R.W. Roberson

The Simplicity of Baptism

Sat, 18 Oct 2025 11:42:16 -0500

Baptism is a remarkably simple ceremony. Though I never noticed this as a layman, as a pastor, the simplicity is almost jarring. The baptism is almost over before you know it. A long, drawn-out baptism takes five seconds at the most. There are no flashing lights or fireworks. No signs and wonders. Instead, there are the simple words of promise (“I baptize you”) and the water.

Our Book of Worship instructs ministers in baptism with these words:

Then the Minister shall use the following or like formula without adding any other ceremony and shall baptize the child with water, saying: “___________, child of the covenant, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (BoW 3-2.G.4.d)¹

The phrase “without adding any other ceremony” is striking to me. It is drawn from the original Westminster Directory for Public Worship produced in the 17th century alongside the Confession of Faith. But why is that phrase added? It is almost certainly because our temptation is to do the opposite.

We look at this simple ceremony and think, “That’s not special enough.” Baptisms have become a social event for families, complete with celebrations and gifts. It has sentimental value as well. We like to gather up keepsakes and take pictures. And none of that is bad; we should cherish baptism! It is good and right to rejoice when God adds to his church! But the temptation, when the family is gathered and roast is in the crockpot, is to attempt to make the baptism “worth it.” In the context of our celebrations, the simplicity of baptism almost seems out of place. But we should never let the desire to make baptism special override God’s chief purposes and designs in baptism.

Every Christian tradition has ways they are tempted by ceremony. The Roman Catholic Church adds oils and exorcisms. Pentecostal churches often add ecstatic expressions. It is not uncommon to find Presbyterian churches where baptism is accompanied by complex liturgy. Perhaps there are responsive readings or a procession of the child down the aisle. But what if simplicity is the point?

The simplicity of baptism is an image of the simplicity of the gospel. It is a sign and a seal of God’s promises: the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit by faith. In baptism, God assures us of his pardoning grace. The baptized person does nothing to earn that grace. In fact, we come to the waters of baptism precisely because there is no ceremony or ritual that we can perform to earn God’s favor. Instead, the sign of God’s grace is placed on us. We stand in quiet humility, offering nothing, while the sign of the Spirit is poured over us. And we do not need anything else because the grace of God’s Spirit is completely sufficient to make us whole. It is that simple, but it is also potent. The grace of God is so powerful that it only takes a few drops to completely save us.

So consider what you see when you witness a baptism. It is such an unextraordinary act, but it is also the most extraordinary act imaginable. A strong man lifting a boulder over his head makes it look easy, but only when we try to lift it ourselves do we realize his power. Baptism is the same. Baptism happens with the shake of hand, but when God shakes his hand, worlds move.

The form for baptism by profession is similar (BoW 3-2.F.5). ↩︎

Addendum on Contraception

Tue, 23 Sep 2025 16:20:00 -0500

My article on contraception was posted on r/Reformed yesterday. I was not surprised to find that the reactions were largely negative. A variety of objections and questions were raised, so I thought I’d give just a few additional thoughts to address some of them.

There are any number of reasonable exceptions to the rule. As I state very clearly: “[T]here are situations where contraception would be acceptable, but only in pursuit of some end besides birth control.” Single, celibate women or women for whom pregnancy would be unusually dangerous obviously fall into this category. But that fact that some people find themselves in exceptional circumstances does not imply that all people are held to the exceptional standard.
I think my biblical arguments are more than sufficient to prove my case, but nature and tradition are both valid (if fallible) sources of truth. Reformed theology is not biblicist. If you’re looking for a single Bible verse to condemn contraception, you’re not going to find one, but then again, you’re not going to find a single Bible verse to support many traditional, orthodox Christian beliefs.
I hold traditional views on gender roles, but I am not a hyper-patriarchalist. In fact, I think much of that world is misguided at best and dangerous at worst. Furthermore, I make clear that one of my concerns is that this issue disproportionately effects women.
I have written one article on human sexuality, but I have written several more about a number of other topics. I also preach and teach weekly in multiple settings. If you totalled all that together, I would be very surprised if the topic of sexuality comprised more than two percent of my public ministry. In other words, this is not a hobby horse.
My main purpose in addressing the medical literature is to prove, first, that contraceptives are not neutral, but extremely disruptive to the body’s natural processes and, second, that much of the medical discipline approaches the issue from a decidedly anti-biblical perspective. I am not a medical doctor, nor do I intend to give medical advice. But I am convinced that many people do not understand or properly weigh these trade-offs, so I have presented them as a possible aid to that process.

I think this covers some of the primary concerns I saw, but anyone is free to email me at reid@rwroberson.com if any lingering questions remain. I’m happy to have good-faith exchanges with any interested parties.

Have Evangelicals Gotten Fertility Wrong?

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Funny looks. Crude jokes. Expression of serious “concern.” This is the common experience of those who reject the use of contraception.

Those of us in this position are fully aware that we are the odd ones. In America and the broader Western world, contraception is almost ubiquitous. At the average six-week follow-up appointment after the birth of a child, doctors often ask which form of the birth control will be used, not whether. In our broader culture, this is the only question worth asking. It’s the same for most evangelicals who roundly reject the traditional position on contraception. Often, you’ll hear the objection that the traditional position is “Catholic.” The irony is that (a) it is catholic in the sense that there is historical consensus on the issue and (b) only eight percent of Roman Catholics actually agree with their own church’s teaching on the issue.¹

Whenever we talk about history, it’s very easy to notice the blind spots of those who have gone before us. It is much more difficult to notice our own blind spots. And when we do, it’s often a Platonic cave experience. When light is shed on our blind spots, we often remain blinded, not by darkness but by light. So what I hope to do in this article is drag you out of the cave, and in so doing, I recognize that I will probably make you blind. Because of my own perspective on this, I find myself laying out these arguments often, and it is rare that anyone is immediately convinced. But that’s what happens when sight is restored–the eyes need to adjust. Christians need their eyes adjusted to wake us up from our stupor on this important issue. Over the past fifty years, we’ve done a good job in opposing more obvious evils like abortion, and even in recent days, Christians have become more firm in their opposition to morally questionable fertility interventions. But we still have a long way to go.

How we got here is a very long story, and once we get into the arguments, I’ll give several historical nuggets, but for the sake of space, we’ll keep things focused on the moral question. We’ll consider two things. First, we’ll look at the positive and natural moral imperatives which govern how the marital act is supposed to operate. Second, we’ll consider the harms associated with violating those imperatives.

State of the Question

There are a spectrum of Christian views on this issue, but I think we can reasonably divide them into two: those which reject contraception and those which permit it. Every other view falls into one of these two categories. For example, among those who believe that contraception is permissible, there is disagreement about which methods are acceptable. But that is not the question we are trying to address.

It’s also worth noting that we are discussing what is legitimate in principle. In other words, there may be exceptions to the rule, but as we all well know, the exceptions prove the rule. So from my perspective, there are situations where contraception would be acceptable, but only in pursuit of some end besides birth control. For example, if a woman requires a life-saving medical procedure that accidentally results in sterilization, then pursuing that procedure would not violate the principled rejection of contraception.

Furthermore, while I am simply defending my rejection of artificial contraception, I think a necessary corollary is the rejection of artificial conception. The same arguments laid out below can easily be used in the rejection of practices like in vitro fertilization.

The Purpose of Marriage

It is perhaps best to begin with the purpose of marriage and the marital act since this is the center of the justification for the permissibility of contraception. Andreas Köstenberger lists four purposes for sexual intimacy: procreation, personal union between the spouses, the public good, and pleasure.²

The first three are standard. If you’ve been to a traditional wedding service, you may have heard these listed before. For example, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer lists procreation, avoidance of sin (i.e., the public good), and mutual society as the three causes for marriage.³ The same purposes are listed in the chapter on marriage in the Westminster Confession of Faith. These, of course, have good biblical support. We find procreation and union as early as Genesis 1 and 2. Adam and Eve are called to fill the earth and are joined together as one flesh. With respect to the public good, Paul explicitly commends marriage as a way of properly ordering sexual desires in 1 Corinthians 7:9: “But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

I would, however, object to his fourth purpose, pleasure. In defense of this purpose, two passages of Scripture are cited: Proverbs 5:15-23 and the Song of Songs.² With regard to the Song, I would nearly reject his interpretation out of hand. In fact, as I read the Song, part of the point is that sexual pleasures are fleeting and need to be mastered and ordered under covenantal love. If you’re interested in reading more about that, I broadly agree with Miles Van Pelt’s interpretation.⁴ As for Proverbs 5, the purpose of that passage is to contrast appropriate marital relations with inappropriate extramarital relations. The exhortation is to delight in the sexual intimacy with one’s wife rather than another woman. It is inappropriate then to take this passage as implying that pleasure is an end in itself.

I am not suggesting that pleasure has no place in marital union. It certainly does, just not as an end. I concur with Thomas Aquinas’ assessment that pleasure is simply a movement of the soul toward a good.⁵ This is, by the way, what our catechisms mean when they say man’s chief end is to glorify and enjoy God forever; our purpose is to be perpetually moving into deeper communion with God. But with respect to the marital act, pleasure is a sensitive (as opposed to a spiritual) appetite that is fulfilled in the marital act, which is itself a spiritual good. Pleasure is not a purpose of the marital act itself.

Now, this is not a hair-splitting digression; it is an important element of the argument because I contend that any marital act must be ordered to all of its ends. The three purposes of marriage are inextricably united. All three purposes are bound up in the creation mandate:

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:28)

The first three commands are explicitly procreative, but they are not disconnected from the fourth. As Köstenberger notes, “The first man and first woman were thus charged to exercise representative rule in part by procreation.”² Another way of expressing the same principle might be to say that the purpose of personal union between the spouses is procreation. Eve was given to Adam because their personal union is the means by which procreation takes place. This also drives the need for marriage as a public good. Extramarital relations are naturally procreative, and illegitimate children are not conducive to the public good. Extramarital relations result in disorder in the world, as opposed to order. In other words, the world is not subdued through them.

So these three purposes of marital union are linked. Pope Paul VI summarizes this principle ably:

“This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”⁶

While I would, of course, disagree with Paul VI’s views on the authority of the Roman magisterium, I believe his natural and biblical reasoning in this matter is sound.

It is also notable that unlinking of these purposes has its roots in feminism, not in biblical reasoning. The primary reason feminists pursued birth control was to “uncouple” sex and reproduction so that women could continue to enjoy sexual relations without the natural result.⁷ This uncoupling has occurred with lightning speed. When John Murray published his Principles of Conduct in 1957, contraception was a category left unaddressed, and in fact, he simply assumed that sex and reproduction (or the unitive and procreative purposes) were inextricably linked, saying, “We cannot think of the duty of procreation in abstraction from marriage. And we cannot think of marriage apart from the dignity and privilege of the procreative acts and processes which are bound up with it.”⁸ His reasoning here is based in the biblical account of the creation ordinances in Genesis. But today’s evangelicals do not hold the same view; only four percent of evangelicals view contraception as morally wrong, and fifty-six percent think contraception is not a moral issue at all.¹

The central moral argument from this perspective is that Scripture does not prohibit contraception or, at least, does not require that the unitive and procreative ends of sexual union be present in every act of intimacy.⁹ In response, I would first note that in the history of interpretation, the story of Onan has been taken as a prohibition against the separation of the unitive and procreative. Consider this sampling of older commentators. John Calvin:

“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous.”¹⁰

Augustine:

“[Intercourse,] even with one’s lawfully wedded spouse, can take place in an unlawful and shameful manner, whenever the conception of offspring is avoided.”¹⁰

James Ussher lists “the horrible sin of Onan” as a violation of the seventh commandment.¹⁰ Martin Luther:

“For Onan goes in to her…and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime…”¹⁰

Matthew Henry calls Onan’s sin dishonoring and defiling to the body.¹⁰ Charles Provan’s book The Bible and Birth Control provides a litany of other examples. Modern commentators may take different approaches to this passage, but the historical view is clear.

Second, even if we granted that Onan’s story is irrelevant, it is inconsistent to suggest that the lack of a prohibition is the same as permission. I’m certainly not suggesting that we apply a strict regulative principle to all of life, but in this case, we have a positive command that regulates the marital act. Consider this example. If I give my daughter a twenty-dollar bill so that she can buy food, would it be disobedient of her to buy shoes instead? Of course! I don’t need to give my daughter a list of prohibited uses of the money, because I’ve already given her its purpose. Thus, it would be wrong for her to deviate from the purpose. The same applies here. There may be no direct prohibition against contraception in Scripture, but there is a positive command. That positive command renders the prohibition unnecessary, and that to a higher degree because of the law of nature!

Thus far, we have been speaking largely about biblical interpretation, but I think we can go even one step further back and ask, “What does nature teach us?” In Romans 1, Paul speaks on these very terms when he refers to “natural relations.” Now, this is a very familiar passage with respect to debates about homosexuality because of its clear condemnation of the practice. But we cannot neglect Paul’s reason for rejecting homosexuality, namely, that it is a violation of nature. By good and necessary consequence, we may conclude that any act which meets that criterion is sinful. Luther expounds this, saying, “Since to honor the body (at least in this one respect) means to be chaste and continent, or to use it properly, so the abuse of the body, by changing its natural use, means to dishonor it.”¹¹ So here is the million dollar question for applying natural law: what is the natural use of the reproductive system? Of course, it is reproduction first and foremost.

Adverse Effects of Contraception

The most popular form of temporary contraception in the United States is hormonal birth control. Twenty-six percent of women aged 15-49 in the United States are on some form of hormonal birth control, and hormonal methods account for forty percent of all contraception use.¹² Most commonly this takes the form of a pill, but there are other methods of administration available. Given its ubiquity, this is the form of birth control most doctors will recommend.

But despite its widespread use, hormonal contraception has serious adverse effects. For example, fifty percent of women using hormonal contraceptives report mood side effects, and thirty-eight percent report sexual side effects.¹³ Furthermore, when women attempt to get off of hormonal birth control, the physical side effects continue. Notably, it usually takes nine menstrual cycles, which are lengthened by hormonal shifts, for a woman’s body to recover from hormonal birth control use.¹⁴

These physical side effects also cause relational problems. Sexual attraction is largely driven by hormones, so changing those hormones can affect how a husband and wife relate to each other. For example, women who use hormonal birth control tend to prefer more feminine men than non-users.¹⁵ It has also been shown that hormonal contraceptive use contributes to women choosing partners whom they otherwise would not have chosen, as well as being unable to compete with non-users for their preferred partners.¹⁶ There is also evidence to show that use of contraceptives is correlated to less frequent sexual encounters in married couples.¹⁷

Sterilization is the second most common form of birth control after hormonal options; one in three women aged 35-44 have been medically sterilized.¹⁸ But it also has serious side effects. One major concern is that sterilization, male or female, significantly increases the chances of developing depression or anxiety.¹⁹ Sterilization also has one major disadvantage over other forms of contraception—it is irreversible.

All of this data also raises some serious ethical concerns. If you peruse all the articles cited above, you may notice that while they are looking at the same data we are, they are coming to very different conclusions. Most of the research in this area is done to help medical professionals convince women to pursue these birth control methods. Several articles above bring to light the problems associated with contraception but praise the benefits of contraception anyway. For example, one article concludes in this way:

Any such effects should be weighed against the multiple benefits that the invention of the pill has brought. This revolutionary contraceptive method has given women unprecedented control over their fertility with the possibility to sample different partners before reproduction, to control their number of children, to reach optimal birth spacing given circumstances or to end reproductive career before menopause if desired, which has had a considerable impact on their social life. For instance, a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women was observed after the pill was legalized. The ability to control fertility without sacrificing sexual relationships has facilitated women’s long-term educational and career plans, and many social scientists consider the widespread use of the pill to be key in creating women’s modern economic role.¹⁶

Here we have a scientific journal blurring the lines between science and ethics. The contraceptive pill is being touted, not as an effective medical intervention, but as a social good. These are too numerous to cite here, but the medical journals are full of articles discussing the importance of introducing these interventions into second- and third-world countries for the purpose of exporting postmodern Western ideals about marriage and family. One of the more egregious examples of this kind of activity was the mass sterilization of Puerto Rican women in the 50s and 60s, usually without their consent. The documentary La Operación tells this story effectively.²⁰ And this is not even to mention that the vast majority of funding for these research projects comes from the very pharmaceutical companies which produce the contraceptives, as well as non-profit organizations devoted to encouraging contraception and other forms of sexual deviancy.

In all of this, it is women who bear most of the weight. It is women who suffer the severest side effects, it is women who deal with the most medical interventions, and it is women who are the subject of experimentation. And it makes sense, does it not? If we took away any other bodily function, would it not cause great suffering? What happens if we stop digestion, breathing, eyesight, or circulation? Would it not immediately cause great pain and suffering? Eyesight is not an essential function, but what blind man doesn’t want to see? Contraception is analogous. We wouldn’t cut out our own eyes, but we freely pursue sterilization. We wouldn’t chemically block our optical nerve, but we chemically inhibit ovulation. We wouldn’t walk around everywhere with a blindfold on, but we introduce barriers into the marital bed. The fact of the matter is that there are consequences for defying the laws of nature. There are inescapable trade-offs associated with exchanging our natural relations with unnatural ones. That is no small matter.

Isn’t NFP just another form of contraception?

This is an objection very commonly raised against the traditional position on birth control. This is one of John Frame’s objections: “If reproduction is an essential purpose of sex, then we should never interfere with it, by any means at all.”²¹ Thus, says Frame, a distinction between natural and artificial means is irrelevant.

I think there are a couple things Frame is missing here. Most importantly, he’s missing what the natural law argument entails. The difference between natural methods and artificial methods is that the former works in, with, and through nature while the latter defies it. Pope Paul VI comments:

“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.”⁶

The key difference is that NFP is stewardship of existing natural processes, like a farmer tending his animals, while artificial methods are abuses and disruptions of those process, like abhorrent factory farming practices.

This is, by the way, a distinction that the medical community is aware of:

“[Hormonal contraceptives] cause the total blockade of fertility by inhibiting the normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis in a reversible way. Therefore, they can be fully considered as contraceptives. On the contrary, natural methods do not inhibit the natural fertility of the woman, but only aim to control and predict its cyclicity. Therefore, they can be called ‘fertility control methods’ instead of contraceptive methods.”²²

A contraceptive, by definition, prevents conception. But in NFP, there is no active attempt to prevent conception. By way of analogy, we may consider end of life questions. Most Christians recognize a moral distinction between euthanasia and hospice care. Euthanasia is wrong because it actively disrupts the normal functioning of the human body to induce death. Hospice care, on the other hand, simply stewards the natural death process in a way that eases pain and suffering for the afflicted. I contend that if we are able to recognize this distinction at the end of life, we should be able to do the same at the beginning of life.

Conclusion

Most of us step into this question without much thought. We do what’s easy. We do what’s normal. We assume it will be simple and symptom-free. But it isn’t. So why the pressure? Why are we pushed toward certain methods? Why are the downsides rarely explained? And the heaviest question of all: how many lives are quietly lost while we are told there’s nothing to worry about? My hope is simple. Think about it. Take a harder look at the methods you’re considering. Don’t just ask what God might allow. Ask what God intends. Not, “What may I do?” but, “What ought I do?”

Mitchell, Travis. 2016. “4. Very Few Americans See Contraception as Morally Wrong.” Pew Research Center. September 28, 2016. ↩︎ ↩︎
Köstenberger, Andreas J., and David Wayne Jones. 2010. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
The Church of England. 1662. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments. Standard Edition. Cambridge. ↩︎
Van Pelt, Miles V. 2016. “Song of Songs.” In A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old Testament : The Gospel Promised , edited by Miles V. Van Pelt, 419ff. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway. ↩︎
Thomas Aquinas. n.d. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Laurence Shapcote. Emmaus Academic. ↩︎
Paul VI. 1968. “Humanae Vitae.” ↩︎ ↩︎
Espey, Eve. 2015. “Feminism and the Moral Imperative for Contraception.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 126 (2): 396. ↩︎
Murray, John. 1957. Principles of Conduct : Aspects of Biblical Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. ↩︎
This the essence of John Frame’s argument. (Frame 2008, 754). ↩︎
Provan, Charles D. 1989. The Bible and Birth Control. Zimmer Printing. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Luther, Martin. 1976. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. ↩︎
Daniels, Kimberly, and Joyce C. Abma. 2018. “Current Contraceptive Status Among Women Aged 15–49: United States , 2015–2017.” In. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. ↩︎
Wiebe, Ellen R., Lori A. Brotto, and Jacqueline MacKay. 2011. “Characteristics of Women Who Experience Mood and Sexual Side Effects with Use of Hormonal Contraception.” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 33 (12): 1234–40. ↩︎
Gnoth, C., P. Frank-Herrmann, A. Schmoll, E. Godehardt, and G. Freundl. 2002. “Cycle Characteristics After Discontinuation of Oral Contraceptives.” Gynecological Endocrinology 16 (4): 307–17. ↩︎
Little, Anthony C., Robert P. Burriss, Marion Petrie, Benedict C. Jones, and S. Craig Roberts. 2013. “Oral Contraceptive Use in Women Changes Preferences for Male Facial Masculinity and Is Associated with Partner Facial Masculinity.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 38 (9): 1777–85. ↩︎
Alvergne, Alexandra, and Virpi Lummaa. 2010. “Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice in Humans?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (3): 171–79. ↩︎ ↩︎
Guo, Y., D. Lin, Y. Shi, C. Lou, K. Fang, H. Li, E. Gao, and D. Zhang. 1992. “The Newly-Weds’ Decisions on Contraception.” Chinese Journal of Population Science 4 (2): 175–85. ↩︎
Stuart, Gretchen S., and Shanthi S. Ramesh. 2018. “Interval Female Sterilization.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 131 (1): 117. ↩︎
Lin, Luo, Wu Shi-Zhong, Zhu Changmin, Fan Qifu, Liu Keqiang, and Sun Goliang. 1996. “Psychological Long-Term Effects of Sterilization on Anxiety and Depression.” Contraception 54 (6): 345–57. ↩︎
Garcia, Ana Maria, dir. 1982. La Operación. Documentary, Short. Latin American Film Project. ↩︎
Frame, John M. 2008. The Doctrine of the Christian Life. A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, N.J: P & R Pub. ↩︎
Genazzani, Andrea R., Tiziana Fidecicchi, Domenico Arduini, Andrea Giannini, and Tommaso Simoncini. 2023. “Hormonal and Natural Contraceptives: A Review on Efficacy and Risks of Different Methods for an Informed Choice.” Gynecological Endocrinology , December. ↩︎

Why I Started Preaching 6-Point Sermons

Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000

In any craft, there’s always room for growth, and generally, if you’re not getting better, you’re getting worse. Preaching is no different. It’s been several years now since I took my preaching courses in seminary, but I’m still looking for ways to improve and get better. Recently, as part of that effort, I read Denny Prutow’s So Pastor, What’s Your Point? It’s actually sort of a difficult book to get a hold of, but I’m glad I did.

