer, a very small corpus of works on this or other subjects of importance, and a preoccupation with pastoral issues and contexts which are in many cases strikingly different than what we face today.

Clement and the other early Fathers are important to set a context for our studies and can serve to potentially fill in details where important questions and issues must be addressed. But, our real and ultimate guide in these matters is the Scriptures and in this instance at least it ought to be noted by Dr. Witherington that both Scripture and Clement are relatively silent on the issue of an official hierarchy in the early church beyond the most basic necessities present in any organization that gathers together for the purpose of existing as God’s people.

One of the glories of hymn music is that you can use different lyrics for the same hymn tune or different tunes for the same hymn. One great example is the hymn below which can be set to the same tune for the familiar hymn “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”. This is all possible because hymns are metered and as long as you can find a different tune for the same meter you can sing the hymn in a whole new way. You can also sing several different hymns to the same music. That’s one reason why saying you should only sing 50-100 hymns well in a congregation is just ridiculous. In truth, learning 50-100 metrical hymn tunes makes it possible for you to sing anywhere between 400-500 or more hymns or Psalms set to meter with very little trouble.

Most hymnals come with an index for meter and tune in the back and people who know their hymnal well know that this is one way to really expand your ability to sing the hymns in the hymnal itself–more than you might otherwise. Not only can a congregation learn more than 50-100 hymns but they can also learn several different versions of the same hymn. One other example that’s popular in certain hymnals is the two or three ways you can sing “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name”. Here’s an mp3 example of the hymn below–an excellent tune and well set for the words of the hymn itself (the words in the recording are slightly different but you get the idea!):

Jesus! before Thy face we fall,
Our Lord, our life, our hope, our all;
For we have nowhere else to flee;
No Sanctuary, Lord, but Thee.

In Thee we every glory view,
Of safety, strength, and beauty too;
‘Tis all our rest and peace to see
Our Sanctuary, Lord, in Thee.

Whatever foes or fears betide,
In Thy blest presence let us hide;
And while we rest our souls on Thee,
Thou shalt our Sanctuary be.

Through time, with all its changing scenes,
And all the grief that intervenes,
Let this support each fainting heart,
That Thou our Sanctuary art.

One of the sermons I gave some time ago was on recognizing the signs of spiritual abuse in churches.

I always wanted to write down the fifteen or so warning signs in the sermon for others to have easy access to the information and so I provide them below. Each of these points are not always found together though I have found that many of them will serve to warn someone that something is just not right in your church. There is no statistical formula or certain threshold of these warning signs that will flag spiritual abuse in your church, but they are often common in places where spiritual abuse is occurring. At the very least, if you see any of these things in your church, you ought to raise an eyebrow and take a closer look at what is really going on. You can also listen to the sermon which provides a fair amount of background and context for the points listed below:

1. There is no effort on the part of the church to evangelize. Or, translated another way, the church is only looking for certain types of families or people to join. Churches that want large families and a strong father figure in their family. Successful businessmen, lots of children, or young families. The sorts of people that feel left out in this sort of environment are often single people, widows, and the elderly.

The problem with this, of course, is that the gospel goes out to all people and we are to seek all as they come to Christ. Additionally, we have a special responsibility to those who are without families since the New Testament defines true religion not as having more and more children to populate the kingdom but to take care of widows and orphans. This includes people who have no kids, who’ve been divorced, who’ve never been married even after their 40th birthday, and senior adults. This also includes people who have financial and other troubles and won’t contribute anything to the church for a long time except their presence. To do otherwise is to countermand the demands of the gracious gospel in being available for all and to implicitly force people to fit into a certain mold to be acceptable in a particular church.

2. Acceptable Christian practice in the freedom of Christ becomes a legalistic norm. This sign is found in churches where leaders behave a certain way and expect others to follow even if the Bible is clear that the issue in question is a matter of the freedom we have in Christ. In certain conservative Reformed environments, for example, you may be looked at as a bit strange if you don’t drink beer and other assorted alcoholic beverages. In other evangelical circles, the reverse may be true. But, in all cases, cultural norms within a church become equivalent to Christian norms and as a result pastors and other leaders may make an effort to punish or discipline someone over something that ought really to be considered a matter of individual preference.

3. Elders who flex their muscles and only mention passages about elder authority when they’re doing something in the church. At the same time, they may fail to mention rights and responsibilities of laypeople. Saying to a congregation that you’re going to do something as a church leader because you have the authority and obligation to do so based on what the Bible says about ministerial authority can be a very clear warning sign. There ought to be more reasons besides a resort to authority as to why someone would take it upon themselves to act in a certain way. This is most clearly seen perhaps in discipline cases before the church. Is it really a matter of authority and the necessary exercise of power in a church to discipline someone or are your elders and pastors really concerned about the soul and life of the person they’re disciplining? What have they said about reconciliation and forgiveness and the ability of Christ to be victorious over all sin?

4. People idolize the pastor and he encourages it. Let’s face it. Some ministers are in the ministry because it’s a place where they can be stroked for their talents, abilities, and faithfulness. If you’re in a church where the pastor is always and overly complimented and you never hear any public criticism or questioning concerning his person or his position, be careful. You may find yourself in an environment where spiritual abuse is rampant and quite possibly right before your eyes.

5. Everything has to be adjudicated or looked into no matter how small the violation is. Micro-managing the lives of people and their sin becomes the order of the day among the pastors of your church. A legalism that is rarely outdone when things get to this level, this is spiritual abuse at its raw and unhindered best. Watch out!

6. Ministers only visit you when there is a problem. If your pastor never meets to pray with you, never visits to get to know you beyond seeing you on Sunday and shaking your hand before worship, or never bothers to find out what exactly is going on in your life–there is a huge potential for danger ahead. Entrusting your life to elders who know next to nothing about you ought to be a huge concern. Who do you think they’re going to believe when and/or if you find yourself before them for discipline? Should men be judging your Christian life who don’t even know you?

7. The by-laws or other founding documents of the church only really protect the elders in disputes. This is common in churches where the elders or ministers carry a great deal of authority (and probably too much). Passages of Scripture regarding the need for two or more witnesses are explicitly identified in the Bible and rare it is that any mention of the rights of the accused in a church or laypeople in general.

8. Ministers one day reveal that you’ve been under discipline all this time but didn’t bother to notify you of these things. Then, they use such an announcement to control or limit your behavior.

9. Elders make sin public when the sin is in fact not public or the congregation has not been affected publicly by a member’s sin. Sadly, many elders make sin public to exert their authority over the person outed and to control the congregation. If you see or suspect this happening in your congregation, the danger signals ought to be going off in full force.

10. Elders that tell you these two words, “Trust me.” They say, “I’m your elder, you must trust and obey as we see fit”. What this does is call in doubt your own ability to judge the matter rightly even though the same Holy Spirit they supposedly have resides in you as well. Just because a man is ordained–that does not excuse his responsibility to provide justification for his point of view especially when it involves exercising authority and power over another. If anything, the obligation is strengthened and the responsibility on his part is increased, not decreased. Read Acts 17:11 and remember that the Bereans were called noble-minded for double-checking the words of Paul with the Scriptures.

11. Elders are called to be ‘apt to teach’ but they can’t explain their position from the Bible or the traditions of the Church Normally, this one thing would be enough to disqualify a man from ministry. If an elder or minister can’t provide justification for his point of view, you are under no obligation to follow him or take his authority seriously.

12. Elders refuse to admit they are wrong or in error. This doesn’t mean that every time you disagree with your ministers that you are always in the right. Rather, it means that when they’ve clearly been shown that they are in error and they refuse to admit that or do anything about it (in theological terms this is called being unrepentant, something the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were guilty of more than the people ever were) then you find yourself in a place where power and office both are abused.

13. Elders have a rationalization for every action. They have an explanation and they expect people to follow their reasoning and submit to their judgment in the matter without making their reasoning plain or bothering to convince folks of their viewpoint. I’ve found Reformed environments very susceptible to this particular problem because the thoughtful theological and ministerial work that goes into a pastor’s work can do double-time in providing a rationalization for every ministerial action under the sun. Just because a person is thoughtful and serious about what he brings to you or how he defends himself does not mean he’s in the right.

14. Elders refuse to answer questions asked of them as to why they do what they do. Unapproachable pastors or elders are quite simply men who do not belong in the ministry. Period.