I was trained with Bryan Chapell’s method, which is a pretty standard 3- to 5- point method, and it served me well. I still use it when I feel like it would serve the text better. But my search for a better method started when I heard someone point out that Chapell-style three points sermons often lack one of Dabney’s cardinal requisites: movement. Chapell encourages the use of one main proposition supported by three to five main points. Each point is a pillar to hold up the proposition. This approach will get the job done, and as long as you’re preaching the text, you’ll end up with something faithful and helpful. But it can be a bit stale. It’s sort of like going down a waterslide at a waterpark. The destination is the bottom of the slide, but you have to stand in line and climb the stairs three times to land there three times. Of course, there are ways to introduce movement into such a structure, but the method itself doesn’t have the tendency.

Older styles of Reformed preaching avoid this by taking the text, exposition, application approach. This is what you find in the Puritans, and it’s Dabney’s method as well. The idea is that you begin with a simple introduction, explain the text, draw out a single doctrine (your proposition in Chapell’s terms), and then apply it. That text to doctrine to application style certainly has movement, but it can also be dry. Especially in the 21st century as it’s getting harder to hold people’s attention, it’s difficult to keep people with you long enough so that application actually lands. I’ve seen well-trained congregations handle it (think MacArthur’s Grace Community Church), but this is not the average congregation.

This is where Prutow’s method comes in. It’s based on both historical example and modern communication research. Human focus engages at both high levels and low levels. At a high level, we can focus for about thirty minutes before needing a reset. Entertainment companies recognize this. That’s why shows and movies are generally produced in thirty minute increments. At a low level, within these thirty minute windows, we can focus for about five minutes. For a biblical example of this principle, consider the book of Ephesians. It takes about thirty minutes to read out loud, and it’s divided into six chapters which each take about five minutes. Some of the best historical preachers did the same thing. If you look at the sermons of Chrysostom or Calvin, you’ll notice that they will take a text and comment on it for about five minutes before moving to the next verse.

Prutow encourages us, then, to follow this example by preaching in a series of six blocks. These can be adjusted for time. If you want to preach on the shorter side, you make the blocks four minutes for a sermon around 25 minutes. Or you can extend them out to six minutes for a sermon closer to 40 minutes. You can also adjust the total length of your sermon depending on the venue by shrinking or expanding these blocks. You could also add or subtract blocks if your congregation is not accustomed to sermons in the 25-40 minute range.

Here’s how this works for me. I will generally take a text and find it’s main point. Then I break the text up into six pieces. I’m not creating six distinct “points” per se, but I’m putting together an outline of logical flow. They’re not six separate supporting claims for the main point, but a progression of ideas driving at the main point. That’s your movement. Then I write 500-700 words per point. Usually, I just land the plane with the sixth point and tack on an introduction. Sometimes, I even just use my first point as an introduction. For example, I’ve just prepared a sermon on Acts 2:37-39. I’m talking about the nature of baptism, but the text already has a great introduction built-in. The crowds at Pentecost ask, “What shall we do?” So I explain that in point 1/intro, but it sets up for the fuller discussion of baptism in the rest of the sermon. Verse 39, then, is set up for some classic discriminatory preaching. I close by addressing the same three groups Peter addresses: you, your children, and all who are far off. That’s point 6.

Here are a few benefits I’ve noticed using this method.

My preparation is more efficient. I think this is mostly because I can squeeze prep time into smaller blocks. After I’ve done my preliminary research and outline, I can usually write one of these 500-700 word blocks in about 30-45 minutes. For some reason, if I’m writing a three-point sermon, it takes slightly more than double that for each point. And if I have to stop in the middle of working on one of those longer points (a common occurrence for any pastor), there’s a longer on-ramp to get back into what I was doing. I have to do more work to reorient myself to what I was working on. With this method, nearly every time I sit down, I’ve got a transitional sentence at the end of a block that gives me an easy spot to pick up from.
My teaching is more simple and illustrative. I find that in a traditional structure, I start looking to fill space. I may write a simple exposition and application, but then I find that I haven’t said enough on each point to fill the time. So my explanations get longer, and my illustrations often feel displaced. But when I only have 500 words to say what needs to be said, I have the opposite problem. I must be ruthlessly efficient with my words. This engenders simplicity, but it also forces me to think harder and better about illustrations.
I stick closer to the text. If you give me ten minutes to talk about a verse or phrase of Scripture, you’ve given me a longer leash to start to draw people out of the text. I love making connections in the text, but it can get out of hand if I’m not careful. In my three-point sermons, it was not uncommon to end up talking about some other text or doctrine ancillary to the main point simply because I had more time to return back to where we started. But with the six-point method, I’m returning back to the text I’m preaching every five minutes. Again, there’s simply not time to wander off or overexplain.
Application is always before the congregation. In a three-point sermon, I would normally put the application at the end of every point, and probably bring it all back together in the end. This means for every 7-8 minutes of explanation/illustration, I was doing 2-3 minutes of application. But using the six-point method, that ratio shifts to something like 2-3 minutes of explanation/illustration to 2-3 minutes of application. Not only is there more application, but it is much more frequent. With the three-point method, it often felt like I was jumping back and forth between the heads and hearts of my hearers. And often, at least practically, the intellect was my main target. But now, I’m able to keep the hearts of my hearers engaged for basically the whole sermon. The application comes earlier in the sermon, and it doesn’t really let up.
And finally, I have movement. When your explanations are simple, when your illustrations are sticky, and when your application is engaging, the whole feel of the sermon changes. Often, writing and even preaching a three-point sermon sort of felt like building a house. It involved sketching out a detailed plan and trying to give people all the pieces to put together. But the six-point sermon feels much more like driving a nail. Each point/block is like a strike from the hammer. There’s a focused effort with each point to pierce deeper into the hearts of the hearers. And by the end, one would hope that the nail is flush with the wood, that the Word has fully penetrated and permanently marked the hearers.

If you’ve never tried this method of preaching, I think it’s more than worth a shot. This is certainly not the only way to preach; it may not even be the best way to preach. But I’ve found it to be immensely helpful. And if nothing else, Prutow’s book is definitely worth the read.

Creeping Confessionalism

Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000

I am a confessional Presbyterian. I subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms without exception. Not only do I teach Reformed soteriology, but I shamelessly contend for careful Sabbath observance, the avoidance of images of Christ, and the regulative principle of worship. I lead my congregation in Psalm-singing. I train my elders with a line-by-line study through the Westminster standards. If you walk into my church on a Sunday morning, you will have no doubt that we are Presbyterian and proud of it.

But I give all these bona fides because not all is well in confessional Presbyterian circles. I’m calling the tendency “creeping confessionalism.” That’s when our confessionalism becomes so intense that it extends even beyond the borders of the confession. We start erecting new standards to guard the old standards, and these new standards become signals to say, “We’re the really real Presbyterians.”

You certainly see this online, but I almost expect that. The kind of person who uses the X handle “@1646orDeath” is probably going to be a little hardcore. But I’ve also experienced it in person. It’s not uncommon for a family of Reformed Christians to ask to meet with me as they consider our church. They like our confessionalism, our simplicity, our commitment to our principles. But then, they’ll find something they don’t like, something that has nothing to do with the faithfulness of the church, and start looking elsewhere. We are one of two viable Presbyterian churches within an hour radius, so some of these people end up driving an hour to church. Some just determine to skip worship altogether and have an extended family worship time instead. In my opinion, neither of these are viable long-term options.

But, you may ask, what are they concerned about? Here are just a few examples.

Of Second Services and Family Meals

Maybe the most common concern is the lack of a second service. Personally, I would love to have a second service, and we’ve had conversations about the possibility. But there are trade-offs. I am a solo pastor, and our church is very rural. I would love to give my time to preparing a second service, but that will certainly mean I have to give something else up. That may very well be worth it, but it’s not the no-brainer some people make it out to be. Pastoral visits and prayer meetings and various administrative tasks are valuable, and in most cases, indispensable. We also have to consider our congregation. Many of our older folks cannot drive at night, but if we put our service early enough to serve them, our congregants who drive thirty or more minutes to worship with us will have logistical issues. I’m also concerned about setting a difficult precedent for the inevitable time when I am no longer the pastor of this church. Unless Jesus returns, I will not be the pastor forever. A second service makes it more difficult for the church to fill the pulpit in the absence of the pastor, or it will place a burden on a younger pastor who may not be ready for twice-Sunday preaching.

This brings me to the second issue: communion frequency. I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum on this. Some want weekly communion. But once again, that sets a precedent that’s impossible to maintain in the absence of a pastor. Others want quarterly communion seasons. I have no objection to that in principle, but our Session has determined that monthly administration is best for the spiritual health of the congregation we serve. And I haven’t even mentioned the questions about the various options for administration. I’ve seen people refuse to take communion because we use grape juice or because we don’t use a common cup.

Maybe the most pernicious issue is the concern that not every member of our church is as hardcore as I am. All of our elders subscribe to the Westminster standards, but we have many members who are unsure about things like election and infant baptism. We have people that think congregational church government is better. We even have people who would prefer some charismatic expression in worship. None of that gives me any heartburn. They’re not elders, and they won’t be elders unless they revise their views. Most of them are simply faithful Christians who want to sit under faithful preaching and enjoy the communion of the saints even if they disagree with our doctrinal distinctives. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it’s exactly what we should expect. People are at different places in their Christian walk, and not every member of a church is going to be in theological lockstep.

The problem with all of these things (and there are others) is that none of them are essential to the faithfulness of a Reformed church. A church is not more or less faithful because they don’t have two services or have a particular communion schedule or “church culture.” Faithfulness is determined by the faithful reading and preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments, by the right use of discipline and the purity of worship.

The Problem Beneath the Surface

The source of the problem, I think, comes down to two things. First, some people have burdened consciences. They’ve been convinced by some internet personality that these things are non-negotiable, and they are legitimately trying to guard themselves. I have sympathy for this group. Someone has stolen their liberty, and it will take time to untangle themselves from that.

But more often, I think we’re dealing with tribal counter-signaling. There’s a religious pride associated with not being like those YRR types or those recovering mainliners. It can feel good to look down on a minister for reading R.C. Sproul instead of your favorite obscure Dutch theologian. We can end up like those Pharisees who like to walk around in long robes and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues, looking quite faithful on the outside, but with hearts cold to God.

Now, if you like second services or a certain communion schedule or church culture, you are free to attend a church that meets those expectations. When I’m traveling, that’s often the kind of church I’m looking to visit. And I check bulletins for psalms and Scripture readings before I visit. And if you live in a place with enough variety where you can choose to join a church according to your preferences, go for it.

But don’t turn your nose up at that church down the street who really loves the Gettys or the old revival hymns. Don’t question the Christian sincerity of the church that does small groups instead of a second worship service. These are not issues of confessional fidelity, and they’re certainly not issues of salvation. The means of grace are still administered those churches, the gospel is still preached and the sacraments are still administered. The elders of those churches know their sheep, and they are seeking to minister to their sheep in a way that is most fitting.

You may have your preferences, but God isn’t confined to those preferences. So you can unburden your conscience, and you can unburden your heart. The gospel is bigger than you; the church is bigger than you. According to your place, contend for the fidelity to the true faith, but leave the rest up to God. He is the King, and he is sovereign over his kingdom, the Church. He will lead her into all holiness to present her blameless on that last day. You must only trust him.

Girardeau on the Covenant of Redemption

Sat, 19 Jul 2025 19:54:57 -0500

From John L. Girardeau, The Federal Theology: Its Import and Its Regulative Influence, 7-9:

There would seem to be no necessity to distinguish, as some have done, between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace as two separate covenants: the former as conceived to exist between God the Father and Christ, and the latter between God and the elect. For, in the first place, the law of parcimony opposes the supposition of two covenants. This presumption could only be removed by such explicit testimony of Scripture to the existence of two as can hardly be contended for in the face of another construction of its teaching by so many theologians.

In the second place, it is inconceivable that God would have entered into a covenant with sinners except in Christ as Mediator and Federal Head. To say that one covenant was made with the Son and another with the elect, is to assume as the differentia of the latter the fact that it was not made with them in Christ, but apart from him. But that cannot be admitted. To reply that the covenant, though not made with him, was made with the elect as in him, is to give up the distinction. The covenant, according to the ordinary conception and statement of it, was at the same time made with him and with his elect seed in him. It is wholly unwarrantable to hold that a federal arrangement should obtain in relation to sinners, except as they are represented by a federal head. The covenant with Christ, therefore, embraced the covenant with his elect constituency. They are never dealt with except as they are in him.

In the third place, let it be conceded that the covenant wears two aspects, one immediately contemplating Christ as federal head and representative, and the other, the elect as beneficiaries, and they are evinced to be but separate faces of the same great compact by the consideration that the privileges, graces, and duties of the elect are benefits conferred upon them in Christ, are but parts of that salvation which he meritoriously secured for them by his perfect performance of covenanted righteousness. Their faith, it is true, as an indispensable duty, conditions their subjective and conscious union to Christ, but faith is the necessary result of regeneration, in which they are the passive recipients of the grace acquired for them by their federal head. That which is held to be a covenant of grace, in distinction from the covenant of redemption, may be regarded as but a testamentary administration, in behalf of the elect, of the one eternal covenant between the Father and the Son.

It may be added, in the fourth place, that the analogy between the covenant of grace and that of works, which is universally admitted to have been but one, and the language of the Calvinistic symbols which must be strained to support any other supposition, oppose strong presumptive evidence to the hypothesis of two distinct covenants. It is one and the same covenant, which, regarded in relation to the means employed and the end contemplated, is denominated the covenant of redemption, that is emphatically designated the covenant of grace when conceived in reference to its source, and to its unmerited application to sinners as the recipients of its benefits. It is peculiarly a covenant of grace to them, since its legal condition was fulfilled, not by themselves, but by another for them, guilty and corrupt.

The Literary Impact of the Pericope Adulterae

Tue, 20 May 2025 10:53:01 -0500

One of the most famously disputed passages in the New Testament is John 7:53-8:11, the Pericope Adulterae. Ultimately, whether we believe this passage ought to be included has to come down to a variety of factors, but as I’ve reflected on the text, it strikes me that its inclusion or exclusion has a major impact on the literary flow of the text. I’m almost certain there is scholarly discussion of the Pericope’s literary place, but I have not interacted with any of it. This is merely a reflection based on my own reading.

What Exclusion Means

If the Pericope is excluded, then all of chapter eight happens on the last day of the Feast of Booths. At the beginning of chapter 7, we learn that all of this is taking place at the Feast of Booths. After Jesus preaches at the Feast, the Pharisees are trying to arrest Jesus, but the officers chicken out and refuse to do it, presumably, because they think he might be onto something important. At the end of chapter 7, the Pharisees are talking amongst themselves, and in John 8:12, Jesus is interrupting them with another “I am” statement. This makes John 7:37-8:59 one long interaction; the referent for “them” in 8:12 is this same group of Pharisees. It ends with the unbelieving Jews trying to stone Jesus.

There’s a note in 8:20 that Jesus was not arrested, just as he wasn’t arrested at the end of chapter 7. This seems redundant to me. If chapters 7-8 are a single literary unit, it seems odd to repeat what we already know to be true–that the officers refuse to arrest Jesus.

This reading, from a purely literary perspective, seems labored. Of course, according to the rules of textual criticism, the more difficult reading is always preferred, but textual criticism is not a science. In sum, I think if we skip the Pericope, we end up with a text that seems incomplete. In other words, it feels as if something should go between 7:52 and 8:12.

What Inclusion Means

If we include the Pericope, John 7:53-8:1 mark all of chapter 8 as a separate section from chapter 7. Chapter 7 ends with a private conversation between the officers and the Pharisees before they go home. This marks the end of the Feast of Booths as it happens on the last day. There is no time indication at the beginning of chapter 8, but at the very least, we know that this encounter with the adulterous woman happens after the Feast of Weeks has concluded.

Therefore, chapter 7 is a complete story. Jesus goes and preaches at the Feast of Booths, and it ends with the incredulous officers and Pharisees struggling to find a solution. Their plot is foiled, and they’re divided about what to do next. The climax of the Feast of Booths is Jesus’ command to believe in him, and the story closes. It would be very odd, then, if the story just kept going after a clear denouement, but it makes perfect sense if the Pharisees have gone away and hatched a new plan to introduce a new conflict.

There’s also a literary benefit to the inclusion of the text. Jesus’ comments throughout John 8 are all about authority, and the Pericope Adulterae is a demonstration of that authority. This provides a thematic unity that is confused by the Pericope’s exclusion. This thematic unity is bolstered by the fact that John 8 both begins and ends with stoning. We might even say that Jesus is standing in the place of this condemned woman. According to the law of Moses, she should be stoned, but he stops the punishment and speaks in a way that brings about his own judgment even though he is himself righteous.

So if we’re merely looking at the literary details, it seems that the Pericope Adulterae actually makes more sense of the text. It creates two unique stories, each with their own particular thematic impact.

Westminster's Sabbath Doctrine Compared With the Heidelberg Catechism

Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:43:51 -0500

Introduction

Recent findings show that, in the Presbyterian Church in America,¹ the most common exception granted to candidates for ordination pertains the Westminster Confession and Catechisms’ view of the Sabbath. In fact, exceptions pertaining to this doctrine are twice as common as full subscription in the PCA.(Lee 2024) Often, it is said that candidates have a preference for the “Continental” Sabbath view as opposed to the stricter Puritan view of Westminster. But is this an accurate characterization of the facts?

The purpose of this paper is to make a start at reviewing some of the data to help bring clarity to the question. In short, I seek to show that there is no practical difference between the Puritan and Continental views of the Sabbath. To that end, we will compare the Sabbath view of the Westminster Standards, particularly the twenty-first chapter of the Confession of Faith, against the Three Forms of Unity.

Westminster Confession of Faith chapter twenty-one gives the following summary:

7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

In these two paragraphs, we may draw out three central principles:

The Sabbath command has an enduring, moral quality.
The Sabbath command particularly applies to the Lord’s Day in the New Covenant.
The Sabbath command prescribes worship of God and rest from worldly recreations and employments.

Incidentally, David Dickson observes these same three principles in his commentary on the Confession of Faith, Truth’s Victory over Error.(Dickson 1684)

Within the Three Forms of Unity, the Sabbath question is only directly addressed once, in Heidelberg Catechism 103.²

Q. 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
A. In the first place, that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained; and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church, to learn the Word of God, to use the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.(Schaff 1977, 3:345)

Upon first glance, the Heidelberg Catechism seems far less stringent than Westminster. We have no explicit mention of the perpetual nature of the Sabbath, no explanation of the appropriate day, and no injunction against works and recreations lawful on other days. But it important to consider both context and authorial intent. Fortunately, the primary author of the Catechism, Zacharias Ursinus, produced a lengthy exposition of it as well. In this commentary, we find all three elements observed in the Westminster Confession.

Therefore, perhaps the best way to proceed is to take the content of the Westminster Confession as explained by David Dickson under three heads and compare that content with Zacharias Ursinus’ own explanation of the Sabbath which is summarized in the Heidelberg Catechism.

The Sabbath command has an enduring, moral quality.

First, the Confession indicates that the fourth commandment has both a natural law component and a positive law component.

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him... (WCF 21.7)

The key text cited by the Confession is Exodus 20:8-11. This text first contains the explicit Scriptural command: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”³ For the Westminster divines, the Ten Commandments constitute a summary of the enduring moral law (see Larger Catechism 98). Thus, the command here is sufficient to establish the positive law component. The natural law component is drawn from Isaiah 56, which describes eunuchs and foreigners who keep the Sabbath. The point the divines seem to be drawing from this text is that the Sabbath command extends beyond the bounds of Israel such that those outside of Israel recognize the necessity of Sabbath. The Sabbath is not simply a ceremonial institution of Israel; it is a moral law of God revealed both in nature and Scripture.

David Dickson expands on this more thoroughly. He notes five reasons for the enduring, moral nature of the Sabbath. First, the Sabbath was given as a positive, moral law prior to the fall (Gen. 2). Second, it was repeated prior to the introduction of the ceremonial law (Ex. 16). Third, it is found in the middle of the Ten Commandments by the finger of God (Ex. 20). Fourth, the reason given for the Sabbath flows directly out of God’s character as all moral laws do. The fifth reason is that Jesus, in the Olivet discourse, tells his followers to pray that they need not flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath. This is a particularly powerful argument because if the New Covenant abolished the Sabbath command, Jesus’ words are meaningless.(Dickson 1684, 190–91)

While Dickson’s exposition is relatively straightforward, Ursinus has a more sophisticated way of parsing the Sabbath command. Figure 1 is a reproduction of Ursinus’ own chart of divisions.(Ursinus 1852, 563) In short, Ursinus distinguishes between moral and ceremonial elements of the Sabbath. He then carefully distinguishes how each of these pertain to the New Testament church.