15. Elders speak to you negatively about other members in the church. Gossip is a sin and gossip by ministers is a triple sin because of the confidential and trusting nature of ministerial relationships with their congregants and the higher responsibility they have as a result of being a leader in the church. If an elder or minister comes to you and complains or talks negatively about others in the church–watch out, he’s likely doing the same of you to others and it’s one of the most serious signs out there that spiritual abuse is afoot.

I think I may have to change my name to Diedrich Bonhoeffer. Wow.

UPDATE: Apparently Pastor Craw just isn’t interested in conversation about his ideas with those who may disagree with him. He’s deleted the link I put in the comment thread on his original post that points back to this post here. I had hoped he might engage and we could discuss this further–oh well! The invite of course is still open–we’re not afraid of challenge here, in fact I encourage it. If you don’t agree with me, let’s discuss it. Censorship is almost always a bad idea even on the Internet.

Garrett Craw writes with some not-so-good advice on singing hymns in your congregation. Now, don’t get me wrong. In general, I like what I see from Pastor Craw’s church and ministry and he’s one of the few shining lights in the CREC. But, some of his points on this issue really ought to be countered, so let’s take them one by one:

So, how can you use the old hymns and still get some bang for your shekels?

1. Don’t sing every blooming hymn in the hymnal. Out the 700-1000 hymns you find in an average hymnal, about 90% will be lame or unserviceable. Too sappy, too archaic in language, too weird. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, use those 50-100 gems.

Wrong. 90% of hymns are not lame or “unserviceable”.

Just because you can’t sing it or because a hymn is unknown to a congregation does not mean it can’t be learned nor does it mean it is lame. If anything, the reason some hymns are difficult to sing and “lame” in the eyes of modern pastors is precisely because most people and their church leaders today can’t read music and don’t devote any time to really learning the music in their hymnal.

We ought to think twice about calling 90% of our hymn music “lame” while we have a jolly good time referring to ourselves as high churchmen. In truth, we ought to have more respect for the music and hymnody of our fathers. I can appreciate hyperbole and maybe this is what Pastor Craw was doing by making such a grandiose and horribly unprovable statement but anyone really familiar with the history and content of American hymnals across several denominations knows this sort of grandstanding is just pure malarky if we take his words at face value.

Also, the music of the Church over the last two thousand years is incredibly diverse and most good hymnals reflect this diversity in one way or another. Limiting yourself to 50-100 of the congregation’s favorites is going to flatten out this diversity and keep people from appreciating and knowing about the musical diversity that our fathers held so dear. A lack of musical diversity promotes ignorance in the Christian community and can be a danger sign pointing to an environment rife with spiritual abuse.

Again, it is a matter of respecting those who came before and continuously learning hymn after hymn deepens that respect, keeps you from focusing too much on particular musical and lyrical expression in the church, and keeps the church healthy by recognizing that all are gifted, all ages of the Church have been gifted, and we’re all here together as one encouraging one another by the gifts God has given us in music.

Pastor Craw continues:

2. Sing ferocious hymns for your processional and recessional. There ain’t nothing new out there that matches “At the Name of Jesus” or “Christ is Coming” as far as content goes and if you stick to Ralph Vaughan Williams-type tunes set a little fast, your congregation will sound like a camp full Israelites preparing for a beatdown on the Philistines.

It is interesting to mention Ralph Vaughan Williams and his music in the context of singing hymns and providing processional music (as if his music represented anything close to the exceptional hymnody that we’ve had in the last five hundred years–this might be a conversation for another time).

But the important thing to note here is that the constant refrain from many in the liturgically-minded Reformed camp–that our worship ought to constantly “sound like a camp full [of] Israelites preparing for a beatdown on the Philistines” is just not supportable from Scripture. Worship varies in its emphases and its flow from time to time and to think that every service (or most every service) ought to have this sort of flag-waving “Lift High the Cross” English processional is extremely problematic. Sometimes it may be wise to use these hymns at the start and close of the service. But, I have to imagine that our Lord and His disciples at the institution of the Lord’s Supper and before Gethsemane were not processing about and singing the sort of hymn that goes along with the conquering hero.