With regard to the moral element, Ursinus argues from the ends for which the Sabbath was first ordained. Namely, he lists five reasons: (1) that God may be publicly praised, (2) that public worship may stir up piety and faith in the elect, (3) that men would provoke one another to love and good works, (4) that pure doctrine and worship be preserved, and (5) that the church may be visibly distinguished from the world. Ursinus notes:

Inasmuch now as these reasons do not have respect to any particular time, but to all times and conditions of the church and world, it follows that God will always have the ministry of the church preserved and the use thereof respected, so that the moral part of this commandment binds all men from the beginning to the end of the world, to observe some Sabbath, or to devote a certain portion of their time to sermons, public prayers, and the administration of the sacraments.(Ursinus 1852, 557)

These three means of grace, Word, prayer, and sacrament, are listed in the Heidelberg Catechism as duties of the Sabbath. Ursinus, then, intends to convey that the fourth commandment requires our diligent attendance to these things, and that requirement, in turn, necessitates a day set apart.

We may then note a minor difference in the views of Dickson and Ursinus. For Dickson, the “one day in seven” is included in the positive command of God. Ursinus, on the other hand, understands the fourth commandment as simply requiring the duties of the Sabbath, not the particular time construction.⁴ Dickson convincingly rejects this as unbiblical, noting that the fourth commandment itself includes the six and one pattern. In any case, Ursinus seems to concede that the six and one pattern is a positive command given through the institution of the church. While Dickson and Ursinus (and, of course, the Westminster Confession and Heidelberg Catechism) reason through different paths, they end up in a similar place. Dickson understands the Sabbath as an enduring, moral command to perform Sabbath duties on one day in seven. Ursinus understands the Sabbath as an enduring, moral command to perform Sabbath duties as ceremonially prescribed by apostolic institution. Both, however, conclude that the Sabbath command has an enduring, moral quality.

The Sabbath command particularly applies to the Lord’s Day in the New Covenant.

The Confession of Faith argues that the Sabbath law previously applied to the last day of the week and now applies to the first day of the week.

...which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. (WCF 21.7)

The Confession cites both the creation story in Genesis 2 and various New Testament examples (1 Cor. 16:1-2 and Acts 20:7) and injunctions for first day worship. The understanding is that the Lord’s Day is an apostolic institution.

For his part, Ursinus understands the Lord’s Day as a ceremonial application of the moral element of the Sabbath command. He contends that in the Old Covenant, the seventh day of the week was designated by divine law as the Sabbath. But the law itself does not require that the Sabbath be observed on the seventh day, simply that a day must be observed. Thus, the New Testament church has universally determined that a new ceremonial law is in effect, namely, that the Sabbath ought to be observed on the first day of the week. Ursinus argues that while this is clearly an apostolic institution, the church is not bound to any particular day. Rather, we observe Sunday in submission to the circumstantial decision of the church, under her authority. However, Ursinus never suggests deviating from this practice because of its strong pedigree and universality.(Ursinus 1852, 563)

Dickson is quick to point out an error in this line of reasoning. Those arguing for the Lord’s day as merely an apostolic and ecclesiastical institution are eliding two categories together. To use modern language, we must distinguish between the circumstances of worship which the church has authority to determine, and the elements of worship, which we receive from the Apostles. Dickson argues, that since we have both a model of Christ and his disciples meeting on the first day after the resurrection and an explicit command to perform acts of worship on the first day (1 Cor. 16:2), it is, therefore, not merely a matter of church authority that establishes the Lord’s Day.(Dickson 1684, 192–95)

Dickson understands the Lord’s Day as an apostolic institution clearly expressed in the Word of God. Ursinus understands it as a universal church tradition rooted in apostolic practice. But while Ursinus leaves room for other arrangements, practically, both men ultimately argue for first-day/Lord’s Day Sabbath observance.⁵ In sum, while the reasons that undergird Ursinus’ defense of a first-day Sabbath are not identical with Dickson’s, he arrives at the same conclusion.

The Sabbath command prescribes worship of God and rest from worldly recreations and employments.

The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes the fourth commandment:

This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (WCF 21.8)⁶

In this paragraph, we can identify four duties. First, the Sabbath includes the positive command to rest from engagement in worldly employments, and recreations. Second, it includes a command to worship. Third and fourth, it commands works of necessity and mercy. Here, we come to a major point of controversy. There is a high degree of unanimity concern the duties of worship, necessity, and mercy, but in recent days, it is common to hear candidates take exception to the so-called “recreation clause” in this chapter. Thus, we must answer the question, “What does the fourth commandment require us to rest from?”

On this point, Dickson, in essence, merely repeats the statement of the Confession; however, he does make the point that “ordinary recreations, games, and sports, are our own works.”(Dickson 1684, 196) His proof-text is identical with the that of the Confession:

“If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” (Is. 58:13-14)

The point being made both by Dickson and the Confession is that the Sabbath ought to draw us away from our own worldly desires and into the Lord’s desires. In other words, when the Confession refers to “worldly” employments and recreations, it is speaking of merely human employments and recreations.⁷ These are things that distract us from the duties of the Sabbath.

This is the crucial point, and we find it repeated in Ursinus:

“[The] Sabbath is profaned either when holy works are omitted, or when such works are performed as hinder the ministry of the church, and as are contrary to the things which belong to the proper sanctification of the sabbath.”(Ursinus 1852, 566)

In the next several pages, he goes on to enumerate both the holy works required (namely, the duties pertaining to worship and acts of mercy and necessity) as well as those things that hinder these works. Repeatedly, he refers to neglect, contempt, or want of attention to Sabbath duties.

Ursinus stops short of following this logic through, but the implications are clear. He believes that the church has instituted the first day of the week as a time for Christians to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath command requires diligent pursuit of Sabbath duties, namely, worship and acts of necessity and mercy. Therefore, to pursue our own works on this day is to take out attention from the Sabbath duties. In other words, Ursinus is in agreement with the Sabbath duties listed by the Westminster Confession, including worship, acts of mercy and necessity, and rest from worldly employments and recreations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems that we can make some summary notes. First, if we take Ursinus as representative of the Heidelberg Catechism’s intended meaning, we find that there are significant differences between the Sabbath doctrine of Westminster and that of the Heidelberg Catechism. In particular, the Continental and British Reformed depart from one another on the question of whether the fourth commandment requires a particular day be set apart to observe it. It is possible that this difference is explained by a growing maturity among the Reformed. The Heidelberg Catechism was completed in 1563 in response to Roman Catholicism; the Westminster Assembly met in the 1640s to purify an already reforming church. Further investigation into that possibility is outside of the scope of this paper, but it is a worthy pursuit.

But these things stand behind the practical concerns for Christian Sabbath observance which, of course, was the topic of our original question. The views outlined by Westminster and Heidelberg are not identical, but when it comes to top-layer question of adherence to the three principles discussed above, it is clear that all are in agreement. Thus, while we may speak of a Continental view of the Sabbath, that view is, in its outward facing conclusions, identical with the view of Westminster.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. 1981. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Translated by William Pringle. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

———. 2008. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.

Clark, R. Scott. 2014. “The Synod Of Dort On The Sabbath.” The Heidelblog. July 27, 2014. https://heidelblog.net/2014/07/the-synod-of-dort-on-the-sabbath/.

Dickson, David. 1684. Truth’s Victory over Error. Edinburgh: John Reid. http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A35959.0001.001.

Keister, Lane. 2016. “The Sabbath Day and Recreations on the Sabbath: An Examination of the Sabbath and the Biblical Basis for the ’No Recreation’ Clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 21.8 and Westminster Larger Catechism 117.” The Confessional Presbyterian 12: 161.

Lee, Matthew. 2024. “Exceptionalism in the PCA.” Presbyterian Polity. February 21, 2024. https://pcapolity.com/2024/02/21/exceptionalism-in-the-pca/.

Schaff, Philip. 1977. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes. 6th rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Ursinus, Zacharias. 1852. The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. Translated by G. W. Williard. Columbus, Scott. http://archive.org/details/commdrza00ursi.

Van Dixhoorn, Chad. 2014. Confessing the Faith. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth.

The Presbyterian Church in America, being the largest confessionally Reformed denomination in the United States, may act as a sort of thermometer to determine attitudes among American Presbyterians generally. It is likely, however, that this exception is far less common in other confessional denominations.↩︎
It seems the Synod of Dort did address this question, but its comments are outside of the Three Forms. See (Clark 2014).↩︎
All Scripture quotations are taken from the Authorized Version.↩︎
This is very similar to Calvin’s view. He considers the Sabbath to be a synecdoche for all the duties of proper worship. See (Calvin 1981, 177); (Calvin 2008, 2.8.32–34).↩︎
Notably, here it seems that Calvin is more in agreement with Dickson over Ursinus. See (Calvin 2008, 2.8.33).↩︎
This doctrine is explicated in more detail in Larger Catechism 115-120.↩︎
Chad Van Dixhoorn, with regard to worldly recreations, helpfully observes, “We need to find a way during the week to get the recreation we need. If we do not, we will almost inevitably find ourselves and our children pining for a second Saturday instead of enjoying our Sunday.” (Van Dixhoorn 2014, 294). For a fuller biblical argument in favor of Westminster’s view of recreation on the Lord’s day, see (Keister 2016).↩︎

Moses' Two Covenants

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 19:41:02 -0600

I’ve been preaching through Exodus since December 2023. This Sunday will be my 46th sermon on the book, so I’ve gotten quite familiar with it, to say the least. As I’ve come to Exodus 34 though, the question of republication has reared its head again.

As long as I remember having known about the controversy, I’ve been incredulous about the idea of a formal republication of the covenant of works. Although some would disagree with this evaluation, the Westminster Confession of Faith is quite clear about the role of the Mosaic covenant in redemptive history, and I have had no reason to doubt the Confession on this point. In fact, all of my study has tended to confirm that belief.

But Exodus has caused me to stumble over a few things. Particularly, I’ve struggled with how to deal with how the covenant in Exodus 19-24 fits into the covenant of grace scheme. What follows are my observations about the text which have raised these questions, and my current thoughts on the matter.

The Nature of the Covenant in Exodus 19-24

The narrative in Exodus 19-24 describes the situation surrounding the inauguration of God’s covenant with Israel, as well as the stipulations of the covenant itself. There are two features in the text that point to this covenant having a significant works principle.

First, the covenant is explicitly conditional. Exodus 19:5-6 says,

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

The key word here is, of course, if. In order to receive the covenant promises, the people of Israel must continue in obedience to the covenant stipulations. Second, the covenant is bilateral. Twice the people of Israel agree to observe the law of the covenant (Ex. 19:8, 24:3). Israel voluntarily agrees to these stipulations as the condition for receiving the promises.

One principle of biblical interpretation is that promises imply the opposite threat (WLC 99). If that applies in this case, then the opposite threat is included in this promise: if you fail to meet the conditions, you will not receive the promise. This is, of course, exactly how the covenant of works was established. God promised to reward Adam with obedience if he obeyed and death if he disobeyed.

New Creation in the Tabernacle Instructions in Exodus 25-31

Immediately following the inauguration of the covenant, Moses ascends the mountain to receive the plans for the tabernacle. These plans again bring us back to the creation. The tabernacle is modeled after the six days of creation, and the section concludes with repeated Sabbath laws, just as creation ended with a Sabbath. The chart below gives the basic outline.

So by the time we get to Exodus 32, Moses has placed us in a Genesis frame of mind. He has tied us back to Adam’s state of innocence. In a sense, we might say that Israel has received a clean slate by this covenant.

This is motif is somewhat common throughout the Old Testament. To take one example, when Noah leaves the ark, he enters into a new creation with the same mandate that Adam received, and he immediately fails the test of faithfulness by his drunkenness. Well now, Israel has a test of faithfulness: will they obey?

Edenic Parallels in Exodus 32-33

Exodus 32 and the first part of 33 describe the golden calf narrative. Since we are already thinking about the garden, the parallels to Adam’s fall are striking. The story begins with Israel seeking something she cannot have. She seeks to create her own gods, just as Eve seeks to become like God. The word used to describe Moses delay is normally translated “shame,” which seems to get to the bottom of Israel’s problem. They’re embarrassed because they’ve followed a prophet into the wilderness and they don’t know (what tree did Eve eat from?) where he has gone.

Being resolved to sin, they turn to the man who was left in charge, Aaron. What Aaron should have done was stop the evil, but instead, he indulges it, just as Adam listened to his wife and fell in sin himself. And when Moses confronts Aaron, Aaron recapitulates Adam’s blame game, first blaming the people themselves and then claiming that he wasn’t really responsible for the golden calf.

One other parallel comes clear in the King James translation. Exodus 32:25 says,

And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)

The word for naked is usually translated “loose” or something similar in modern translations, but given that Israel’s idolatrous feast was probably orgiastic, naked is probably an appropriate translation. Their nakedness/looseness/uncovering is then said to be a shame to their enemies. Adam and Eve in their sin found themselves similarly naked and ashamed.

There may very well be more allusions. For example, are the Levites carrying their swords supposed to remind us of the cherubim guarding the garden by the sword? We could very well debate about how closely these two stories align with one another, but I think the broad connections are very clear.

But the whole thing comes together with God’s punishment on Israel. Moses breaks the tablets, symbolizing the rupture of the covenant, and God quite emphatically separates himself from Israel. He tells Moses that Moses cannot atone for the people’s sin. He has Moses build a tent outside of the camp. And, most importantly, he tells the people that his presence will not go with them. This is the judgment which is contrary to the promise in Exodus 19 that Israel would be God’s treasured possession.

So it seems that one major point of Exodus 19-33 is to demonstrate that Israel is recapitulating Adam’s fall and breach of the covenant of works.

The Nature of the Renewed Covenant in Exodus 34

At the end of Exodus 33, Moses turns to God and makes several requests. This is typological of Christ’s intercession, and ends with the revelation of God’s glory to Moses. Having seen God’s glory, Moses asks for forgiveness, and God responds in verse 10:

And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.

There are several features which distinguish this covenant from what we find in Exodus 19-24. First, the earlier covenant was made with Israel as a whole, and it is unmediated. At Mount Sinai, God speaks verbally and directly to the people of Israel. The covenant does not seem to have any particular interest in Moses. But now, Moses has clearly been distinguished as a mediator for the people. He, of course, demonstrates this role in his intercession, but take note of the way God speaks in the verse above: all of the “you” pronouns are singular. This covenant is made particularly for the benefit of Moses as mediator. Only later on, in verse 27 is Israel mentioned with respect to the covenant, and there God says that the covenant is made “with you and with Israel.” This is not unlike how the covenant of grace is made with Christ and his elect seed in him (WLC 31).

This special role in the renewed covenant is confirmed by Moses’ shining face. The glory of God is hidden from Israel, but Moses reflects the glory of God to the people as he speaks to them. The Christological typology here is obvious.

The renewed covenant in Exodus 34 is also unilateral. At no point is Israel expected to consent to this covenant as in the previous. Instead, God simply makes promises. There is not conditional statement attached. And when God does repeat various laws to Moses, the laws he chooses are all drawn from the first table. In other words, if there is any condition to this covenant, it seems that the focus is on faith (as opposed to apostasy).

Conclusion

To bring this all together, the conclusion I’m circling around (but am unwilling to commit to at this point) is that there may be some kind of formal, not merely material, works principle in the covenant described in Exodus 19-24. However, the Mosaic covenant is not limited to those chapters. When God renews the covenant in Exodus 34, any works principle that may have existed seems to be wiped away by Moses’ intercession. In other words, the Mosaic covenant is properly understood as an administration of the covenant of grace, not an appendage as some suggest.

The one remaining question I have is whether these two covenants are substantially the same. In other words, is Exodus 34 a renewal of the Exodus 19-24 covenant, or is he making an entirely separate covenant which is more properly an administration of the covenant of grace? My inclination, admittedly in the interest of being cautious, is to see these as a single covenant which is being revised on account of Israel’s problems.

In the various authors I’ve skimmed to solve this conundrum, Exodus 34 is rarely treated with any depth, if at all. If anyone knows of someone who has treated this text well, please let me know.

Why We Do Not Impose Ashes

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:03:34 -0600

The following is a brief explanation given to my church about why we stopped the practice of the imposition of Ashes, originally posted in 2024.

This year, our Ash Wednesday service will not include the imposition of ashes. As this has been standard over the past few years, I thought it would be wise to give you some of the rationale for this decision.

In the Presbyterian tradition, we hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes this principle:

But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. (WCF 21.1)

In other words, we may only do in worship that which is prescribed by the Scriptures. There are several reasons for this. Of course, this comes from a desire to be Word-centered, but it also arises out of a desire to guard Christian liberty. It comes down to the question of authority. Does the church have the authority to require something in worship that God does not require in Scripture? The Reformed tradition has unanimously answered in the negative. The church’s duty is to minister the Word of God to his people, not our own opinions or preferences.

But the problem of ashes goes further, because not only is the imposition of ashes not commanded, it is also expressly forbidden by Jesus himself.

And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18)

Until very recently, all Protestants held that this passage forbade the imposition of ashes. It was only during the liturgical renewal movement of the 1960s that Protestants began to do this in large numbers.

Protestants have, however, held that the church may call optional days of fasting and feasting. So that is what we are doing this Wednesday. It is an optional day of fasting where we will have a worship service devoted to repentance. We will hear the gospel preached, and we will seek to respond in faith.

In sum, we will be returning to the standard of our Reformed tradition, but, more importantly, we will be returning to greater conformity to the Word of God.

If you want to read more, here’s an article explaining how the imposition of ashes started in the Anglican/Episcopal tradition (they only starting doing it recently too). And of course, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to talk to me.

Psalms and Binaural Beats

Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:55:54 -0600

I like to use binaural beats when I’m working, but a lot of the music you find online is weird electronic music. This is one attempt to fix that. I put 40Hz binaural beats under some a capella psalms. Download them here.

The original audio is from this video:

A Better Argument Against Paedocommunion

Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:27:16 -0600

Perhaps the most common argument against paedocommunion is self-examination. WLC 177 says that the Lord’s Supper is only to be administered to those “as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” This, of course, is drawn directly from 1 Cor 11:28-29:

“Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The essence of the argument is that small children are incapable of this self-examination and are therefore ineligible for communion.

Now, I believe this is both true and sufficient to settle the case, but it doesn’t pass the paedocommunionist’s smell test. They would respond by pointing out that 1 Cor 11 is obviously dealing with adults who are misusing the Supper, so we can’t apply the text to infants. This really is a fair response. In my opinion, their reading of the text is correct. The question is less about what the text says and more about what its logical consequences are.

But I think there’s something assumed in WLC 177 that paedocommunionists miss; namely, that self-examination is an act of faith. Consider WLC 72:

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

In other words, justifying faith requires knowledge of:

one’s own sin and misery,
one’s own inability to save himself,
and promises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The way that anyone comes to know these things is through the preaching of the Word (Rom 10:17). The infant, lacking sufficient intellectual powers to understand the preaching of the Word, is unable to know any of these things. And, of course, we come to know (1) and (2) by examining ourselves against the law of God expressed in his Word. This is not to say that infants are totally incapable of faith, but they are incapable of actual faith while still having the seed of faith implanted in them.

This gets us to the key problem with paedocommunion. Faith is necessary for proper reception of the Lord’s Supper. In the Supper, the body and blood of Christ are spiritually present “to the faith of the receiver” (WLC 170). So when a small child receives the bread and wine without faith, they really are receiving an empty sign. The reception of the sacrament sans faith renders the sacrament completely ineffective.

We don’t have this same problem with baptism because “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment wherein it is administered” (WCF 28.6, Rom 4:11ff). In baptism, a child is visibly admitted into the visible church and receives the promises of ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, etc., and these promises may all be apprehended by faith at a later time. The efficacy of the Lord’s Supper, however, is tied to the moment of administration. At the Table, worthy receivers truly receive the body and blood of Christ in that moment, along with all of the promises associated with the sacrament of covenant renewal.

In sum, the heart of the issue is not whether 1 Cor 11 applies to infants; instead, the question we need to be asking is whether young children meet the qualifications for receiving what the sacrament promises.

Presbyterians with Prayer Books

Sun, 03 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Do American Presbyterians have a liturgical heritage? This is a question that is very difficult to answer. Relative to similar Protestant traditions in America, Presbyterian worship is on a much broader spectrum of diversity. Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed all have strict service books. Presbyterians are in a different situation entirely. The mainline church has her Book of Common Worship, but it is not well-used. As I surveyed church bulletins from several PCUSA churches in my area and beyond, I was able to find only a small handful who followed the service order outlined by the Book of Common Worship. And it seems the churches that do closely follow the book are very much on the progressive end of the denomination.¹ Most of the evangelical churches do not even have a similar service book. In fact, the largest evangelical Presbyterian denomination, the PCA, does not even have a binding directory of worship.² But how did we get here?

This paper seeks to answer at least part of that question by examining the history of worship in the Presbyterian Church during the second half of the nineteenth century. In particular, we will see the growing interest in formal service books from 1855, the year Baird’s Eutaxia was published, to 1903, the year the PCUSA first authorized the production of a Book of Common Worship. This paper contends that this era was characterized not by innovation, but by retrieval, not by a rejection of Presbyterian standards and history, but by obedience to both. Presbyterian do in fact have a liturgical heritage, and the liturgical movement of the nineteenth century was primarily an attempt to return to that heritage for the sake of the Church.

This paper will be especially interested in the liturgical works produced by Presbyterians in this period. We will consider the content of several of these to observe the various streams of concern they represent. We will also look at the primary source material related to these debates, both academically and ecclesiastically. Furthermore, I am greatly indebted to the work of Julius Melton, perhaps the scholar who most prolifically studied these questions.

First, we will discuss the state of worship leading up to 1855. Second, we will observe the way Charles Baird’s Eutaxia led to a litany of litanies leading up to the twentieth century. Finally, we will see how this explosion in interest led the Northern Church to move toward approving more detailed liturgical resources.³

The State of Worship in the Eighteenth Century and the Reforms of 1788

When British Reformed settlers first arrived in the New World, their worship was largely representative of Old World worship.⁴ At the same time, worship took on a more frontier character and tended to shade in a radical Puritan direction. Several factors may have contributed to this (geography, lack of ministers, anti-Episcopal bias), but by the time of the formation of the first General Assembly in the United States, work was being done to remedy some of the less decorous trends in American Presbyterian worship. The draft version of the 1788 Directory for Public Worship is reflective of this.

There are several items of note in this draft. First, the draft of the Directory has a uniquely ecumenical spirit. There is an expected place of honor held for Congregational and Continental Reformed churches, but Episcopal and Lutheran churches are also recommended as legitimate options for those in places without Presbyterian churches.(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1787, 51) Second, the draft lists a variety of complaints against standard practices of the time. Among these practices are (1) entering and leaving the service at will, (2) a lack of congregational singing, and (3) outward shows of disinterest in public prayer, Scripture reading, and preaching. The authors of the Directory were concerned with a general lack of reverence in worship and wanted to see the Spirit-filled nature of worship reflected in outward forms, noting,

“It is readily granted, that there may be the appearance, without the spirit of devotion; but there cannot be the spirit, without the appearance: and, did we attend more to the appearance, it might have a happy tendency to awaken and revive a devotional spirit.”(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1787, 52ff)

Apparently, these problems were common enough in Presbyterian worship that the Directory’s authors felt compelled to address them. This is confirmed by contemporaneous accounts. One such account is from Charles Woodmason, an Anglican who served Presbyterian pulpits in rural South Carolina. Woodmason mentions a variety of interruptions in worship ranging from the mundane, such as whispering or spitting tobacco, to the ridiculous. In one case, he describes a group of disruptors who put together a dog fight.(Bynum 1996, 160)

At the same time, one could hardly blame the more pious of these folk for their struggle to participate. Services were frequently two hours long. The bulk of that time was consumed by a thirty minute lecture on a passage of Scripture in addition to an hour-long sermon. Often, sermons were based on very small portions of Scripture, two verses or even less. Scripture reading was reduced far below the original Directory’s recommendation of one chapter from each testament. Singing was unpleasant and confused with poorly trained precentors bickering with congregants about tune choices (of which there were, optimistically, a dozen options). The congregation was also expected to stand for prayers upwards of twenty minutes in length.(Bynum 1996, 158ff)

Some of these concerns were directly addressed in the draft Directory. With regard to the length of sermons, the draft recommends thirty to forty-five minutes.(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1787, 75) It also reaffirms the preference for longer Scripture readings, at least one chapter from each testament. The minister’s discretion was limited; he may only lengthen, not shorten, the readings. The traditional practice of “lining out” psalms with a precentor was discouraged in favor of having printed copies of the music.(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1787, 59) In all, the general tone of the draft suggests a reduction of preaching in favor of other elements of worship. This, of course, does not imply that preaching was de-emphasized. Arguably, the committee was aiming for a higher form of preaching. They encouraged more careful and faithful use of Scripture as well as better preparation:

“This method of preaching requires much study, meditation and prayer. Ministers ought, in general, to write their sermons, and not to indulge themselves in loose extempore harangues, but to carry beaten oil into the sanctuary of the Lord.”(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1787, 73)

It seems as if the committee considered long, extemporaneous sermons on small passages of Scripture to be a poor method. The expectation that sermons be written was intended to aid in careful preparation. In fact, the committee goes on to discourage the use of any notes in the pulpit.

One of the more contentious elements of the draft Directory was its use of written prayers. The draft contains various extensive forms of prayers. These are clearly intended as examples, not required forms, but it was a deviation from the original which carefully avoided forms. The major exception is the recommended use of the Lord’s Prayer at the end of the prayer before the sermon. The Lord’s Prayer was included in the original Directory as well, but its use was probably uncommon among Americans (likely for anti-Episcopal reasons).(Bynum 1996, 158)

Ultimately, many of the reforms suggested by the committee revising the Directory for Public Worship went too far for the Synod. The revision was wide-ranging and comprehensive, reflecting developments from the 1644 Westminster Assembly. American Presbyterians seemed to recognize that their tradition needed to be reformed to meet the needs of the new nation, ameliorating uniquely American abuses and encouraging biblical piety. Thus, while many revisions were accepted, more drastic changes were rolled back by the Synod in 1788. The committee had made a valiant effort at reform, but their hopes would not be fully realized for some time. The habits and forms driving American worship had already become too strongly ingrained in Presbyterian congregations for sweeping changes to take root at the level of higher church courts, much less among scattered, rural congregations on the frontier.(Melton 1967, 18)

Charles Baird’s Eutaxia

Of all contenders, Charles Baird was uniquely positioned to address the liturgical problems of nineteenth century Presbyterians. His father, Robert Baird, was an Old School Presbyterian minister from the frontier; however, Charles spent many years of his childhood in Europe where his father served the Foreign Evangelical Society. This strong doctrinal foundation and broad exposure to various forms of Protestant worship gave him the tools to address the American Presbyterian church well. In 1855, he took on this challenge with the anonymous publication of his Eutaxia, a book of historic Reformed liturgies accompanied by Baird’s extensive commentary.(Old 1988, 260–61)

Baird’s work is impressive on several fronts. First, it is a formidable work of history in its own right. Eutaxia contains liturgies from several regions and languages across almost three centuries. Each liturgy contains an introduction and extensive notes. A perusal of Baird’s sources reveals that he was widely read in even very obscure documents from a large number of Reformation figures. Second, these liturgies were not unknown to Reformation scholars, but Baird made them accessible. Many of these liturgies had never been translated in English.(Old 1988, 261–62)

But perhaps Baird’s most important contribution, and part of what made Eutaxia successful, was his clear articulation of Presbyterian principles. At this point in history, Protestants were dealing with major efforts at liturgical reform that were coupled with significant departures from Protestant theology. On one hand, the Oxford movement was rising among Episcopalians, and on the other, Mercersburg theology had gained ground among the German Reformed and was getting the attention of Presbyterians. In particular, the theological rift between Charles Hodge of Princeton and John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff of Mercersburg was wide and clearly-defined by 1855.⁵ Thus, Hodge’s positive review of Eutaxia was weighty. He offered almost complete affirmation of Baird’s work, and offers the following conclusion:

“These two conditions being supposed, first, that the book should be compiled and not written; and secondly, that its use should be optional–we are strongly of opinion that it would answer a most important end.”(C. Hodge 1855, 460)

It is difficult to imagine a stronger endorsement of Baird’s project, which, coming from such a highly respected theologian, would have been an enormous boon.

Baird says his purpose in preparing the book is “[to] ascertain from the history and teachings of the Presbyterian Church, what may be considered its proper theory of worship; and to compare that ideal with our prevailing practice...”(Baird 1855, 1) He goes on to speak with utmost respect for the tradition of the Directory for Public Worship. He is very keen to show his Presbyterian bona fides. In this way, Baird’s project was very much unlike Oxford and Mercersburg which sought to expand the bounds of Reformed theology; instead, his desire was to work within the space provided by the Directory. He finds help in this by citing passages directly from the Directory and reputable theologians in the American Presbyterian tradition.(Baird 1855, 6–7)

Furthermore, Baird developed categories to help frame the Presbyterian approach to liturgical forms. He defines four “methods,” (1) imposed ritual, (2) discretionary ritual, (3) rubrical provision, and (4) entire freedom. The third position is represented by the Directory. But while (1) and (4) are outside of the bounds of Presbyterianism, according to Baird, “discretionary ritual” has a strong pedigree. Baird includes examples such as the old practice of the Church of Scotland and the failed 1788 revision of the Directory itself.(Baird 1855, 8–9)

After developing these views in his introduction, Baird continues by giving a series of discretionary liturgies along with his commentary. In another wise move, the majority of these liturgies are drawn directly from the Presbyterian and Reformed line. He includes Calvin’s Geneva liturgies, the liturgies of Knox and the Church of Scotland, and both Conformist and Nonconformist Puritan liturgies. Names like Calvin and Knox could hardly be offensive to any self-respecting Presbyterian!

The impact of Baird’s work would prove to be immense. What began as a modest proposal based on historical work sparked an explosion in liturgical thinking among Americans. One scholar notes that Presbyterians were “startled” by Baird’s work.(Hall 1994, 71) Prior to 1855, there were almost no Presbyterian prayer books in existence, but after Eutaxia, Presbyterians were suddenly more willing to engage with more structured forms of worship. As we will discuss soon, agitation was already building among clergy and laymen alike for accessible forms in Presbyterian worship, but Baird’s work provided both theological and historical rationale to engage in the project unabashed. As the timeline below shows, Eutaxia set off a half-century of liturgical thinking and sparked the production of a number of unofficial prayer books for Presbyterian worship.

A Litany of Litanies

Following 1855, both clergy and lay leaders in the Presbyterian Church began to focus more attention on the production of worship books for use in their churches. The two most important laymen, Levi A. Ward and Benjamin B. Comegys, are discussed at length below. Among the clergy, however, there were a variety of approaches.

First, we may consider Charles Shields’ Book of Common Prayer as Amended by the Westminster Divines of 1661. Shields became involved in liturgical renewal during the Civil War after Union General Thomas Kane requested he produce a book of forms for use in the military. Shields showed his hand in this work by relying heavily on the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, drawing criticism for the approach. In 1867, he published the version of the Book of Common Prayer edited at the Savoy Conference of 1661 along with an introductory essay. At this point, it is worth noting that Shields’ historical argument was somewhat dubious. While there was some overlap between members of the Westminster Assembly and the Savoy Conference, these were different bodies separated by more than ten years; thus, it is probably a bit disingenuous to refer to members of the Savoy Conference as “Westminster Divines.” Shields also forcefully argued that the Book of Common Prayer belonged equally to Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Clearly, Shields had a bent toward Anglican aesthetics, and in 1889, following turmoil over his commitment to Reformed orthodoxy and other issues, Shields left the Presbyterian Church to be ordained in the Episcopal Church. While his Book of Common Prayer was received positively, it never gained much traction in the Presbyterian Church for regular use.(Melton 1967, 84–88)

A.A. Hodge, on the other hand, represented a perspective more firmly grounded in the Presbyterian tradition. Hodge’s more cautious approach gained the support of the publishing arm of the PCUSA who published his book of forms in 1877. In the introduction, Hodge gave support to the Church’s “hands-off” approach to the use of forms in worship. His book was also relatively spare. Forms were included only for occasional services, not for the regular Lord’s Day services. Any recommendations regarding Lord’s Day worship were partial. Several hymns were included as well as the texts of the Ten Commandments, Lord’s Prayer, and Apostles’ Creed, but these were never set in the context of a fuller morning or evening service.(A. A. Hodge 1882) Hodge, however, was able to set the stage for further developments as others saw the benefit in having a book of forms like Hodge’s. Over the next several years, Presbyterian ministers began to publish more complete service books, building on Hodge’s previous work.(Melton 1967, 108–9)

St. Peter’s Church, Rochester

While Baird’s work was largely historical, others in the Presbyterian Church were being more creative with liturgy. One such example is Levi A. Ward of St. Peter’s Church, Rochester, New York. Ward was a ruling elder of substantial wealth, and in the 1850s, he embarked on an impressive building project to construct a new Presbyterian church building in his hometown. As the primary benefactor, he had substantial control over the running of the congregation. Additionally, St. Peter’s was served by a succession of young ministers who were expected to conform to Ward’s wishes.(Melton 1993, 163–65)

The greatest part of Ward’s work was focused on worship reform. There is dispute over his degree of personal involvement in the project, but there is no doubt that Ward had significant influence in the preparation of St. Peter’s Church Book. The first edition of the Church Book was published in 1855, the same year Baird’s Eutaxia was published. St. Peter’s book, however, was especially designed for use in worship. It contained Lord’s Day services as well as forms for other services such as baptism, communion, and marriage. Books were provided for each worshipper as the services were designed for significant congregational participation.(Melton 1993, 164–65)

Interestingly, while St. Peter’s liturgy was certainly more complex than what one would find in the average Presbyterian congregation at the time, it was nowhere near as complex as what you would find in Episcopal churches. The morning service, for example, had the congregation participate in the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, a responsive reading, and a few hymns.(St. Peter’s Church 1855, 5–10) The 1864 edition of the Church Book expanded on congregational participation slightly, mainly through the inclusion of the congregation in more singing and chanting.(St. Peter’s Church 1864, 5–12) Perhaps the most significant “elevation” of the worship service at St. Peter’s was the heavy reliance on the choir. In both editions of the liturgy, the choir acts as a kind of third voice, singing anthems and responses throughout, but these responses were more voluminous in the 1864 edition.⁶

Benjamin Bartis Comegys

Benjamin Bartis Comegys was a lawyer and ruling elder from Philadelphia. In addition, he served as a lay chaplain for Girard College, a school housing orphan boys. His interest in worship was sparked by his work there. In organizing and leading chapel services at the school, he made his first foray into liturgics. In the ecclesial realm, Comegys held high church sentiments. He had a strong affinity for the formal worship of the Episcopal Church as well as for the traditional church calendar, a highly unusual perspective among Presbyterians in his day. As a churchman, he lobbied extensively for improved forms of worship, often using very strong language.(Melton 1993, 168–71)

Comegys personally compiled two service books. In 1885, he published An Order of Worship, with Forms of Prayer for Divine Service. This book contained ten Sundays worth of morning and evening services as well as various occasional forms. His sources were somewhat broad; he claims to have drawn from the services of the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, and the Huguenot Church of Charleston, South Carolina.(Comegys 1885, 3) In 1895, Comegys published a second book with a narrowed focus: A Presbyterian Prayer Book, for Public Worship. It is notable that, even in this book, Comegys had an ecumenical spirit, arguing that this prayer book was only Presbyterian insofar as its prayers largely originated in the Church of Scotland as opposed to its being grounded in Presbyterian doctrine and polity.(Comegys 1895, v-vi)

But perhaps Comegys most valuable contribution was his work in bringing the Scottish Church Service Society’s Euchologion to American shores. Comegys edited and published the book for the first time in 1867, and it underwent revisions over the course of the next forty years. It also contributed significantly in the PCUSA’s work to produce a Book of Common Worship. Comegys’ final version of Euchologion was published in 1898, just after the formation of the Church Service Society under the leadership of Louis Benson and Henry van Dyke and just before the PCUSA’s approval of a new official prayer book.(Melton 1993, 171–72) Although Comegys would die in 1900, six years before the first edition of the Book of Common Worship was published, there is little doubt that his influence was still felt by the prayer book committee, which included many members of the Church Service Society.⁷

Toward Common Worship

In 1897, the Church Service Society was formed at Henry van Dyke’s Brick Presbyterian Church in New York City. There had been previous thoughts at forming such a group, including by the likes of Charles Briggs, but van Dyke and Louis Benson were the first able to bring it to fruition. Both men were ministers in the PCUSA and had themselves done their own work in producing liturgical works. Louis Benson, in fact, had been the editor for the official denominational hymnal published in 1895.(Melton 1967, 120)

The Church Service Society represented a wide variety of approaches to liturgical renewal. The extremes were probably best represented by van Dyke, who was elected vice-president of the group, and B.B. Warfield. Van Dyke tended toward modernism and had a strong ecumenical streak. His father, also a Presbyterian minister, had explicitly rejected the regulative principle of worship, arguing that it was a legalistic twisting of Scripture used to support established customs.⁸ Furthermore, the younger van Dyke had already published liturgical materials with forms for various days in the church calendar.⁹ Warfield, on the other hand, was far more traditional, preferring that liturgical resources be conformed more strictly to standard Presbyterian principles. When the General Assembly assembled its committee to produce the Book of Common Worship, his caution about being overly concerned with aesthetics was not heeded.(Melton 1967, 121)

In 1903, the Northern General Assembly received two overtures regarding the production of a book of forms. One request came from the Synod of New York (notably, Henry van Dyke’s own Synod), and the other was received from the Presbytery of Denver. The Synod of New York’s overture requested that the General Assembly produce “tentative” forms of worship for the Lord’s Day. The Presbytery of Denver was more focused on forms for occasional services, not unlike the forms produced by the Southern Church in the previous decade. And once again, Henry van Dyke’s influence was key in moving these overtures forward. In 1902, he had been the moderator of the General Assembly, and in 1903, he was appointed chair of the Committee on Bills and Overtures. It is no surprise, then, that the committee recommended favorable actions on both overtures. The General Assembly unanimously approved of these overtures, and van Dyke himself was made chair of the new committee. Furthermore, a sub-committee was formed and charged with the actual assembly of a book of worship. All three members were also members of the Church Service Society: van Dyke, Louis Benson, and Charles Cuthbert.(Melton 1967, 127, 130)

Interestingly, despite unanimous approval in 1903, when a draft of the new book was offered to the 1905 General Assembly, three hours of hearty debate ensued. The consensus among detractors was that the proposed book went too far. Although the committee went to great pains to highlight the voluntary nature of the book, there were many concerns about perceived ritualism. At the end of the 1905 Assembly, the book was sent back for further revision and six new members were added to the committee for the sake of diversity. Debate continued over the course of the next year, and debate at the 1906 Assembly was just as virulent. But when time came to vote, the book was approved, although the language of “voluntary use” was highlighted.(Melton 1967, 131–34)

The Book of Common Worship, 1906

There are several items of note regarding the final version of the Book of Common Worship. First, van Dyke’s perspective on the church year seems to have won the day. In the book’s Treasury of Prayers, there is an entire section devoted to “Prayers for Certain Times and Seasons,” including prayers for Good Friday, Easter, Advent, and Christmas.(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly and Van Dyke 1906, 177ff) It is interesting that, despite extended debate about the nature of the Assembly’s approval of the book, this section was never excised, despite the Assembly’s power to do so. This seems to reflect a shift in prevailing opinions. Furthermore, despite the Southern Church’s rejection of the church calendar in 1899, the 1932 edition of the Book of Common Worship was approved for use in the Southern Church after its publication.(Coldwell and Webb 2015, 170)

Second, the book’s recommended Lord’s Day service is very conservative. With the exception of one small responsive element, the congregation’s spoken participation is limited the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. The congregation’s participation in the confession of sin is optional. Compared with the liturgies of St. Peter’s Church, for example, this form is very limited. Furthermore, there is only one morning service and one evening service; whereas, most of the books from the previous century included several examples of both services.(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly and Van Dyke 1906, 1ff)

Finally, while there is a large collection of prayers listed later, ministers are explicitly encouraged to prepare their own studied prayer. The front matter of the book contains extended instructions about the voluntary nature of its forms, and the committee goes to great lengths to point out the necessity of praying according to the needs of the congregation.(Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly and Van Dyke 1906, vii-viii) In other words, with the exception of the inclusion of prayers for the church year, the 1906 Book of Common Worship represents a very modest effort at liturgical unity rooted in the Westminster Directory of Public Worship.

Conclusion

The second half of the nineteenth century was a unique time for the development of Presbyterian worship. Certainly, worship and liturgy were not at the front of most Presbyterian’s minds. That space was occupied by questions of race and revivalism. But through the work of a few men, American Presbyterian worship was significantly revised.

Of course, each of these men came with different concerns. Broadly, we might say there were two streams. On the one hand, many, especially certain dignified laymen, were concerned with bolstering the aesthetic quality of worship in light of growing interest in Episcopalianism. Others like Warfield and the two Hodges were concerned with theological integrity and saw liturgical renewal as one pathway to protecting a tradition under threat from revivalism and modernism. In the end, these concerns came together to produce a prayer book that respected the Presbyterian principle of liberty while encouraging more reverent and serious worship.

Their situation is not unlike what we find in twenty-first century Presbyterianism. After a period where Presbyterianism gained in popularity, we are seeing unprecedented growth in communions like the Anglican Church in North America among young people discontent with the liturgical anarchy in many Presbyterian denominations. We are also seeing a breakdown in confessional integrity, particularly with regard to the Westminster Confession’s doctrines of worship. In looking back to our nineteenth century fathers, we have a clear example of how to address these concerns. By following their lead, we may be able to see a recovery of both Reformed doctrine and piety in our day.

This is interesting to me because as a conservative confessionalist, I think the 1993 edition is quite good. Most evangelical Presbyterians would have a hard time finding anything objectionable in its regular forms.↩︎
For the purposes of this paper, we will focus on mainline Presbyterians. The Covenanters and Seceders have their own unique history of worship.↩︎
It is worth noting that this paper is, by necessity, largely focused on Northern Presbyterians, and even more specifically, Presbyterians in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. This is not a problem unique to the twenty-first century; it was, in fact, a point of contention even in some of the very debates we will discuss. In other words, much more work needs to be done in understanding the practice of and attitudes toward worship in other regions, but the South in particular, during the nineteenth century.↩︎
The term “British Reformed” is intended to include, Scots and Scots-Irish Presbyterians as well as non-conforming Puritans of various stripes.↩︎
Just one year earlier, Hodge made clear that he considered Nevin and Schaff firmly outside of the bounds of Protestantism. (C. Hodge 1854, 151).↩︎
The difference between St. Peter’s 1855 and 1864 liturgies is not dissimilar to the difference between Martin Luther’s two liturgies. See (Gibson 2018, 75ff).↩︎
In my opinion, had Comegys been alive and healthy, he would have very likely served on the committee himself.↩︎
In my opinion, this is a very strange perspective. One would be hard-pressed, I think, to accuse the Puritans of being too attached to established customs.↩︎
This was out of step with the prevailing opinions of the day. As late as 1899, the Southern General Assembly had explicitly condemned the observance of Christmas. This push by van Dyke was also only a couple of decades removed from the condemnation of Princeton professor Samuel Miller’s similar condemnations. See (Coldwell and Webb 2015, 169).↩︎

References

Baird, Charles Washington. 1855. Eutaxia, Or, The Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches. M.W. Dodd.

Bynum, William B. 1996. “’The Genuine Presbyterian Whine’: Presbyterian Worship in the Eighteenth Century.” American Presbyterians 74 (3): 157–70.

Coldwell, Christopher, and Andrew J Webb. 2015. “American Presbyterianism and the Religious Observance of Christmas.” The Confessional Presbyterian 11: 142.

Comegys, Benjamin Bartis. 1885. An Order of Worship, with Forms of Prayer for Divine Service. Garner.