Garrett continues:

3. Add some extra instruments, particularly some brass.

Partly right. For a smaller church, though, adding brass can be problematic. Most smaller churches (ie. less than a hundred members) should use a piano at the very least and an organ if they have the luxury of a second player. If not, adding string instruments and woodwinds is a better choice because trumpets and other brass instruments can very easily drown out the congregation and make hymns more difficult to sing. What is important is not military-sounding music but a congregation that sings well and to the best of their ability whatever they wind up singing. So, the piano is needed (as a percussion instrument primarily) to keep tempo and make the melody clear. Strings and other instruments can augment the music and add additional diversity and contrast from the singing. Adding brass in the wrong way can mute the sense of rhythm a congregation has, throw them correspondingly off tempo, and make the whole thing sound like a junior high band concert.

Most hymnals today have full orchestration available and some even have instrumentation available in Finale or other playable formats. Rather than adding just brass, consider the overall strategy of why you would have instruments in the first place.

Last, Reformed churches as they grow should start choirs where good singing can be modeled and people who are gifted in music can come into the church and really excel at providing an example for others in worship. It is too easy for some Reformed pastors to think the congregation is the choir no matter what–this is limited and small-minded thinking. Yes, of course, in one sense it is the entire congregation that sings praise to God in worship but no one looks at the minister and has any problem seeing him alone at the pulpit or the front of the church. A choir can provide a representative example and leadership where individuals and the entire congregation often can’t in much the same way as an elder or pastor in teaching the Word.

In the beginning, though, the congregation can be taught parts and various hymns and I encourage churches to not only work with a qualified music director in doing so but to also pay someone qualified to do so. Having hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank and no paid musicians on your church staff is frankly an ecclesiastical crime. Period.

Garrett continues:

4. Keep your canon of hymns small (under 100) so your people can learn the hymns and learn to love them over time. And when they know and love them they will sing them like warrior poets.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I challenge Garrett and other pastors to raise their expectations!

Have a higher view of your congregants and watch as they learn and expand their ability to sing several hundred if not a thousand hymns over the lifetime of your church. Oh sure, they’ll have their favorites, but don’t cheat your congregation by pretending they just can’t get there. If all we were ever supposed to sing was less than a hundred hymns, why are there a hundred and fifty Psalms in the Old Testament to say nothing of the impromptu singing of Miriam and others touched by the Lord in Scripture? Wait, early on add the Magnificat by Mary. 151. Add the Nunc Dimittis by Simeon. 152. Add two thousand more years of Christian music. 3,345,867. Okay, now I’m the one engaging in hyperbole here but I trust you get the point.

I remain convinced that many of those who call or consider themselves “high church” in the Reformed world have a long way to go before they actually are. There’s much more to this hymn singing than meets the eye and a higher view and practice is called for by pastors and congregants alike.

I’m not sure what’s going on at the Biblical Horizons blog - but it appears that everyone is either on vacation or taking a break from any sort of discussion. No posts lately and the discussion I was having on the blog just abruptly stopped even though I’ve asked for more input from Dr. James Jordan, Pastor Jeff Meyers, or someone else acquainted with their views.

So, because they have a pretty heavily moderated comment policy and the discussion is slow, I’m just going to lift some of my comments and post them here. I don’t have anything but an open comment policy–they should appear as they come in (with the exception of first-timers) and hopefully this will spur at least a little more comment. The whole thread is definitely worth a read including what I post below. People in Reformed environments and especially people who have come out of evangelicalism into more conservative Reformed environments seem to enjoy heavily criticizing the evangelical world. I’m not so sure the criticism always hits the mark however and often it’s done without any sort of critical attention to their own view.

At root in terms of what I felt was important about what we were discussing was whether or not “covenant renewal” takes place only in the Lord’s Supper and weekly celebration of the same during worship as Dr. Jordan has argued or whether evangelical “non-sacramental” worship qualifies as covenant renewal and the legitimate worship of the church. I have argued that any and all sanctification–and especially the public gathering of God’s people with or without a celebration of the Supper is still and always has been covenant renewal. I paste a few of my comments here to illustrate some of what has been said already. I look forward to hearing more especially from folks who advocate Dr. Jordan’s view (or Dr. Jordan himself) and I’ll start by first quoting Dr. Jordan:

47 James B Jordan

Okay. The covenant is made and renewed by blood. No blood, no covenant renewal. Hence, the Cup.

I’m out of town for a few days, so for now I’ll have to stop. You guys can keep going, of course.

I respond as follows:

48 Kevin D. Johnson

Hmmmm…

I guess at this point I must ask (and perhaps Pastor Meyers, if you are reading you might feel free to take Dr. Jordan’s place here), what exactly is covenant renewal then?