———, ed. 1895. A Presbyterian Prayer Book, for Public Worship. Philadelphia: Sherman & Co.

Gibson, Jonathan, ed. 2018. Reformation Worship: Liturgies from the Past for the Present. Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press.

Hall, Stanley R. 1994. “American Presbyterians and the Directory for Worship, 1645–1989.” American Presbyterians 72 (2): 71–85.

Hodge, Archibald Alexander. 1882. Manual of Forms for Baptism, Admission to the Communion, Administration of the Lord’s Supper, Marriage and Funerals, Ordination of Elders and Deacons, Etc. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication.

Hodge, Charles. 1854. “History of the Apostolic Church; with a General Introduction to Church History.” The Princeton Review XXVI (1): 148–92.

———. 1855. “Eutaxia; or, the Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches.” The Princeton Review 27 (3): 445–67. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/590be125ff7c502a07752a5b/t/5e408a2bced26d7c65fcc58c/1581287980020/Hodge%2C+Charles%2C+Presbyterian+Liturgies.pdf.

Melton, Julius. 1967. Presbyterian Worship in America: Changing Patterns Since 1787. Richmond, John Knox Press. http://archive.org/details/presbyterianwors0000melt.

———. 1993. “A View from the Pew: Nineteenth-Century Elders and Presbyterian Worship.” American Presbyterians 71 (3): 161–74.

Old, Hughes Oliphant. 1988. “Eutaxia, or the Presbyterian Liturgies, Historical Sketches, by Charles W Baird, 1855.” American Presbyterians 66 (4): 260–63.

Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1787. A Draught of the Form of the Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. New York: S. and J. Loudon. http://archive.org/details/draughtg00pres.

Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly, and Henry Van Dyke. 1906. The Book of Common Worship. Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-school Work. http://archive.org/details/bookofcommonwor00pres.

St. Peter’s Church. 1855. The Church-book of St. Peter’s Church, Rochester ; Containing The Order of Worship ; The Order of Administering Baptism.. Rochester, N.Y. : Printed for St. Peter’s Church, by Lee, Mann, & Co. http://archive.org/details/churchbookofstpe00roch.

———. 1864. Book of Worship in Use in St. Peter’s Church, of the Presbytery of Rochester City, New York. Rochester : E. Darrow & Brother. http://archive.org/details/bookofworshipinu00stpe.

Upon This Rock: Problems with Interpretation of Matthew 16:18

Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:34:17 -0500

In Matthew 16:13-18, Matthew describes a landmark interaction between the Apostle Peter and Jesus Christ:

¹³Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” ¹⁴And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” ¹⁵He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” ¹⁶Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.¹

Simon Peter’s startling confession of the Christ and Jesus’ subsequent promises for the Church have become a major flashpoint for Roman Catholic apologetics; in particular, Roman Catholic writers will argue that Jesus names Peter the Rock upon which the Church is built.(Mitch and Sri 2010, 207) This is seen as a major mark in favor of papal claims.(Catholic Church 1997, par. 881) Historically, non-Roman interpreters have preferred alternatives, but in recent years, even some Protestant and Evangelical scholars have begun to accept the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18.² As we will discuss later, this is a marked shift from a long tradition of interpretation. Many Protestant scholars today have attempted to backpedal away from traditional interpretations; instead, claiming that this interpretations are a “Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic position.”(Yang 2010, 15) D.A. Carson argues: “[If] it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”(Carson 2017, v. A.11.a) While I respect Carson’s work, I am concerned that this kind of interpretation will cause problems down the line; therefore, it is important to consider whether this view holds up under scrutiny.

Thus, the purpose of this article is to reconsider and defend the traditional view, namely, that interpreting Jesus in Matthew 16 to refer to Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built is untenable. It is out of step with historical interpretations, it is inconsistent with the Bible’s use of the rock motif, and it fails to properly exegete the passage as we have received it.

Clarifications

Before we embark on an attempt to challenge a particular view of Matthew 16, it is perhaps advisable to first lay out the options. Because the central point of debate is the antecedent of the phrase ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (“this rock”), we can look at the possible answers to define the various options.

First, the rock to which Jesus refers could be the disciple Peter. This is the view of most Roman Catholic interpreters and an increasing number of Evangelical and Protestant interpreters. Hereafter, this view is referred to as the Petrine view.

The two remaining possibilities are that Jesus is either referring to Peter’s confession or himself. For the purposes of this article, we will consider these views together as the Messianic view. These two views are exegetically distinct because they claim mutually exclusive antecedents of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, but they are theologically similar because they both ultimately point to Christ as the foundation of the Church. Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” is nothing less than a declaration of faith in the person of Jesus Christ. The content of Peter’s confession and the object of his faith is Jesus Christ himself.³ Peter’s confession is Christ, so, theologically, it matters little whether Jesus is referring to himself directly or by way of Peter’s confession. In either case, he is the ultimate referent.⁴

Historical Problems

A key element of our discussion surrounding Matthew 16:18 that is often underdeveloped is the role of historical interpretation. Even just a cursory review of the early church fathers reveals that the Petrine view of Matthew 16 was nearly unheard of in the first centuries of the church. Consider the catalog of witnesses from Thomas Aquinas’ catena on Matthew. In Thomas’ compilation, the Messianic view is exclusive, with all interpreters preferring to identify either Christ or Peter’s confession as the rock.⁵

Jerome holds that Christ is the Rock after which Peter is named.
John Chrysostom (whose work on Matthew 16 is no longer extant) identifies the rock as “this faith and confession” of Peter.
In Augustine’s Retractions, he changes his opinion on Matthew 16, explicitly denying his former Petrine view in favor of a Messianic view which identifies Christ as the Rock per 1 Corinthians 10:4.
Origen’s view is not clear, but he does exclude a view wherein Peter is the singular foundation rock of the church: “Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, ‘Thou art Peter;’ for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ.”

Augustine’s perspective is particularly interesting because he actually changed his view. Although he had previously taught a Petrine view, he switches over to a Messianic view later in life: “For, ’Thou art Peter’ and not ’Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ’the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”(Augustine 1999, 90) This makes clear that the Petrine view was not unheard of by the fourth century, but Augustine seems happy to submit the consensus of the Church on proper interpretation.

On the other hand, Oscar Cullmann contends for quite an early date for the adoption of the Petrine view. In the third century, we see figures like Tertullian and Cyprian arguing for the Messianic view over against the Petrine view. The implication for Cullmann is that, in order for these church fathers to deny the Petrine view, there must have been a Petrine view to deny. Ultimately, Cullman discards the witness of Tertullian and Cyprian because they were entangled in church politics while writing, but he goes on to admit that other writers, independent of political motivations, consistently argue for a Messianic view:

“Thus Chrysostom explains that the rock on which Christ will build his Church means the faith of confession. According to Augustine, Jesus meant by the rock not Peter but himself... A similar embarrassment is to be observed in other writers, for example Cyril of Alexandria. We thus see that the exegesis that the Reformers gave–though, as we shall see, it is questionable–was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy; it rests upon an older patristic tradition.”(Cullmann 1958, 162)

There are several major problems with Cullman’s assessment. As one interested in Lutheran-Roman Catholic, Cullman is attempting to defend the apostolic origins of the papal claims of Vatican I, or, at least, he is attempting to show the doctrines of Vatican I appeared in “seed form” and developed from that seed. But this approach to the fathers is inherently flawed.

First, in Cullman’s citations of the fathers, he fails to show any extant textual evidence defending a Petrine view of Matthew 16. The Messianic view of Matthew 16 is one of the few areas where there actually may be unanimous consent of the fathers.⁶ So, secondly, this places ecumenist Cullman in the interesting position of having to reject the interpretation that the fathers give. And not only is the Petrine view roundly rejected by the fathers, but also it is the Messianic view that is wholly embraced by the fathers. Thus, in order to defend the Petrine view of Matthew 16, there are several major historical obstacles to overcome.

Of course, many evangelicals have now begun to defend the Petrine view, but evangelicals do not make the same extraordinary claims that Rome does. For example, as noted above, D.A. Carson defends a Petrine view, but as a Baptist, he does not need to account for his major departure from historical sources. In other words, Carson does not need to account for his being decidedly un-Catholic on this issue. But Roman Catholics have planted their feet against catholicity in laying down an authoritative interpretation of Matthew 16 which runs directly against the consensus of the universal church.

One final but significant source to consider is The Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas represents a very early witness to the theological milieu of the post-apostolic Roman church. There are various hypotheses on the identity of Hermas, but it seems clear that he was a member of the Roman church, but not a leader. However, he may have been a close associate of Rome’s church leaders. For example, the Muratorian Canon lists Hermas as the brother of a Roman bishop.⁷

In Parable 9 of Hermas, we get a description of a tower which seemingly represents the church. The Shepherd shows Hermas a “great white rock” upon which six men are commanded to build a tower.(Hermas 2008, 9.2–3) There are striking parallels between this passage and Matthew 16. Key terms are repeated (πέτρα, οἰκοδομέω), and it may even be the case that Hermas is intentionally alluding to Matthew’s gospel. Later on, Hermas explicitly says that the great white rock is the Son of God and that the tower is the church.(Hermas 2008, 9.12–13) There are many other stones that are placed in the tower’s structure, but the tower is built upon the great white petra, Jesus Christ. Notably, Peter does not appear by name; rather, as Seitz summarizes well:

“[If] the numbers of the stones in these tiers have any symbolic meaning it is significant that the number twelve is not mentioned and that the apostles together with the teachers form not the first but the fourth tier. In all this there is no indication that one apostle occupies a place of special prominence.”(Seitz 1950, 333)

Thus, we have a very early witness to Christian theology of “the Rock” that does not place special emphasis on Peter, but rather locates the foundation of the Church in Christ. This comports well with the general biblical-theological thrust of Scripture on this theme.

Biblical-Theological Problems

When we consider the biblical-theological data related the Rock, it becomes clear that to refer to Peter as the Rock would be an anomaly. Consistently throughout Scripture, Jesus Christ himself is described as the Rock and foundation of the people of God.

In the Old Testament, the key Hebrew term to consider is tsur. This word appears in the Old Testament seventy-eight times. Its simple meaning is “rock” or “cliff,” but its Old Testament usage implies significant biblical-theological meaning.(Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 2002, s.v.) This word is particularly interesting in that it almost exclusively appears in relation to God’s presence. Sometimes God is using a rock to relate to his people (Ex. 33:21-22, Jdgs. 6:21, etc.), but far more often God is the tsur (Deut. 32, 1 Sam. 2:2, Ps. 18:2, etc.). The word actually first appears in Exodus 17:6, and it is taking both functions. God is using the rock to relate to his people, but he is also identifying with the rock; 1 Corinthians 10:4 attests to this. Furthermore, tsur is often used to point to Christ. Paul identifies Exodus 17 as one instance, but Isaiah 8:14 ("the rock of offense") is a common source the New Testament points to in affirming Jesus as Christ.(VanGemeren 2012, 3.793)

In short, tsur functions as a term loaded with divine associations that establishes the rock as God theme in biblical theology (as opposed to the more common eben which has a much broader range of meaning in the Old Testament).(Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 2002, s.v.) At the same time, eben is explicitly connected to tsur in some specific instances, most notably, Isaiah 8:14: “And he will become a sanctuary and a stone (eben) of offense and a rock (tsur) of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Significantly, eben is more frequently used to refer to God’s promised seed (see for example, Psalm 118:22). There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the simplest reason is that eben provides an easy source of wordplay with the Hebrew word for son, ben.

Psalm 118:22

Psalm 118 is a psalm of praise extolling the covenant faithfulness of God. One element of that faithfulness is God’s reclamation of the rejected stone: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” (Psalm 118:22)⁸ This verse is quoted or alluded to six times in the New Testament.⁹

Psalm 118:22 is used by Jesus himself following the parable of the tenants (Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17). In this parable, Jesus describes unrighteous tenants who reject and kill the landlord’s son. Clearly, Jesus is referring to himself as ”the Son,” and he draws an explicit connection between the son and the stone. In the mind of Jesus, the rejected son is the rejected stone.

Peter himself then repeats this assertion twice in the New Testament. In Acts 4:10, he clearly identifies the rejected stone with Jesus: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.” Again, he repeats the theme in his first epistle:

“As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.’ So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.” (1 Peter 2:4-8)

Notice that Peter not only connects Jesus to the stone in Psalm 118, but he also connects Jesus to the stone of Isaiah 8. Thus, Peter himself, who advocates of the Petrine view insist is the rock, heavily leans toward a Messianic view. Of course, humility may have prevented Peter from claiming to be the foundation of the church, but it would be quite odd for an apostle of Jesus Christ to make claims in complete contradiction with his Lord. For those who hold to biblical authority, we cannot simply say that Peter is contradicting Jesus; rather, we must affirm that the apostle is in harmony with Jesus. The Petrine view requires such a disjunction is therefore untenable for orthodox interpreters of the Bible.

It is worth noting that the term used in all these citations of Psalm 118:22 is not πέτρα but λίθος. The main reason for this is simply that this is the word used in the Septuagint’s translation of the Psalm. However, this does not pose a problem for the Messianic view of Matthew 16. As has already been demonstrated, the two Hebrew terms for rock are closely associated, and it seems that this kind of coherence carries over into the Greek terms. In the Septuagint, tsur and eben are both translated in various ways, and the New Testament writers seem to have no trouble picking up this translation practice.

Daniel 2:31-45

Daniel 2:31-45 is Daniel’s interpretation of a dream that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had. Daniel’s interpretation picks up on several key themes for our consideration, most notably the themes of kingdom and the rock. Daniel describes an image of a great king made of various materials ranging from gold to clay. For Daniel, these different materials represent different kingdoms which will break each other apart and supersede one another. Finally, the stone (eben, LXX λίθος) breaks apart the image and becomes a mountain (tsur, LXX ὄρος) that fills the whole earth. This mountain represents the kingdom of God. Notice the identity between eben and tsur.

The book of Daniel is particularly significant in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus draws much of his language from Daniel (e.g., Son of Man, abomination of desolation), and the kingdom that Jesus describes is often cast in the apocalyptic language of Daniel.(Schreiner 2016, 102) Furthermore, in Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118 in Matthew 21, there is also an allusion to this rock of Daniel 2.(Schreiner 2016, 104) Given the preponderance of Daniel language in Matthew’s gospel, it is more than plausible that Jesus is using Daniel in his Matthew 16 proclamation.

To bolster this claim, we also observe that Jesus uses Daniel language in the immediate context of his Matthew 16 proclamation. Peter is answering Jesus’ question, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13) The parallel passages in Mark and Luke do not use this term, and in their accounts, Jesus asks, “Who do people say that I am?” Without approaching questions of the Gospels’ interdependence, it is clear that Matthew is attempting to emphasize this phrase, probably as an allusion back to Daniel 7.(Schreiner 2016, 107) Thus, it is likely that Matthew is not only customarily referring back to Daniel, but he is in fact hoping to draw out the connection.

Finally, Schreiner points to at least one church father who makes the same connection between Daniel 2 and Matthew 16: Aphraates the Syrian. Aphraates says,

“And again Daniel also spoke concerning this stone which is Christ. For he said: The stone was cut out from the mountain, not by hands and it smote the image, and the whole earth was filled with it. This he showed beforehand with regard to Christ that the whole earth shall be filled with Him.”(Schreiner 2016, 110)

In addition to adding a data point for our historical discussion, Aphraates demonstrates a very early (3rd century) interpretative tradition of reading Matthew 16 in light of Daniel 2.

1 Corinthians 10:4

Perhaps the clearest New Testament identification between Christ and the Rock is in 1 Corinthians:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

Here Paul is very explicit: the Rock was Christ.

In this instance, the Rock that Paul is primarily concerned with is the Rock of Exodus 17 which provided the people of Israel with water in the desert. Again, Exodus 17 is the first instance of the word tsur, and Paul uses the term πέτρᾳ. This is the same term used by the Septuagint in its translation of Exodus 17. Significantly, this term appears for the most part in the Synoptic gospels. The other references in the New Testament are either references to Isaiah 8 (1 Peter 2:4-8, Romans 9:33) or more general uses of the term (Revelation 6:15-16).

In Exodus 17, the Rock serves a substitutionary function. Moses strikes the Rock, representation of Yahweh, in place of the people. Israel has earned judgment for their unfaithfulness, but God places himself under the very judgment he pours out. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul used the Rock in a slightly different way. For Paul, the Rock is a point of unification. In dealing with the disunity of the Corinthian church, Paul is arguing for their reconciliation and communion together. Thus, the Rock that tied Israel together in the wilderness is the same Christ who forms the basis for their communion together. He is the foundation upon which they are built.

There are many other passages to consider, but a simple review of these three key passages reveal a consistent theme. Foundation rocks, rocks which form the basis for communion, rocks upon which the kingdom are built are consistently identified with Christ throughout Scripture. Proponents of the Petrine view are running against the biblical flow of thought when they defend the Petrine view. If the Petrine view is correct, then the Gospel of Matthew is a major outlier from the rest of the biblical data.

Exegetical Problems

The main exegetical question at hand is the identity of the referent of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ. The fact of the matter is that Jesus’ language is ambiguous. Certainly, it is possible that Jesus is referring back to Peter, but equally convincing arguments can be made in favor of the Petrine. In the face of this uncertainly, Petrine proponents turn to other sources.

One common line of argumentation in favor of the Petrine view of Matthew 16 is to say that, since Aramaic would have been Jesus’ native tongue, Jesus likely would have used the Aramaic term kepha’ to refer to both Peter and the rock:

“Thus we are not to distinguish between Peter and the rock but to identify them as one and same foundation. In any case, the question of a distinction between them is probably moot, since Jesus almost certainly spoke these words in Aramaic and would have used the same word, kepha’, meaning a massive rock, in both instances.”¹⁰

There are two major problems with this approach.

First, there is a major methodological problem with relying on a hypothetical Aramaic source to interpret Matthew 16. Any claim of an Aramaic substratum must ultimately rest on speculation and probability. For example, Finley notes that “it seems unlikely that such an intimate discussion would have been conducted in a language that was not [Jesus and the disciples] main language.”(Finley 2006, 135) Again, the speculative nature of this claim is notable. The fact is that we do not have any indication of whether Jesus was speaking Greek or Aramaic with his disciples in this moment. Certainly, there is clear evidence throughout the Gospels that Jesus commonly spoke Aramaic (examples in Matthew include 5:18, 22; 6:24; 27:6, 46), but this does not mean he only spoke Aramaic in his teaching.

Second, even if we grant the methodology of Petrine proponents, the very concept that kepha’ underlies both πέτρα is also almost entirely speculative.

“While we know that כיפא underlies Πέτρος, we have no way of knowing which Aramaic word underlies πέτρα. The evidence of the Aramaic Targums shows that מנרא is as probable a candidate as כיפא. I conclude therefore that in the absence of an actual Aramaic text of Mt 16:18 we cannot be sure which Aramaic word underlies πέτρα.”(Caragounis 1990, 30)

One must appreciate Caragounis’ candor here. We can have absolutely no certainty about the words Jesus spoke in this instance outside of the text of Scripture. Even if Jesus spoke Aramaic, there is no reliable way to determine whether Jesus actually used the same Aramaic term twice, and in fact, Finley demonstrates that there are multiple reasonable Aramaic candidates that Jesus may have used.(Finley 2006, 143–45)

Conclusion

In order to consistently hold to a Petrine view of Matthew 16, one must overcome several major objections. This article has outlined three major objections and considered a litany of evidence in favor of the Messianic view. In the final analysis, the Petrine view stands under a heavy burden of proof and must find a way to contend with the weight of evidence against it.

First, defenders of the Petrine view (particularly, Roman Catholics) must prove several spectacular historical claims. They must show that (a) the Petrine view is extant in the writings of the fathers, (b) that at least the majority of the fathers approve of their Petrine view, and (c) that the fathers had a generally negative opinion the Messianic view. As we have shown, these obstacles are currently insurmountable. The historical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the Messianic interpretation of Matthew 16.

Second, defenders of the Petrine view must demonstrate that the Petrine view comports with the other biblical data. As we have shown, the vast majority of biblical references to the Rock refer to Christ himself or more generally to God. Petrine proponents must then find a way to account for the anomalous nature of their interpretation. If the Petrine view is the correct view of Matthew 16, then numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments must be completely reinterpreted, or it must be shown that Matthew 16’s incoherence with the rest of the Scriptures is tenable.

Third, defenders of the Petrine view must show that their view is exegetically sound. This requires arguing from the text itself, rather than from speculative assertions of a hypothetical Aramaic substratum. Many arguments in favor of the Petrine view routinely rely on sources from outside of our periscope for evidence, but these outside sources cannot determine definitely the meaning of the text. Furthermore, this is one case where an exegetical argument cannot stand on its own. Certainly, it would be convincing if the Petrine view could be demonstrated from the text, but as it stands, Jesus’ words are ambiguous, and we must turn to other sources, in particular, clearer Scriptures, to determine his meaning.

As this article has demonstrated, the barriers that Petrine view proponents must overcome are quite high. The burden of proof does not lie with the Messianic view, but with the Petrine view in the face a mountain of evidence against it.

References

Augustine. 1999. The Retractations. 1st short-run reprint. Fathers of the Church, a New Translation, v. 60. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press.

Caragounis, Chrys C. 1990. Peter and the Rock. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Carson, D. A. 2017. Matthew. Zondervan Academic.

Catholic Church, ed. 1997. Catechism of the Catholic Church: With Modifications from the Editio Typica. 2nd ed., [new]. New York: Doubleday.

Cullmann, Oscar. 1958. Peter; Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Essay. New York, Meridian Books. http://archive.org/details/peterdiscipleapo00cull.

“Decrees of the First Vatican Council.” 1868. Papal Encyclicals. June 29, 1868. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm.

Finley, Thomas J. 2006. “’Upon This Rock’: Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence.” Aramaic Studies 4 (2): 133–51.

France, R. T. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub.

Hermas. 2008. “The Shepherd of Hermas.” In The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations, edited by Michael W. Holmes and Joseph Barber Lightfoot, 3. ed., 2. print, 454–685. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic.

Holmes, Michael W., and Joseph Barber Lightfoot, eds. 2008. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. 3. ed., 2. print. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic.

Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm. 2002. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 Volume Set. Study Guide edition. Leiden: Brill.

Mitch, Curtis, and Edward P. Sri. 2010. The Gospel of Matthew. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Schreiner, Patrick. 2016. “Peter, the Rock: Matthew 16 in Light of Daniel 2.” Criswell Theological Review 2: 99–117.

Seitz, Oscar Jacob Frank. 1950. “Upon This Rock: A Critical Re-Examination of Matt 16:17-19.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (4): 329–40.

Sitz, E Arnold. 1939. “’Thou Art Peter, And On This Rock’: A Study on Matthew 16, 13-20.” Theologische Quartalschrift (Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Other States) 36 (3): 161–74.

Thomas, Aquinas, Mark Pattison, and John Henry Newman. 1874. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers: Volume 2, St. Matthew, Part 2. Oxford : J. Parker. http://archive.org/details/CatenaAureaNewEdV2.

VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. 2012. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Zondervan Academic.

Yang, Yong Eui. 2010. “Picture of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rock and Stumbling Stone.” 신약연구 9 (1): 1–42.

All English Scripture quotations are drawn from the English Standard Version (ESV).↩︎
(France 2007, 620–22); (Carson 2017, v. A.II.a).↩︎
For further discussion of this principle, see (Sitz 1939, 171–72)↩︎
It is also possible that Jesus refers to Peter’s personal faith, but this article will not consider this view. Proponents of this view have several major obstacles to overcome, and it is outside of the scope of this article to engage with these problems. For a fuller discussion of this view, see (Sitz 1939, 168)↩︎
The following discussion is drawn from (Thomas, Pattison, and Newman 1874, 584–85).↩︎
This is a notable problem for defenders of Vatican I which claims that Rome’s view of papal authority was “embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors” ((“Decrees of the First Vatican Council” 1868)).↩︎
For a fuller discussion of the authorship and dating of this work, see (Holmes and Lightfoot 2008, 445–47)↩︎
LXX here translates eben as λίθος.↩︎
Only five citations are considered here. Paul alludes to the verse in Ephesians 2:20-22, but space does not permit a full examination of that passage.↩︎
(Mitch and Sri 2010, 207), see also (Schreiner 2016, 106).↩︎

Does Paul Allow for Female Deacons?

Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0000

In recent years, the question of women in the diaconate has increasingly pressed upon the Reformed churches in North America. My own denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, leaves the decision to ordain women to the diaconate to each local congregation. Even within NAPARC, the question has been answered differently. In 2008, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, which does not ordain women to the diaconate, received overtures to study the issue.(Duncan 2008) The Orthodox Presbyterian Church studied the issue in 1988.(Committee on Women in Church Office 1988) The two major Covenanter churches, the RPCNA and the ARP Church, both allow for the ordination of women to the diaconate already. In other words, this is not a settled issue, and it benefits the church to continue to study it in light of Scripture.

However, this is more than a simple yes or no question. The issue is complex given the biblical data. Two key passages are in play, both in the Pauline corpus. First, in Romans 16, Paul refers to a woman in the Corinthian church, Phoebe, as a διάκονος. Second, Paul makes mention of women in the context of the diaconate in 1 Timothy 3. This article seeks to demonstrate that Paul’s references to women such as Phoebe do not imply the ordination of female deacons but rather indicate roles of service and support within the church, distinct from official ecclesiastical offices.

Romans 16:1-2

¹I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a deacon of the church in Cenchrae, ²that you welcome her in a way worthy of saints, and that you support her in what she needs from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself.

There are four instances of the word διάκονος in Romans. In Romans 13:4, Paul uses the term twice to describe the civil magistrate. While Paul obviously intends to signify a master-servant relationship between the Lord and the state, this cannot be a reference to church office. In Romans 15:8, he uses the term to refer to Christ once more, this time as a "servant to the circumcised." Again, this is clearly not a reference to church office, but rather the kind of service that Christ rendered to the Jews. Finally, he refers to Phoebe as a διάκονος in Romans 16:1. It is relevant to point out that in the book of Romans, three of the four instances of the word διάκονος do not refer to church office. This aligns with Paul’s use of the same term in his early epistles.

Of the thirty-one uses of διάκονος in the New Testament, twenty-three belong to Paul.¹ Examining each use in the order in which they were written yields interesting insights. It seems that Paul uses the term in two ways. In Paul’s earlier writings, the term denotes a more general category, but in Paul’s later writings, it seems to refer more specifically to an official church office. I take the Pauline Epistles to be written in the following order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. Of course, this is a rough sketch, and dating these epistles is always a bit speculative, but in broad strokes, we might classify them into three groupings: early (Gal, 1 & 2 Thess, 1 & 2 Cor, and Rom), middle (Eph, Phil, Col, Phlm), and late (Pastorals). Within these groupings, we are able to discern a definite shift in Paul’s usage of διάκονος.

In the early grouping, we find διάκονος twelve times. First, in Galatians 2:17, the term is used in reference to Christ. He is not a "servant of sin." Clearly, this is not a reference to church office.

There are six instances in 1 and 2 Corinthians. It is notable that each of these six instances, the word διάκονος refers to ministers of the gospel. But the context of this usage is not immediately dealing with church office. These “ministers,” whether Paul or others, are not those appointed by the church at Corinth. They are outsiders who have come into the church to deliver a message. In other words, the efficient cause of their ministry is significantly different from what we find in Acts 6 or 1 Timothy 3. Instead, Collins effectively argues that, in this context, διάκονος refers to a “go-between,” one who brings the message of another.(Collins 1992, 42) The single instance of διάκονος in 1 Thess 3:2 could possibly fall under this category as well.²

In Paul’s middle and later writings, there is a clear turn in the use of the term. In Phil 1:1, Paul addresses his letter to the ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις of Philippi. These are same two terms Paul uses to designate his two church offices in 1 Timothy. Of the four instances in Colossians, διάκονος is used in the Corinthian sense to refer to ministers of the Word. A similar use is found in 1 Tim 4:2 where Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος although he is clearly also an elder/bishop.

In sum, we can discern at three different senses in which Paul uses the term διάκονος.

Paul has a general use of the term, simply implying mediation between two parties (Rom 13:4, 15:8; Gal 2:17).
It may also refer to the ministry of the Word (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6, 6:4, 11:15, 11:23; Eph 3:7, 6:21; Col 1:7, 1:23, 1:25, 4:7, 1 Thess 3:2, 1 Tim 4:2).³
Less frequently, it refers to a designated church office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12).

In Paul’s earlier epistles, he prefers (1) and (2), but later on, it seems the first usage drops out. Furthermore, since (1) and (2) are less specified, there is clearly some overlap in meaning.

The question then arises, how do we classify Phoebe’s role? There is much debate here, with some arguing that Paul intends to bestow on Phoebe some kind of church office. Calvin, for example, notes:

He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office, for she performed a most honorable and a most holy function in the Church; and then he adduces another reason why they ought to receive her and to show her every kindness, for she had always been a helper to all the godly. As then she was an assistant (ministra) of the Cenchrean Church, he bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord; and by adding as it is meet for saints, he intimates that it would be unbecoming the servants of Christ not to show her honor and kindness.(Calvin 1981b, 542)

He goes on to explain his view that Phoebe was actually a widow-deacon after the manner described in 1 Timothy 5.⁴ A century later, however, the Westminster Assembly would conclude that there was not sufficient biblical evidence to support that claim despite dissenters citing Calvin in support of their position.(Eshelman 2018, 72) Given Paul’s previous use of the word διάκονος and his silence on the specific question of church order, the Westminster Assembly was probably correct in their conclusions, and modern scholarship generally agrees:

“There is no evidence that Φοίβη διάκονο was used as a deaconess that is belonging to that category of women fulfilling a womens role in the diakonate. Phoebe is simply a pious Christian woman involved in various works and aetivities of the entire society of Christian confessors. Not a few modern commentators of the Letter to the Romans hold to this view.”(Romaniuk 1990, 133)

Romaniuk’s assessment seems warranted. For example, Michael Bird, who holds to an egalitarian perspective,(Bird 2012) concurs with Collins’ “go-between” idea in his description of Phoebe’s role: “The key thing to remember about a ‘deacon’ is that it is not so much an office as an agency, and Paul identifies Phoebe as an intermediary between himself and the Roman churches.” (Bird 2015, 520) Also, James Dunn argues that Phoebe may have had some kind of official standing in the Corinthian church, but he is reluctant to ascribe her the office of deacon as it would be later developed. He understands the office of deacon in Paul’s epistles to be a later development in his ecclesiology.(Dunn 1988, 38B:887)

In a word, Paul’s use of the word διάκονος to describe Phoebe cannot be counted as support for female deacons. With regards to the three senses in which he uses the term, Paul most likely refers to Phoebe as a deacon in the sense of an intermediary between Corinth and Rome. ⁵

1 Timothy 3:8-13

⁸Deacons likewise must be respectable, not double-tongued, not given over to much wine, not swindlers, ⁹holding fast to the mystery of the faith in clean conscience. ¹⁰And he also must be tested first, then, made a deacon if found blameless. ¹¹Women likewise must be respectable, not devilish, temperate, faithful in all things. ¹²Deacons must be men of one woman, managing their children and their own household well. ¹³For those who deacon well gain a rank of wellness themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

In 1 Timothy, Paul is directly addressing church order; thus, even more than Romans 16, this passage should determine our understanding of Paul’s diaconate. Furthermore, whereas the debate in Romans 16 is largely lexical, it is grammatical and syntactical in 1 Timothy 3. The meaning of γυναῖκας in verse 11 is highly dependent on the relationship of these women to the deacons of verse 8.

Lewis proposes three possible interpretations:

View 1:

These women are deacons’ wives.

View 2:

These women are female assistants to the deacons without official standing.

View 3:

These women are deaconesses appointed to church office.(Lewis 1979)

There is also a fourth possible interpretation (hereafter, View 4): that the women in verse 11 share the same diaconal office with male deacons.(Stiefel 1995, 453–54)

There are two major syntactical features in verse 11 that are of some help in our exegesis. First, γυναῖκας is an anarthrous noun. On one hand, this presents a problem because there is no article explicitly defining the relationship between the deacons and the women. This is particularly difficult for the View 1. On the other hand, it may indicate that γυναῖκας refers to a unique class of people within the church. This is bolstered by the second syntactical feature: the use of the word ὡσαύτως. In verse 8, this same word is used to signal a transition to a new office, that of deacon, from Paul’s discussion of overseers. Taken together, these clearly indicate that the women of verse 11 are being considered as a unique class by Paul.

View 1: Deacons’ Wives

View 1 has a long pedigree. The majority of modern English translations enshrine this view in their texts following after Tyndale. There are several reasons for this.

First, verse 11 is sandwiched between two sets of qualifications for deacons. It would be strange, the argument goes, for Paul to introduce this new church office (or pseudo-office) and immediately go back to a discussion of the previous office. Furthermore, the second set of qualifications begins with a discussion of the deacon’s family and home life, which would follow quite naturally from a discussion of his wife. Finally, γυνή appears in a different form in verse 11, which seems to indicate that Paul is referring to the same group.(Mounce 2000)

For his part, Calvin understands verse 11 as referring to the wives of both deacons and elders. Their purpose would be to assist their husbands in the execution of their office. One may object by noting that Calvin seems to imply in his Institutes that women were included in the diaconate, but it is important to note that he only means to include the widows who also meet the requirements of 1 Timothy 5.(Calvin 2008, 4.3.9) Furthermore, as we have already discussed, this does not appear in his exegesis of either 1 Timothy 3 or 5.

The obvious objection to this view is that it is partially an argument from silence. The marital relationship between the deacons and the women is not established on the basis of clear textual evidence but on the basis of a best-guess interpretation.(Stiefel 1995, 451–52) It is also strange that Paul would mention the wives of deacons and not the wives of overseers. There is conjecture about the different role a wife may play with regard to her husband’s office, but, again, this is an argument from silence. We see no indication in the text that wives are expected to assist their deacon husbands.(Lewis 1979, 168)

View 2: Deacons’ Assistants

View 2 is a mediating view between Views 1 and 3. View 2 agrees with View 1 that Paul is not describing a separate third office. Once again, the inclusion of verse 11 between two sets of deacon qualifications indicates that whomever Paul intends to address, they are in some way connected to the deacons, but not as a unique office. But View 2 is reluctant to restrict Paul’s words to the wives of deacons because the text does not make the nature of the relationship between the deacons and the women explicit.(Lewis 1979, 171–72)

The central difference, then, between Views 2 and 3 is that View 2 does not extend church office to the deacons’ female counterparts, but functionally, Views 2 and 3 see the women serving in similar ways (e.g., their role is focused on ministry to women).

View 3: Deaconesses

This view understands Paul to be describing a third office, unique from the office of deacon, that is specifically reserved for women. One author notes: “This has long been the consensus of the majority of churches throughout the centuries and is no less true today.”(Lewis 1979, 169) While this may be a slight overstatement, it is true that this view has a very strong historical pedigree.

For example, John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) notes, “Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.”(Schaff 1995, 1–13:441) This is roughly contemporaneous with the Apostolic Constitutions, which contain perhaps the first use of the word “deaconess.” In this document, the deaconess is primarily tasked with serving women at times when it would be inappropriate for men to do so.(Schaff 1996, 7:431)

This is important because, in the first century, there was no feminine form of the word διάκονος. In other words, if Paul was speaking of a separate office of deaconess, he did not have access to the vocabulary to title that separate office. However, Paul has no problem inventing words when no other words are sufficient, and feminizing a masculine noun is not a difficult change to make. Thus, if Paul means to speak of a separate office, he does so using very ambiguous language.(Mounce 2000)

At the same time, Paul is not writing to establish these offices; rather, he is advising Timothy on how to lead an existing church. Presumably, the offices of overseer and deacon (and perhaps deaconess) have already been established.(Stiefel 1995, 442) If, then, this so-called third office is already referred to by the term γυναῖκας, it would be confusing to Timothy himself to introduce new language.

View 4: Female Deacons

View 4 is distinct in that it sees 1 Timothy 3:8-12 describing a single office which includes both men and women. It is difficult to find anyone who will argue for this perspective, and when they are found, they tend to argue somewhat tepidly.(Stiefel 1995, 453–54)

The central problem for this view is that the text simply cannot support it. The two major syntactical features discussed above do not allow us to interpret Paul as placing women in the same office as men. He is speaking of a different class.

Concluding Evaluation

Considering the arguments for each of these views, perhaps the thing that is most clear is that we cannot come to a definitive interpretation. At the same time, I think we can make some summary evaluations of each.

First, the text cannot hold the weight of View 4, so it can be ruled out. But things get more complicated with respect to Views 1-3. Views 1 and 2 could be considered “safe” interpretations. Both views satisfactorily explain the text, and since they do not argue for a separate office, both views can be held in most contexts without concern. Even in a church which prefers View 1, it is certainly within the purview of the diaconate to request assistance from women in carrying out their duties with regard to women. While View 3 is acceptable, it cannot be established from this text alone. One finds broader (but not definitive) support from church history.

Conclusion

In sum, we have demonstrated that Paul does not open the office of deacon to women, but he does consider women to be a key part of a healthy church. While Romans 16 speaks highly of Phoebe, there is no indication in that passage that she held an ecclesiastical office. In 1 Timothy, Paul speaks of a separate class of women, but the evidence is strongly in favor of the idea that an unordained servant role is in view. However, some further concluding thoughts are in order.

1. Whatever Paul intends to communicate about church office, it is clear that women were serving the church in important capacities in the first century. Phoebe may not have held church office, but she was integral to the health of the church. She demonstrated her faithfulness in service by laboring alongside Paul in both Corinth and Rome. The same can be said of the women described in 1 Tim 3:11. In other words, one’s position on the proper candidates for the office of deacon cannot be used to exclude women from serving important purposes in the church.

It is also unwise to be dogmatic about this issue. If a church decides to ordain women to some kind of diaconal office, we should exercise charity toward that church, understanding that faithful readers of God’s Word may come to different conclusions.⁶

2. Each church must determine how she understands the New Testament’s views on women with respect to deacons. This is not adiaphora. For the sake of church order, each church must have a decided position on this question. There is also a degree of freedom that each church has in ordering her affairs. Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 notes:

“[T]here are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

In other words, whereas the office of the service is dedicated to the diaconate, the details of how they carry out their duties is left to each church body.

This means that, even if a church agrees that the office of deacon is restricted to men, there are good natural and prudent reasons to appoint certain women to carry out various duties, particularly with respect to other women. It may even be appropriate to refer to these women as “deaconesses” as long as the church’s position is made clear at the outset.

3. Whatever a church decides, they ought to hold to the standards of 1 Timothy. Whoever these women are in 1 Tim 3:11, they are being held to a standard of conduct. Once a church determines what they believe Paul’s meaning is, they should seek to honor that. Furthermore, while Paul is clearly addressing a specific group, his standards of conduct are in no way unique to this special class. They are virtues that all women and all Christians are called to emulate.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael F. 2012. Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts: A Case for Gender Equality in Ministry. Zondervan.

———. 2015. Romans. Story of God Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.

Calvin, John. 1981a. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

———. 1981b. Commentary on Romans. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

———. 2008. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.

Collins, John N. 1992. “The Mediatorial Aspect of Paul’s Role as Diakonos.” Australian Biblical Review 40: 34–44.

Committee on Women in Church Office. 1988. “Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office.” Orthodox Presbyterian Church. https://opc.org/GA/women_in_office.html.

Doriani, Daniel M. 2021. Romans. Reformed Expository Commentaries. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.

Duncan, Ligon. 2008. “The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons.” byFaith. August 25, 2008. https://byfaithonline.com/the-case-for-our-current-policy-on-female-deacons/.

Dunn, James D. G. 1988. Romans 9-16. Vol. 38B. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Zondervan Academic.

Eshelman, Nathan. 2018. “Fighting for Phoebe: The Widow-Deacon and the Westminster Assembly’s Concept of an Alms-Based Women’s Ministry.” The Confessional Presbyterian 14: 63.

Keener, Craig S. 2013. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary Volume 2 (3:1-14:28). Baker Academic.

Lewis, Robert M. 1979. “The’ Women’ of 1 Timothy 3:11.” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (542): 167–75.

Mounce, William D. 2000. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary. Thomas Nelson.

Romaniuk, Kazimierz. 1990. “Was Phoebe in Romans 16,1 a Deaconess: Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche.” Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 81 (1-2): 132–34.

Schaff, Philip, ed. 1995. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd edition. Hendrickson Pub.

———, ed. 1996. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Revised edition. Hendrickson Pub.

Stiefel, Jennifer H. 1995. “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at ’Women Likewise . . .’ (1 Tim 3.11).” New Testament Studies 41 (3): 442–57.

The other eight are in the Gospels. Specifically, Matthew uses it three times, Mark two, and John three.↩︎
Some manuscripts do not include διάκονος here.↩︎
Notably, Luke never uses the word διάκονος, although the office is traditionally understood to have been instituted in Acts 6:1-7. In this pericope, Luke uses a related word, διακονίᾳ (6:1), to describe the work that the seven servers do. While they are not called "deacons" their work is diaconal. This is contrasted with the διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου, the ministry of the Word. Thus, Luke implies two ministries aimed at different aspects of church life, one primarily spiritual and the other primarily physical. See (Keener 2013, 269).↩︎
Notably, in Calvin’s comments on 1 Timothy 5, he makes no mention of duties assigned to widows; rather, he understands widows as the object of diaconal service, not the subject. (Calvin 1981a, 119ff).↩︎
Paul most likely wrote this letter while wintering in Corinth. See (Doriani 2021).↩︎
For the sake of clarity, I would argue that the issue of female elders is of an entirely different quality. The scriptural witness is much clearer with respect to this issue; thus, the ordination of women to the pastoral office is a more high-handed denial of the clear teaching of the Bible and of the tradition of the church.↩︎

An Illuminating Conversation on Progressive Christianity

Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:56:58 -0600

I just finished watching this video, and I think it’s one of the more helpful things I’ve seen on this topic. For either of these guys, it took a lot of courage to come on in the internet and discuss something so controversial with someone on the opposite side. Most of the time, these things get siloed into our own little groups, and it’s good to get everything on the table every once in a while.

However, I do think it vindicates Machen’s point in Christianity and Liberalism. Throughout the conversation, Perry (the progressive one) says a lot of things that, on the face of it, sound orthodox. You can almost see how the liberalization of the mainline happened in his answers. I can see how honest, Christian people, who trust their pastor to teach them well, would fall for this stuff.

Imagine sitting in a rural Presbyterian church through the second half of the twentieth century. In particular, I’m thinking of the period between 1970 and 1990. You don’t have the internet, so your primary source of information on the goings on in the broader Presbyterian world is probably your pastor. I don’t have statistics on this, but I’m willing to bet that the chances of your church leaving the mainline during this time are directly related to your pastor’s interest in doing the same. So if you have a pastor who’s dedicated to the mainline (I call them “company men”), he’s probably telling you everything’s fine and that you can trust the denomination. And his successors are probably telling you the same thing, but they’re also inching toward progressivism. And they sound like Perry! They’re using the language you’ve always heard, but they don’t mean the same thing! Of course, that’s simplistic, but I think you get the picture here.

That’s why I so appreciated Redeemed Zoomer’s pointed questions about meaning. Perry uses terms like Christian, salvation, hell, and sin, but he does not mean what you and I mean by those terms. He’s also completely committed to post-modern epistemology. This is particularly clear when he talks about his affirmation of the resurrection of Christ. He says that he believes that it’s true, but his version of truth is completely subjective. For Perry, when he says the resurrection of Christ is true, he means that it is “true for me” because of all the practical benefits of believing it. This is a category that most orthodox laypeople are incapable of understanding. To be clear, the reason they can’t understand it has nothing to do with their intellectual abilities and everything to do with the fact that it’s nonsense.