Also, and particularly relevant at least in my view, what does it mean to feed on the Blood of Christ? How and when does that happen? In the sacramental meal only?

And more…

52 Kevin D. Johnson

Joshua writes:

In Neh. 8, it is clear that there was sacrifice and meal: vv. 10-13. The point, indeed, is that this is what indicates that fellowship between YHWH and his people has been restored, after the sorrow and confession at the end of v. 9. The word, in that case, left them in mourning, but it was the meal that confirmed their acceptance by God.

The action of God’s people and, I would argue, the “renewal” is found in the people’s ringing endorsement and “Amen” of the reading of God’s Word—their continuation and faith in the participation of the promises of God made to them, fulfilled through them, and continued in them. Besides, it is clear that the people “worshiped” the Lord (v. 6). Yet, truly, according to Dr. Jordan’s standard this would be nothing more than a parachurch event because no sacrifices were offered and blood was not spilled on behalf of the covenant.

The meal and celebration that followed is hardly analogous to the Supper or the requirement that Dr. Jordan has laid down – ie. blood being spilled for covenant renewal. At the very least, one has to provide some sort of substantiation that we ought to see the feasting here as anything more than what churches do today in providing potlucks and other meals for celebration at certain times in the life of the church (though I grant this was a particularly unprecedented occasion that was later memorialized). It’s not like this was the Passsover or sacrifices proper as outlined in the Law.

Joshua continues:

Col. 3 does not in any way indicate that the NC is presented to us sacramentally in the singing of the church. Indeed, it doesn’t appear that Col. 3 is specifically about any gatherings of the ekklesia as such, but rather about general conduct of Christian life. So, while I would not say that God only meets with us in the assembly, he does meet with us uniquely there as the covenant people.

Unlike the Supper passages, Colossians actually does contain words about renewal and while you may be correct that the context of Colossians 3 is larger than what we are to do in Sunday worship, there is nothing that keeps us from excluding it when we speak of singing in worship and what that means. In other words, there is nothing that indicates that we must limit application of the passage to the “daily walk”. Where, anyway, is there any biblical justification for separating the Christian life into “daily walk” and special activities like worship? Your limiting of the context of the passage is unwarranted here. More would need to be demonstrated on your part to say otherwise.

But, central to my point earlier, Colossians 3:10 speaks of us being renewed and echoes 2 Corinthians 4:16 which says that we are being renewed day by day. I doubt the Apostle Paul would have left Sunday out of “day by day”. I realize such passages do not accord exactly with what Dr. Jordan has indicated is the basis for covenant renewal—the presence of blood—but I wonder how far this has been thought through.

For one thing, any interaction we have with God comes through Jesus Christ and by the application of His blood. So, any contact we have with God is a matter of covenant renewal because the intercessory work of Christ is always there and always working. How can this not be true in any Christian worship?

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper represents this communion and reality, it doesn’t create it or maintain it beyond all the other ways the grace of God is carried with us in our lives to keep us in Him.

John 6 tells us that the eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of our Lord is what gives us eternal life—but this eating and drinking is the Christian life both individually and corporately among God’s people. Of course, we see it especially as I have argued in the assembly and worship of God’s people and also through the sacraments, but the text does not allow us to limit the nature of this feeding.

The eating and drinking of John 6 can be expressed and His Body and Blood actually consumed, of course, in the Supper but in truth we eat and drink of Christ’s Body and Blood whenever we have faith in Him and His promises. This is why Jesus can say on the one hand that eating and drinking His Body and Blood is how we come to eternal life but that we shall never thirst or hunger again. So, literally, every divine encounter with God and through His people in their corporate assembly is a renewal of the covenant and it is happening continually. It always involves Christ’s Blood and the sacrament frankly is representative of that reality and not the other way around.

Proof for this is found, of course, in the Book of Hebrews. Do you think it is only when we have the Lord’s Supper that we ascend to His throne room? Is there anyone here on this site that will defend the idea that Hebrews 4:16 is only really true when we come together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Are we further going to argue that the latter half of Hebrews 12 is only a description of the communion service?

The contrast in Hebrews between a people who came to Mount Sinai and then eventually left and our own state ought to make this obvious – we have come and remain at Mount Zion where God is continually present, the assembly is constantly worshipping Him, and our Lord and Savior is providing His sprinkled blood that is utterly better than that of Abel. This is our status before God and it is the kingdom we are receiving (Hebrews 12:28, see the present participle and its connection to echo in the verse) and being renewed in every day.

All this means that God’s sanctifying grace is constantly renewing us and the covenant itself is renewed whenever our Lord through His Spirit moves us and continues to grant us grace and access to His kingdom which shall never be moved. This is the definition of sanctification or renewal.

I don’t doubt that the Lord’s Supper is a special instance of this and that it does indeed represent covenant renewal in a special way and is a legitimate federal rite for us to celebrate. But, celebration of the rite is not the reality in and of itself. The reality is represented by the rite and the only thing that makes the sacrament special is that it is both rite and reality at the same time because God’s grace is active in our participation of the same.

Correspondingly, the corporate assembly of God’s people in our churches on Sunday morning also both represents the reality of the matter and is the reality of the matter. So, in some sense, worship is sacramental whether the Supper is a part of that worship or not. But, you will notice I hope that there is no sacrifice or meal in Hebrews 12—yet not speaking of covenant renewal when expositing this passage seems utterly ridiculous. The reason there is no sacrifice is because it has already occurred in Christ and at His expense and the blood itself is now applied to us and remains effectual in speaking better than the blood of Abel.

53 Kevin D. Johnson

BlackTan writes:

Mt 18.20- this follows the discourse on disciplinary reconciliation and follows the pattern of “witnessing” as in trials. I don’t believe (as I did in my years as a modern Ev) it has to do with corporate worship.

Yes, I’m aware of the immediate context but a close look at the proof-texts of the Westminster Confession will illustrate that immediate context is not always directly relevant to the application of a passage of Scripture.

Besides, if our Lord is there to witness any disciplinary issue by two or three witnesses, how is it he wouldn’t be there in a corporate assembly for worship? There are a number of ways to demonstrate this from the Scriptures, but since God is within us – when we are together He is with us together in a special way and wouldn’t that be all the more true if we are together for the express purpose of worshiping Him as God’s people in a local church?

So, I’m not sure how your objection to my use of the passage carries any ground here.

54 Kevin D. Johnson

Joshua wrote:

That said, I would suggest to Mr. Johnson that part of the problem with Evangelical–and even Reformed–churches is the reduction of the Supper to the Word. The eschatological imagery is not of a sermon, but of a meal, and this should not be taken lightly. I suppose my complaint would be that the churches don’t seem to think about it very much, and when they do, they seem to answer in ways uninformed by much Biblical reflection: “well, we’ve always done it this way” or “if we make it frequent, it won’t be special,” or “what really matters is communing by faith.” And that latter view, taken to a logical conclusion, winds up with Quakerism, where the externals are entirely dispensable. So, my frustration is with a lack of reflection in the churches I have been part of…

I’m not sure I reduced the Supper to the Word—whatever that means—or that other churches are doing the same merely because they don’t celebrate the Supper every time they meet on Sunday morning.

I know I’m on very firm Reformed ground in seeing the Supper in terms of the Word as I described above (see comment #44) and charging the Reformers with not properly reflecting on the sacrament as it pertains to this and other issues would be treading on quite the dangerous ground. There’s no reason to separate the eschatological import of the Supper from the fact that it puts forth the content of the gospel (the work and person of Christ) in its presentation. Why can’t this be a matter of “both/and”?

Of course, it goes deeper than that and this is where the Reformed understanding of the Supper is key. What is eaten in the sacrament is eaten by faith – so that whatever is presented to us in the Supper is a matter of faith. We know, too, that faith ‘comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ’ (Romans 10:17). So, when we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord by faith in the sacrament, we are doing so as a result of what is put forward to us in the ceremony in terms of God’s Word being presented to us yet again.

Your charge that understanding the Supper in this way results in dispensing with the externals and winds up with Quakerism is just something that you’d have to demonstrate because I don’t think there’s any need to paint with such a wide brush nor do I think it even roughly resembles the truth. Are we really going to charge the entire evangelical world with Quakerism merely because they don’t celebrate the sacrament weekly, see it in light of how the Word works through the sacrament, or because they don’t make the same eschatological connections we might make here on this website? I don’t remember one mention of a “divine light” in my discussion of this matter yet it’s strange how a charge concerning Quakerism comes up so quickly merely because I mentioned the long-standing tradition of the Reformers in seeing the sacrament in light of its relationship to God’s Word.