But it’s important to understand that whenever someone like this makes a truth claim, they are not making an objective truth claim. This is where it gets difficult because I believe Perry is completely sincere. This is what he believes is true, and he would probably tell you that every single time you asked him. However, that does not mean that he believes it is true for you, much less that it is absolutely true.

I could say a lot more, but I’ll end with this. Thank you, Redeemed Zoomer, for asking the right questions. And, you reader, follow his example. With a so-called “progressive Christian,”¹ you must always press a little further. Always ask, “What do you mean by that?”

We really need better terminology for “progressive Christians.” This is not intended as a slight, and only God knows the state of his soul, but I can’t bring myself to call Ben Perry a Christian. We have to draw boundaries, and I hope he would respect my need to draw a boundary that excludes him from my faith, just as he would draw lines that exlude others from his. ↩︎

Dabney on Damaged Protestantism

Tue, 03 Oct 2023 22:29:03 -0500

I often hear people talking about how Machen considered Romanists to be a different form of Christianity while liberal Protestantism was an entirely different religion. This is often touted as a uniquely insightful thought, but it looks like Dabney beat him to the punch on this one.

“The Attractions of Popery,” Presbyterian Quarterly, No. 28, April 894, pp. 161-163.:

To the shame of our damaged Protestantism, popery remains, in some essential respects, more faithful to God’s truth than its rival. For instance, while multitudes of scholars, calling themselves Protestant Christians, are undermining the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, Rome holds fast to it in her catechisms and formal declarations. True, she claims inspiration for others than the prophets, evangelists, and apostles, for her popes, namely, and prelates, holding to “the apostolic succession.” But if one must err, it is better to err by excess than by defect on a point like this, where negation cuts the blinded soul of man off absolutely from the divine guidance. Thousands of pretended Protestant believers are advancing their destructive criticism to assert that the Pentateuch is a literary fraud. Rome firmly maintains that it is God’s own work through Moses. A thousand deceitful arts are plied to degrade the conception of inspiration, as giving only thoughts, and not the words, or as consisting only in an elevation of the consciousness by poetic genius, and such like treacherous views. Rome still teaches the old-fashioned, honest view. What right have such deceitful Protestants to scold Rome for dishonesty of those historical and spiritual impostures upon which she founds the claims of the popes? Truly, they are dirty enough; for the forged decretals, for instance, too much contempt and reprehension cannot be expressed. But they are not a whit dirtier than the mental dishonesty of the men who, after asserting that they have proved the Pentateuch mostly a literary fraud, done by priestcraft more than a thousand years after its pretended date, still assure us that its value as Scripture and divine rule of faith is not wounded. These recent justifiers of pious fraud cannot convict the older ones. The old imposture, like a rotten roof, has become moss-grown with age, and is picturesque and venerable in many eyes. The new imposture stands ugly and malodorous in its rank freshness.

Again, multitudes of pretended Protestants utterly deny the trinity, the very corner-stone of a theology of redemption. Rome affirms it in all the fulness of the creeds of Nice, Chalcedon, and Athanasius. Myriads of pretended Protestants revere their own ethical philosophy so much more than they do their God that they must needs utterly reject Christ’s vicarious satisfaction for the guilt of sin. Rome continues to assert it, in spite of spurious philosophy, although she does add to it superstitious claims of human merit. Myriads of our men have become such “advanced thinkers” that they cannot away with supernatural regeneration. Rome teaches it invariably, even if it is in the form of baptismal regeneration, and still ascribes it to the power of God. Such are a few of the biting contrasts. We cannot wonder that many, even of honest and reverent minds, when they witness this ruthless destruction of the essentials of the gospel, draw two plain inferences. One is, that all such men pretending to be Protestant believers are, in fact, nothing but infidels wearing a mask, probably for the sake of the loaves and fishes as yet connected with the clerical calling; so that it is mere impudence for such men to assume to warn them against popish impostures—rather too near akin to Satan reproving sin. The other is, that the Romanist theologians must have been right in asserting, ever since the days of Luther, that our Protestant way of establishing a divine rule of faith by a rational and explicit credence must turn out nothing but rationalistic infidelity. Souls which value a divine redemption for man shudder as they behold this wild havoc of everything characteristic of a saving gospel; and they naturally exclaim, “There is no security except in going back to that old foundation, implicit trust in the witness of ‘Holy Mother Church’ to the Scriptures!” Now, true Protestants know that this conclusion is wretchedly sophistical, but it is dreadfully natural for honest, half-informed men.

A couple thoughts on this:

There are lots of Roman heretics, especially post-Vatican II. Ironically, I think it’s probably more common to run across more Papists who deny Mosaic authorship, for example, than Protestants. Rome does a really good job of presenting as one big happy family when they’re anything but. There is as much, if not more, theological diversity among Papists than among Protestants. Institutional unity does not equal unity in doctrine or piety.
Rome does a really good job of presenting as one big happy family. To the untrained (read: mega-church evangelical) eye, Romanism solves all the problems with “Protestantism”¹ They claim to have got pretty liturgies and great philosophers and deep devotion, and Splash Impact Community Church does not. Now, I believe that the liturgy, philosophy, and devotion of Rome are fatally flawed, and what these people are looking for is just genuine historic Protestantism. We’ve got liturgy without idolatry, philosophy without sophistry, and devotion without mysticism. But these people disenchanted with SICC (that is, Splash Impact Community Church) don’t know that, and I’m not sure most Reformed folks do either. Thus, the great challenge of the Reformed church today is to reclaim her heritage and to proclaim it to the world. And we have to proclaim it, not on the basis of its being traditional, but on the basis of its being biblical.

PS: This ended up begin more developed than I was thinking it would be, so I might have to come back around and flesh this out. Be on the lookout for that.

Mega-church evangelicalism is not Protestant in any meaningful way as far as I am concerned. If you can’t submit to one of many Reformation confessions without crossing your fingers, I don’t see how you could represent the Protestant tradition. ↩︎

New Hugo Site

Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:38:46 -0500

I finally made the jump over to Hugo for this site. For a long time, I’ve been using my own scripts to edit HTML files, but it was getting unwieldy as the site got bigger. Hugo should help me keep things organized a little better. Everything looks pretty much the same with the exception of a couple of quality-of-life tweaks.

Two things I already like about it:

I know HTML pretty well, and I can write in HTML pretty fast with my vim setup. But it’s hard to compete with the speed of writing in Markdown.
Hugo has tagging. That should help make the site easier to navigate, especially since I’m dealing with a pretty broad range of topics. From what I can tell, it actually looks like I have at least two different audiences: one for techy stuff and one for my other writing. This should make it easier for everyone to find exactly what they’re looking for.

Principles for Studying the Papacy

Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0000

I’ve been out of Papist-Protestant polemics for a little while now, but over the past couple weeks, I’ve run across a couple things from Roman apologists that disturbed me enough to write a blog post. So, here’s five principles for studying papal claims that everyone should keep in mind.

Exegetical arguments must be based on exegesis. Is there a typological connection between Matthew 16 and Eliakim? In all likelihood, there is, but that’s not an exegetical argument. Things like typology and fittingness are important to consider, but they are supporting evidences, not foundational evidences. If you’re going to make a biblical argument to establish essential doctrine, the argument needs to come from the Bible at the level of the argument. Citing Bible verses does not make an argument biblical.

Historical studies must be done honestly. Give me a couple hours, and I can find you a hundred historical references in favor of the Papist position. I can build a really strong argument, but it’ll be filled with careful omissions. For example, did you know that Pope Victor I excommunicated a segment of the Asian church over the date of Easter? That looks like a Pope to me! But, he was also rebuked by Irenaeus and several other bishops, eventually reversing the decision. And that doesn’t seem very Pope-y at all. (Furthermore, it’s conveniently glossed over Erick Ybarras’s recent book, The Papacy, pp. 131ff.) It matters that we get the whole story.

Terms found in historical sources do not always match one-to-one with modern usage. There were bishops in the early church, no doubt. But there were also presbyteries. But were these the same kinds of bishops and presbyteries we have today in various churches? Answer: we don’t know for sure, but probably not. But twenty-first century people are particularly good at importing our modern/post-modern ideas into historical documents. This is especially true as we attempt to defend our own positions. Also, for the record, this one applies to the Truly Reformed® folks out there as well. You can’t just go redefining words willy-nilly, whether that’s in the patristics or the Westminster standards.

Patristic sources that say nice things about the Roman Church are not evidence for the papacy. If you start skimming through the church fathers, you’ll very quickly find that some of them have very good things to say about the Church of Rome. Some of them even talk about how Rome is trustworthy as a source of truth. (See, for example, Ignatuis’ Epistle to the Romans or the third book of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies.) These don’t cause me any heartburn as a Protestant. The exemplary nature of the Roman Church in earlier centuries is not evidence for enduring trustworthiness. Furthermore, I say a lot of nice things about my wife, but that doesn’t make her infallible.

The Roman bishop acting like a universal head doesn’t make him the universal head. Have Roman bishops done a lot of Pope-y things over the centuries? Yes, of course. But there’s a difference between action and office. The bishop of Rome can act like the universal head of the Church all he wants, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that he was appointed to that office. If a police officer puts you in handcuffs, it’s an arrest. If I do, it’s a kidnapping. The question is not about what Popes have done, but whether they have the authority to do it.

Greek and Hebrew Keyboards for Linux

Wed, 08 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0000

There are lots of good tutorials out there for getting Greek and Hebrew keyboards on Windows and Mac, but there’s not anything clear and direct about getting them on Linux. Part of the problem for Linux is that there are about a hundred different ways to do it. Although there are ways to have multiple keyboards just in your text editor (Vim has this capability), I personally prefer to use system-wide configurations. This is my simple process, but if you want more detailed information, Vern Poythress has put together a much longer guide. Poythress’s guide is helpful, but it’s almost ten years old and Debian/Ubuntu centered. The steps below are distro-agnostic.

Getting Greek/Hebrew Keyboards

Download the appropriate keymaps from STEP Bible here. The keymaps are at the bottom of the page. Be sure to select linux.
Navigate to your downloads directory and tar -xf Tyndale_keyboards_for_Linux.tgz
cd Tyndale_keyboards_for_Linux
sudo cp Tyndale-il /usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols/
sudo cp Tyndale-gr /usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols/
setxkbmap -layout "us,Tyndale-gr,Tyndale-il" -option "grp:win_space_toggle"

Now, if you press Super+Space (assuming you don’t have conflicting keybinds), the keyboard layout will switch. Of course, you can set the keybind to anything you’d like by changing the setxkbmap option.

Note also that setxkbmap sets the layout for the current X session. If you want a persistent configuration, put the command in your .xinitrc. Additionally, I would also write an alias or a short script to rerun the command in case anything catches. For example, you’ll need to rerun the command if you plug in an external keyboard.

A Warning

I have noticed that sometimes the X keyboard freaks out on me and freezes DWM. It seems to happen mostly when I’m very quickly switching between keymaps. I’m not sure what the cause of this is, but just be warned. I have not tested this with other window managers.

Command Line Bibles

Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0000

For a while, I’ve been using Luke Smith’s command line Bibles, and I’ve found them very helpful. But in my day-to-day life, I rarely use the King James. So I decided to create command line Bibles for some other translations I often use. In the process, I put together a script that will download and format any translation from BibleGateway to produce an easily accessible Bible. If you’re interested, check it out here: https://github.com/rwroberson/bible-down

New Resources Page

Sat, 03 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0000

This is just a quick update to inform my readers that I have recently uploaded several items to a new resources page. At least at the beginning, this will largely include musical and liturgical resources for Reformed churches. Right now, I’ve got two pieces of quasi-original music and several items from a retypesetting of the 1906 Book of Common Worship.

The first piece of music is “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” with two additional verses for Communion. It’s a great tune for Christmas Eve, and although I hold a Reformed view of Communion that I was certainly intending to communicate, I don’t think there’s anything objectionable in it for most traditions. The second piece of music is a new translation of the first 8 verses of Psalm 119. I decided to translate it myself because I was dissatisfied by the available options, but you’ll likely see influence from various Psalters represented. I hope to do some more Psalm translations in the future. I’ve set Psalm 119 to the familiar tune, St. Anne, and I’ll probably continue to include a familiar tune with my translations. You’ll also find an “inline” version of Psalm 119, designed to be included in bulletins and other printed worship materials.

Finally, I’m working on a project to typeset some old, out-of-print liturgical books. I’m beginning with the Book of Common Worship, 1906, produced by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (not the same PCUSA as the liberal denomination you may run across now). It’s still a work in progress, but I’ve decided to go ahead and publish it in chunks as I go. Eventually, I’ll get it done up in a nice hardback format, but the PDFs will always be freely available through my website. I’d also appreciate if you would let me know if you spot any errors.

VimWiki Mobile Setup

Wed, 25 May 2022 00:00:00 +0000

I recently made a video on my switch from Obsidian to Vimwiki. So far, I’ve been more than pleased. It’s always good to get away from proprietary software, especially when they are unnecessarily built on Electron.

However, I did get a comment on that video about the lack of a mobile option. That didn’t really bother me at first. I’m actually intentionally moving away from using my phone as a productivity device. But I do have an iPad that I occasionally like to write on, and I needed a way to access my notes there as well. At the moment, it’s working quite well. In fact, I’m writing this blog post on my iPad!

How it works…

My basic set up has three parts:

My main computer
Blink shell for iPad
A local server

Strictly speaking, the server is not necessary. You could just ssh into your main computer from your terminal client on iOS (I recommend Blink, but there are several options). This would make the process much simpler from a networking standpoint, but it requires that your main computer be up and running. I wanted to be able to use VimWiki totally independently, so that’s where the server comes in.

My “home server” is just an old, crappy laptop (this one), but you could always use something better. If you don’t want to worry about the hardware, you could just use a VPS. I have thousands of notes, but since they’re all plain text, they amount to less than 50M. So you could run a tiny VPS on something like Linode and have plenty of headroom for whatever else you want to throw on it. It also probably doesn’t hurt to have offsite backups.

Setting Up Syncthing

Syncthing on a headless server is a little convoluted, but once you get it up and running, maintenence is minimal. First, you need to have a server up and running. Mine is running Debian 11.

Installing Syncthing

Then, install Syncthing with apt (or your distro’s package manager). If you’re on Arch, Syncthing is already in your repositories.

Add pgp key:

sudo curl -s -o /usr/share/keyrings/syncthing-archive-keyring.gpg https://syncthing.net/release-key.gpg

Add the stable channel:

echo "deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/syncthing-archive-keyring.gpg] https://apt.syncthing.net/ syncthing stable" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/syncthing.list

Add the candidate channel

echo "deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/syncthing-archive-keyring.gpg] https://apt.syncthing.net/ syncthing candidate" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/syncthing.list

Install syncthing:

sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install syncthing

Accessing Syncthing

Now that you’ve got Syncthing installed, you have to figure out how to access it. While Syncthing does have some limited CLI tools, you really need to get on the web GUI to configure everything. You should only have to do this once. After it’s set up, the CLI should be sufficient.

For your initial set up, you’ll want to ssh into your server from your main computer. Use this command:

ssh -L 9988:localhost:8384 <user>@<serverip>

Theoretically, you should be able to use port 8384 instead of port 9988 (which is just a random port), but I couldn’t get mine to work that way for some reason. This should work just fine. Once you’re in, run the command “syncthing.” Open your browser and go to https://localhost:9988 (your server GUI) and https://localhost:8384 (your main computer GUI) to link up the devices. Look for the “Add a Remote Device Button.” Then, share your notes folder between the two. Check the Syncthing docs if you want more information on how to sync your documents.

After you’ve configured syncing, just close the terminal. Don’t kill Syncthing. I believe you can run Syncthing as a system service, but I’ve found this method unreliable. I prefer to just start it manually as we’ve already done. If you need to access the GUI again, just use the ssh command from above and open it up in your web browser.

Final Notes

Now you’re done! Well, mostly. You’re probably also going to want to copy over your .vimrc to make sure all your plugins are working. If you use Plug, everything should install assuming you have Plug set to install automatically.

Relevant Links

Is Intellectual Property Just?

Sun, 08 May 2022 00:00:00 +0000

TL;DR I think the answer to that question is a clear no. As I’ve thought about law and property and economics, I can’t help but wonder whether our practices in these areas are still just in the digital age. At first, my impulse was to say that we’ve failed by taking a pre-digital legal apparatus and applying it to new forms of knowledge. But the conclusion I’ve come to runs deeper than that. Not only have we applied an apparatus to something it was never intended to address, the apparatus itself is flawed. The problem is not the digital age; the problem is intellectual property as a concept.

What Thomas Thinks

St. Thomas Aquinas provides a helpful framework for us here.¹ He tells us first that it is “altogether sinful” to sell something for more than its just price. Of course, he offers some qualification here. In the case where there is benefit to both buyer and seller in a transaction, that transaction ought to occur at the fair market value. For example, if Bob owns a piece of land that is beyond his capacity to maintain, and if Joe can use Bob’s land for productive purposes, Bob should sell Joe his land for whatever it’s worth and no more. But it is also possible that Bob will suffer some loss by selling his land. Maybe Bob uses his land to produce a portion of his family’s food, and he suffers the loss of that food source if he sells the land. In this case, Bob may offer Joe a price sufficient to cover the value of the land and the loss he incurs. Finally, if Joe knows that Bob’s land has immense productive potential that will later increase its value, Joe may offer to pay extra in accordance with that value.

In the end, we have three basic parameters for determining the sale price of any good: market value, seller’s loss, and buyer’s gain. Furthermore, the buyer and seller have different obligations with respect to these parameters. The seller always has the higher degree of moral liability because he has more rights than the buyer; namely, he has the right of disposal. Therefore, the seller is obligated by his freedom in ownership to offer a fair price in accord with (1) market value and (2) personal loss. On the other hand, the buyer is free to pay more for a good in proportion to his advantage, but he is not obligated to do so, particularly if he is able to allocate the amount of the additional payment to other, greater goods.

Application to Digital Marketplaces

There are a few things to notice about digital marketplaces based on this paradigm. First, the market value of most digital products is zero. A simple supply v. demand graph illustrates this. Normally, supply and demand interact in order to determine an equilibrium price. But what if supply is infinite? In this case, the supply curve is simple x=0. No matter the demand, the equilibrium price will always be zero. This is the situtation for digital products. The supply is basically infinite.

Of course, this is all assuming that we arrive at equilbrium prices naturally. I’m open to other options, but as far as I’m aware, supply and demand are brute economic realities. There are instances, however, where supply and demand are artificially manipulated. This is how DRM (Digital Rights Management) works. By selling a digital product with a DRM mechanism attached, I can artificially limit supply. De Beers does a similar thing with diamonds, and the federal government does it with agricultural products. By limiting supply, sellers can force a price floor on their goods. It’s easy to see the sin in the federal government’s letting food rot in warehouses, but the same applies to digital media. It is undeniably sinful to sell a digital product for more than zero.

But we also have to consider the loss to the seller. What does the “content creator” lose by giving his creations away for free? In short, he loses nothing. Digital products are nothing more than files on a hard drive. If I make a copy of a file and send it to you, I don’t suffer any loss at all. Nothing has changed on my end. Or rather, nothing has changed on my end for the worse. There is a change, but it’s to the benefit of the creator. Creators create in order for their works to be seen and used.

But what about the resources a creator puts into his work? Should he not receive compensation for that? Yes and no. As we’ve already discussed, digital products are economically worthless. So in that sense, the seller is not entitled to anything. If the buyer will see some economic gain from his acquiring the digital product, he may certainly pay the seller in accord with that gain, but the seller does not have the freedom to require such a payment from the buyer. The impetus is always on the buyer to provide that.

At this point, it’s worth admitting that this is only a simple application of something one guy said a thousand years ago. But St. Thomas draws on a deep well of Christian wisdom, and I think he serves as a great starting point for thinking through difficult ethical questions in the digital age. He’s also far enough removed from our world and our particular worldviews to serve as an objective and helpful critic of modernism (excuse the anachronism). But I understand how modern sensibilites might buck against an assertion like “intellectual property is unjust,” so I’ll end with a parable that might help illustrate my argument.

The Man with the Manna Machine

There once was a man who invented a machine. He called it the “Manna Machine.” It was very simple to operate. You simply told it what you wanted to eat, and it sent it out on a conveyor belt. It required no inputs and no raw resources. It simply created the meal from nothing, and it was always absolutely delicious.

The machine was good, but he wanted to test it to see its limits. So he opened up a restaurant with an infinite menu. Every meal was ten dollars, and you could order anything you wanted. It was always good. One day, a man walked in and said, “You know, you should really make more of these machines and sell them.”

So being a good, entrepeneurial millenial, he packed his machine up and took it down to his local venture capitalist. He gave his pitch, and the venture capitalist decided to invest. The VC gave him a blank check and a list of contacts across the world. The man took his check to the bank and began his world tour. He took his machine all around to expound its merits. He sold machines to governments and communities across the globe, and he soon became an international sensation.

But one day, his VC called and said, “I have an even better idea. Have you heard of the subscription model? We sell the machine for the original price, but we’ll charge an additional price to make it function. It’s unlimited money!” This made the man uncomfortable. He responded, “But that’s extortion! They’ve already purchased the machine; the food should be unlimited.” The VC paused and said, “But this was all your idea, wasn’t it? The machine has always produced unlimited food, but we have always charged for it. In fact, that’s just what you did when you opened your restaurant! The machine is one thing, but the food is an entirely different product.”

Conclusion

Is your impulse not to condemn the man and the venture capitalist? They took something that was good and distorted it in pursuit of profit.

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t support creators and inventors, but I do question our method for supporting them. It’s at least worth considering the implications of our practices. Is it at least possible that our standards of intellectual property rights are unjust? Could we have gotten it wrong?

The following discussion derives from the Respondeo in ST II-II.77. ↩︎

Is Christianity a Culture? Exploring the New Life of a Holy Nation

Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0000

The following article was originally written as a term paper for a class at Davenant Hall. I have more thoughts on it, and I will likely expand and revise the content here. Thus, in many ways, this article is unfinished, but I thought it was useful enough to go ahead an publish. I certainly think the general contours of the article are good, but be aware that much of it is subject to revision.