So, making the charge of Quakerism on this issue seems like an unreasonable tact to me and not really cognizant of how our brothers on other sides of these aisles in America understand and think about the Supper. I think perhaps that sometimes we let our conclusions on these things run rampant—logically necessary as we think they may be—and say extraordinarily negative things about other Christians and their views that we can neither support nor demonstrate to be true—but the punch of the statement hits hard anyway because it makes sense to us. I mean, if I’m wrong here by all means demonstrate the veracity of your previous statement—but please don’t forget to deal with evidence I’ve already provided to the contrary here and in comment #44.

But to return to the sacrament, surely we can agree together that viewing the sacrament as part and parcel of God’s Word to us does not necessitate us viewing the rite without all its other important aspects as well.

We looked at Matthew 25:14-30 in Sunday School this week. This is the parable of the talents. Two servants faithfully use and invest their talents (5/2 respectively) and one servant buries his single talent. The first two servants are rewarded by ‘entering into the joy of the Lord’ and the faithless servant cast into outer darkness.

When we look at this parable today, it is easy to cast it in a way which makes it sound like as Christians we’re to be financial advisors with our own resources and assets in building up and maintaining what God has given us–especially materially speaking. No doubt we’ve all heard a version of this in the modern world being touted by this or that particular preacher. Or, versions of the story as deep as a puddle in the rain cast “talents” to mean our ability or talents given to us by God.

The context however demands more. Remember that this parable is put forward just before our Lord’s betrayal and preceded by the prophecies in Matthew 24 about the destruction of Jerusalem and the culpability of the Jews and religious leaders in rejecting the work and presence of Christ in their midst. All of the parables prior to this one speak in condemnation and judgment of those who would reject the coming and work of Christ.

First of all, however, the word “talent” should really only be understood in a metaphorical sense and there is nothing in the story that indicates that a monetary denomination, “talent”, should be considered equivalent to how we use the word “talent” in English today. To do so would be to make a hermeneutical mistake of monumental proportions even if it is true that we are to use our talents wisely and in God’s service.

Secondly, the meaning of “talent” from the standpoint of our Lord’s discussions with those around him at the time is undoubtedly much wider in context and especially when we apply His words to this day. Think about the New Testament usage of words like “the inheritance of the saints” and the gifts of grace and promise that God has given us. Paul spoke of the Israelites in Romans 9:4 this way:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Now, what the Israelites saw in shadow, we see and have in reality. If the Israelites were adopted by God as sons, we too find ourselves adopted and able to cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15). Instead of the shadows of the Old Covenant–all the sacrifices, ceremonies, and ritual law–we have the New Covenant, the reality and substance of the law that used to be, and simpler and clearer ceremonies designed to point to the reality of Christ in our lives. We’ve been grafted into the tree and have now inherited the gracious covenant promises of God made from the beginning of the world until now.

In short, the “talents” that God has given us are greater in substance and reality than what came before us. When we consider that Abraham looked forward to our Lord’s Day and was glad when it came (cf. John 8:56), we ought to remember that all of what came before looked to us and what the Lord would do to bring the families of the earth together for blessing (cf. Ephesians 3). The Apostle Paul even looked at the Old Testament and said that everything that happened before was an example to us and instruction for us (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Please don’t misunderstand me. This does not mean that what the Israelites prior to the implementation of the New Covenant had was anything less than the promises and choice of God in becoming His people. We need to remember that a talent in Jesus’ day was not a small amount of money and the Jewish people continue to be the chosen people along with Christians today. The promises of God are irrevocable and thank God they are–we have so much to learn from our Jewish brethren even today.

But the servants who have two and five talents in our day ought to be seen as the Church. We have so many great blessings and they are here in full light as a result of the presence and work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. We have been given the great gift of God’s promises, His work in our lives, and everything we have is His. We need to be about kingdom business–not merely materially but in everything we do and are since He has given us Himself in the form of His Son and by His Spirit. Along with our Lord comes His promises. Along with His Spirit comes His power. All of it is what God has given us and as a result our stewardship is merely to be faithful to the objectives of the kingdom in everything we do and in everything we are. Nothing can be left out and it should spur us to a humble, loving, and grateful attitude in all that we do for His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).