Recently, evangelicals have seen a rise in something called “deconstruction.” If you’re anything like me, that word gives you postmodern chills, but proponents of Christian deconstruction will insist that their project has little to do with Jacques Derrida. Instead, they offer their own definitions:

[Deconstruction is] an academic term for the systematic pulling apart of the belief system you were raised in.¹

Whether the concept has truly been "reconstructed" from Derrida is debatable, but even given that evangelical deconstructionism is a unique project, it involves a similar rejection of traditional authority. The evangelical project’s focus is to untangle Christian faith from “the cultural conditioning of a broad social and religious movement in all its cultural, political, and ideological dimensions–and the way that movement is typically blind to its own cultural particularity, making universal claims about itself with damaging consequences.”²

But there’s another parallel concern among evangelicals: contextualization. Tim Keller, arguably the loudest proponent of contextualization, defines it:

[Contextualization] means to resonate with yet defy the culture around you. It means to antagonize a society’s idols while showing respect for its people and many of its hopes and aspirations. It means expressing the gospel in a way that is not only comprehensible but also convincing.³

In arguing for contextualization, Keller points back to early Christians, saying, “Yet, while they did not allow their agenda to be co-opted, they did not ignore or condemn the vocabulary and concepts of the culture.”⁴

In some ways, deconstruction and contextualization run against each other. Deconstruction’s intent is to shed the cultural baggage of Christianity. It seeks to strip Christianity down to its core to reveal bare truths independent of the individual Christian’s cultural conditioning (although the more progressive deconstructionists would probably reject a category like “bare truths”). In contrast, contextualization seeks to drive Christianity into cultural conditioning. Contextualization offers a “Yes, and…” to cultural norms and customs that do not run directly afoul of core Christian doctrine. If we wanted to mirror the language of deconstruction, we might call contextualization something like renovation.

But despite these projects moving in seemingly opposite directions, they both operate on the assumption that Christianity is culturally neutral. But this assumption does not hold up to scrutiny. Rather, upon examination of the Christian faith, we find that Christianity itself is a culture.

Culture Defined

Lombo and Russo define culture in this way:

[The] concept of culture embraces the nature and exercise of man’s spiritual faculties (that is, natural gifts and their transformation according to a model), the biological order and the free intervention of man that configures that order, and the transmission of knowledge and its interior assimilation.⁵

So culture is (1) the exercise of man’s faculties (2) in participating in and intensifying the order of the world and (3) the passing down and internalization of that order with relation to man’s faculties. There are several notable elements in this definition.

First, culture is the thing that connects man’s interior spiritual faculties with the world. It provides a pattern whereby he is able to understand and conquer the natural order. Man’s rationality produces a large gap between the natural order and man’s desired order; thus, there needs to be some bridge between his interiority and the external world. On the other hand, animals, having a much lower level of interiority, do not need an additional layer of reality in order to bridge the gap with the outside world. Man’s ability to form abstractions means that he must have a grid for understanding those abstractions, something that the natural order does not immediately provide.

Second, cultures assimilate.⁶ A culture does not exist independent of a cultured people. It requires a society which maintains it. Of course, the society can take many forms. We can speak of nearly any human institution as a society, whether it be the family, the state, or some religious institution.

Third, Lombo and Russo highlight the intentionality of culture.⁷ Cultural assimilation involves pointing people toward some model, an ideal image. To put it more bluntly, cultural assimilation identifies the individual’s purpose within the world. There is no room in culture for self-direction.

Cultural Ingredients

In Lombo and Russo’s understanding, culture is made up of three elements: language, uses and customs, and values. Language constitutes the system of symbols that a group of people use to interpret the world. But this is deeper than one-to-one relationships between words. Lombo and Russo quote Wilhelm von Humboldt who speaks of language in terms of “worldview.”⁸ He speaks of language as a representation of “the spirit of a particular people.” "Uses and customs" refers to the circumstances and forms that cultures use. This includes food, clothing, education, furnishings, religious ceremonies, and political systems.⁹ Values are the things that cultures hold in the highest regard.¹⁰ In some sense, these values point to the ideal that a culture holds dear. To be conformed to the culture’s model is to live out the values that produce the model.

Excursus on Multiculturalism

At this point, it is worth addressing the issue of multiculturalism or cultural relativism. Given Lombo and Russo’s definition of culture, it should be clear that from their perspective, cultural relativism is unachievable in any meaningful sense. This is because cultural relativism both is and is not a culture.

Cultural relativism is a culture in that it makes a variety of value claims. Cultural relativists hold up ideas like democracy, plurality, and secularity as cultural ideals. Furthermore, cultural relativists rely on the liberal order to defend and uphold these ideals. This also produces a symbolic language that assigns meaning to the world in a uniquely relativistic way. For example, the cultural relativist will have an extrememly negative reaction to Nazi imagery because it offends their relativistic sensitivities. The swastika has a meaning unique to multicultural societies.

For all of these reasons, cultural relativism would better be called “customary relativism.” In truth, multiculturalism is not a call to a true plurality of cultures; rather, it is a call for a unified culture that does not necessarily tie itself to a unique set of customs, instead borrowing customs from a variety of other sources. Therefore, it would be appropriate to say that cultural relativism has all the ingredients of culture (if we include its hodge-podged customs).

But in another sense, cultural relativism is not identifiable as a culture. Certainly, we can point to the lack of intentional uses and customs in a multicultural society, but this is somewhat superficial. It is impossible for men to live together for any period of time without rapidly developing habits and customs with one another. And although they may have very different cultural backgrounds, the resulting almalgamation of customs forms a new unified set. The more pressing failure of multiculturalism is its lack of an ideal model.

Multicultural values do point toward a model, but the model is completely featureless. The goal is not to produce good men; rather, the goal is to produce equal men. Rather than concerning itself with some ideal end, cultural relativism works to provide every man with a carte blanche. The aim is that the individual would only suffer the imposition of others at the very edge of his self. Put another way, cultural relativism seeks to best apply the maxim, “Your rights end where my rights begin.”

In many ways, Christian contextualization represents the best of this movement. It seeks to apply Christian values, aims, and language to a pre-existing culture. The problem is that contextualization necessarily commits us to the dead-end of multiculturalism. In order to even think of contextualization as a valid category of activity, we must shoulder additional values which have little to no basis in biblical Christianity (including contextualization itself).

Is Christianity a Culture?

At this point, we can begin to consider the ways in which Christianity is a culture. First, we will consider whether Christianity has the ingredients of culture, and second, we will examine whether those ingredients constitute a whole that comports with Lombo and Russo’s original definition.

Remember that culture has three ingredients: language, uses and customs, and values. Christianity has all three of these in its great summaries of the Faith: the Apostle’s Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. These summaries can represent more general categories that some have called “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”¹¹

The Truth

The Truth refers to the doctrinal content of the Christian faith as expressed in the historic Creeds. Wilhelmsen says, “The term ’truth’ is used in relation to some standard understood by the intellect and applied by the intellect to reality.”¹² The cultural value is immediately clear. Insofar as culture is the glue that unites intellect and reality, interiority and externality, the doctrinal content of the Christian faith provides a cultural standard for truth, and language serves as the human appropriation of that standard.

Here we find the concept of worldview helpful. One’s worldview determines the set of presuppositions which inform our basic understanding of reality.¹³ But where do those presuppositions come from? The simplest answer is culture, or more precisely, language. Language serves to delimit categories of thought in order that we are able to make sense of the data of reality, and the best language actually achieves that. Of course, some language is relative. For example, when I say “blue,” I am actually referring to a broad range of colors with similar characteristics. Because colors exist on a gradient, different individuals and cultures may draw the boundaries in slightly different places. But the Truth requires binary language. Either something is or is not. This is the realm that Christian doctrine generally deals in. The historic Creeds draw sharp lines between what language is appropriate and what is not. They provide clear categories for understanding God, his people, and his world.

But beyond the formal boundaries of orthodoxy, Christianity offers a more holistic language to its people as well. James Jordan uses animals as an example:

For instance, when we come to the Bible with questions about animals, we think in terms of biology, the nature of genuses and species, and the like. The Bible, however, discusses animals in terms of “kinds,” distinguishes between “clean and unclean” beasts, and tells us to observe the “ways” of animals as they live. The Biblical worldview of animals, while it does not necessarily contradict the findings of modern biology, is certainly different.¹⁴

It is clear that although these kinds of thought-forms are not strictly necessary for orthodoxy, Christians who are concerned with being biblically faithful will begin to think in biblical ways. This is not unlike the way a child learns language. We teach our children the formal rules of English grammar, and these are important. They provide a framework for understanding what English is and is not. But most langauge learning occurs through immersion. Our first languages are more caught than taught. In a similar way, the language of Christianity is formed in the heart and mind of a Christian as he participates in Christian culture.

The Life

The Life refers to Christian uses and customs. Primarily, we can consider liturgical forms like the Lord’s Prayer. Liturgy serves to connect people to God, but it helps to solidify human relationships. As the people of God work together in worshipping God, they are bound together by their common mission and forms. These forms then extend into family and civic life, defining the habits of the household and the state. Biblically derived liturgical forms produce customs such as religious time-keeping through the Church calendar and mealtime prayer.

Take the Reformed tradition for example. The Reformed regulative principle of worship offers elements and forms of worship that are independent of particular circumstances. Some critics have claimed that the regulative principle is just as culturally conditioned as any other brand of worship, but Duncan demonstrates that Reformed worship is both biblical and transferrable.¹⁵ In other words, the elements and forms of Reformed worship derive directly from the Bible and can be applied within a variety of difficult circumstances.

In fact, upon closer examination, we will find that the worship program outlined by Reformed theologians is strikingly similar to other historic liturgies despite superficial differences. This is because there is a common source of truth and language that unites all Christians, the Bible. Ironically, the mainstream Christian tradition most out of line with historic liturgical forms is broad evangelicalism. Even the supposedly radical Reformed view that the church sing psalms unaccompanied has always been the standard practice of the Eastern Church. Ultimately, because Christians operate from a common source of truth and language, common uses and customs will emerge organically within churches across the world.

The Way

The Way refers to the defining values of Christianity. These values are best expressed in the Decalogue. The Decalogue’s moral code certainly defines some customs, but more importantly, it clarifies the ideal image. In the Judeo-Christian mind, the perfect man is one who not only hears the law, but does it. And biblically, adherence to the law is definitional of a righteous person. For example, Psalm 1 describes the blessed man who delight is in the law of the Lord as opposed to the wicked.

The End

Finally, we turn to the intentionality of Christianity. Does the Christian faith assimilate believers toward an ideal image? Clearly, the answer is yes. Paul explains:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:28-29 ESV)

Christ himself is the ideal image, and Christians are called to be conformed to his model. We have already been using the phrase “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” but Jesus says that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Christ himself defines the language, customs, and values of his people.

This is the problem with contextualization. Contextualization seeks to let other cultures coexist with Christianity. But the Bible frequently calls the people of God to turn away from the ways of the goyim, the Gentiles.

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart (Ephesians 4:17-18 ESV).

This is an explicitly ethnic disctinction. Paul is drawing cultural boundaries, calling Christians to put aside the thought and life patterns of the Gentiles. The Gentiles are called to pick up a new language, new customs, and new values. Certainly, they may maintain some superficial cultural forms, but their culture has been forever changed. The contextualization movement conflates these superficial forms which sit on the very edge of culture with culture itself. But as we have already discussed, multiculturalism is not a real possibility. Although Christianity may adopt some of the forms of another culture, there is no sense in which the old culture can continue to exist independently. Christianity swallows it up. The ideal image of the old culture is obliterated and replaced by Christ.

The Church then is a new society of people who are seeking to be conformed to that ideal image. Believers are assimilated into and educated by a culture which is moving toward a common goal, conformity to Christ. The Church desires union with Christ so that she can see the world through his eyes. Christ himself reconnects man’s spiritual faculties with external world. He invigorates the Church to pursue its calling in the cultural mandate and Great Commission. He provides a pattern for man to order the world. By definition, Christ himself is a culture that he calls his people into.

Deconstruction, Contextualization, and the Cultural Alternative

Clearly, by Lombo and Russo’s definition, Christianity is a culture. But where does that put us in relation to deconstruction and contextualization? In short, an appropriate understanding of Christian culture offers us a fruitful alternative to both projects.

Deconstruction seeks to remove cultural baggage from Christianity, but it would be more helpful to see Christianity as overtaking other cultures. Where we find un-Christian cultural baggage in the church, we should first consider the ways in which the church has still held on to its Gentile values. We then approach those concerns from the standpoint of biblical authority, tearing down the idolatrous images of the old pagan culture. Deconstruction first sees Christianity tied up with pagan culture and rejects the whole thing as an outside observer, but the appropriate response is to stand within Christianity and reject only the illegitimate authority of Satan in the world, not the legitimate authority of Christ.

Contextualization, on the other hand, seeks to carry as much cultural baggage as possible in order to remove barriers to the gospel. This is a noble aim, but we have already considered its problems. Contextualization treats Christianity with cultural minimalism. Rather than considering the ways in which Christ’s rule takes absolute authority over culture, it minimizes the effect to the lowest possible level for the sake of reaching the lost. Again, this is a noble aim, and it may be an effective initial strategy. But Christ will not settle for a halfway kingdom. He desires a people wholly devoted to himself and his way.

But when we recognize the cultural value of Christianity, we find a powerful and biblical way forward. Christians are a new nation:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9)

This nation is sent into the world to overthrow earthly powers. She is sent into the world as a unified people with a unified aim and a unified culture. And as individuals enter into submissions to the Lord of this nation, they throw off their old ways. Instead of pursuing the old ideals of their old nation, they seeks to be conformed to Christ, the Lord of a new, holy people who live in the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

RELEVANT Staff, “Deconstruction Doesn’t Mean You’re Losing Your Faith,” RELEVANT, December 1, 2021, 8:00 p.m. (Z), accessed March 16, 2022, https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/how-to-deconstruct-your-faith-without-losing-it/ ↩︎
Paul D. Miller, “The Role of Social Science in ‘Deconstructing’ White Evangelicalism,” Mere Orthodoxy — Christianity, Politics, and Culture, December 7, 2021, 6:01 p.m. (Z), accessed March 16, 2022, https://mereorthodoxy.com/deconstructing-white-evangelicalism/{.url} ↩︎
Timothy Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (New York, New York: Viking, 2015), 99. ↩︎
Keller, 98. ↩︎
José Angel Lombo and Francesco Russo, Philosophical Anthropology: An Introduction (Woodridge, Ill: Midwest Theological Forum, 2012), 200. ↩︎
When I speak of assimilation, I am speaking of both the transmission of knowledge and interior assimilation described by Lombo and Russo. ↩︎
Lombo and Russo, Philosophical Anthropology, 200. ↩︎
Lombo and Russo, 203. ↩︎
Lombo and Russo, 205. ↩︎
Lombo and Russo, 205-206. ↩︎
Gary A. Parrett and S. Steve Kang, Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful: A Biblical Vision for Education in the Church (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009), 118. ↩︎
Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology. (S.l.: ANGELICO PRESS, 2021), 134. ↩︎
James W. Sire, The Universe next Door: A Basic World View Catalog (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 17. ↩︎
James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Wipf and Stock, July 1, 1999), 1. ↩︎
J. Ligon Duncan, “Foundations for Biblically Directed Worship,” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship : Celebrating the Legacy of James Montgomery Boice, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan (2011), 69-70. ↩︎

Radicalism for the Rest of Us

Fri, 25 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0000

On Saturday mornings, my wife and I usually turn on the public access channels available in our area. They’re usually pretty wholesome and give us something to relax to that doesn’t suck us down into the depths of social media. Well, a few weeks ago, a Bible study started playing. It’s no secret that, in my household, we’re conservative Christians. So, when this guy on the TV started waffling about women’s ordination, my wife reacted loudly. “He’s about to say, ‘The Bible doesn’t really say women can’t be pastors!’ It’s so irritating.” I said we should hear him out; he might have actually have a good argument. My wife said, “How is it that you can be so calm and objective about this stuff?”

That got me thinking. Am I really calm and objective with people I disagree with? Yes, I think so, but I don’t think this has anything to do with my personal character or fortitude. It’s a skill I’ve trained in myself (or rather a set of presuppositions I’ve trained out of myself). The difference is that I’ve become comfortable with radical ideas.

Everyone’s a Radical

For those of us who have grown up in liberal societies, there’s this gut reaction against radical ideas. By “radical,” I don’t mean “extreme” (although certainly many “radical” ideas are also extreme). I mean radical in the etymological sense of the word, i.e., coming from the root. Radical ideas are those perspectives which strike at the core presuppositions we hold. In order to get at the root of things, we have to move some dirt, but when we’re the ones planted in that dirt, it feels like death to be ripped out of it. So instead of really getting down to the core of our beliefs, we dig our feet in and assume we’re right.

This helps to explain the phenomenon of the “New Right.” In reality, the New Right is just the center of twenty years ago. (If you’re feeling adventurous, look up Joe Bidens views on sexuality from 2008.) America’s new political right is not made up of conservatives at all. Donald Trump and Dave Rubin are not conservatives; they’re reactionary radicals. I don’t mean this in the sense that the progressive left means it. Instead, I mean to say that they are firmly planted in the ideological soil of the liberal order. The so-called “extreme” behavior of this camp is only a result of the ground shifting beneath them. The world they were created in is not the world they live in anymore, and it’s produced a fight or flight response.

The point is this: everyone is a radical.

Two Kinds of Redpill

The cool kids these days talk about being redpilled. I can discern roughly two meanings of this phrase.

First, to be redpilled may simply mean to become more conservative. This is what I often see with leftists. As the progressive left gets more extreme, they get uncomfortable. For a while, they may go along with the “progress,” but it’s only superficial. They want to continue to identify with the agents of progress, the right side of history, but then they reach a breaking point. The extreme left starts to pull them in a direction that challenges their core presuppositions. In response, they recoil back to where they were a few years (or months or weeks) earlier. Bari Weiss is one example of this. A move like this looks a lot like a move to the right, but these people have not changed any of their core beliefs. They are radically the same as they’ve always been.

On another level, to be redpilled could mean to be ideologically uprooted. Instead of moving around in the matrix, you’re pulled out of it entirely. Your radical beliefs are ripped out from under you, and you’re left to find new soil. Although I wouldn’t describe myself as redpilled (in fact, I think it’s kind of cringe), this is what happened to me. My formal training is in mathematics, and a big part of that training is about getting to the [(square)]{.small} root of things. Higher level math isn’t about solving formulas; it’s about understanding how things work. A well-trained mathematician will have been guided through a long course of study that involves going back to core assumptions such as “numbers exist.” And even that is an unsatisfying starting point for some people.

Escaping the Cave of Liberalism

Thus, my journey out of liberalism (in the classical sense) began with mathematics. As I learned to start from the beginning of math, I began to look for the beginning in everything. What I found was startling.

For example, most modern people take for granted that democracy is good, but that proposition is not a true starting point. It’s not what some have called a properly basic belief. It relies on an entire system of metaphysics, epistemology, and anthropology to support it. In the Western liberal order, that system is almost entirely a product of the Enlightenment, and it is by no means a well-tested system. In fact, we’ve only got about three hundred years of data on it, and we’ve already seen the numerous plotholes in the Enlightenment worldview come to bear on our world.

Our entire modern world is built on Enlightenment thinking. Step into any university’s Philosophy 101, and you’ll likely see this in full force. Sure, they’ll talk about the Greeks and maybe some other classical traditions. Maybe they’ll even give a nod to Thomas Aquinas. But eighty percent of the course is focused on philosophy after Descartes.

But if you read Descartes and philosophers after him, you’ll see that they’ve built a worldview on flawed assumptions and arguments. Everyone praises Descartes for cogito ergo sum, but we don’t like to talk about his abysmally poor argument for the existence of God and the material world. Downstream, we’ve ended up with pure subjectivism and relativism. The great glories of mOdErNiTy have given way to postmodern chaos, revealing that our whole modern world is built on a foundation of sand.

Learning to Love Radicalism

So how did I become so comfortable engaging with so-called radical ideas? My own radix was uprooted. I know what it feels like to lose my foundation. I know what it means to be ideologically homeless.

Of course, I stand by my assertion that everyone is a radical, so I’m certainly not excluded from that. The difference, however, is that I can be radically self-aware. Everyone has to plant their feet somewhere, but we must also be cognizant of that fact that we are, in fact, planted. What’s more, it’s entirely possible for any one of us to be transplanted. The first radical move is always difficult, but it’s worth it. Even more, it’s radically human to deeply know our roots. If you want to be more open-minded to the whole range of possible ideological gardens, you must first look to your own.

Intrinsic Canonicity and the Roman Catholic Church

Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0000

What does the Roman Catholic Church believe about the canon of Scripture? This question is of utmost importance for discussions between Protestants and Catholics. If we can find common ground here, we will have a wonderful inerrant basis to ground our debates. To that end, I would like to explore how the Roman Catholic Church fits into two different models of canonicity.

In recent years, Dr. John Peckham has done some phenomenal work in advancing our understanding of the canon of Scripture and its relevance as our authority. He has described the two models of canonicity we will discuss.

The first is the community canon model. In this model, the religious community determines the canon. “The canon is defined as a set of writings that are selected by the community as a standard.”¹ In other words, the community functions as the primary authority for itself, and any authority found in Scripture derives ultimately from the church.

The second is the intrinsic canon model. In this model, canonicity is based on the “intrinsic merits” of the text. Recognition of canonicity is important for functional authority, but the authority of the text is intrinsic, not deriving from any other source but God. Peckham advocates for this perspective.²

Although any attempt at clean categorization will have some shortcomings, Peckham’s two models are a very helpful paradigm for understanding canonicity in all religious communities.

Peckham on Roman Catholicism

In describing the community canon model, Peckham cites Roman Catholicism as an example. Specifically, he says that Scripture derives its authority from tradition in the Roman Catholic model.

The first example of this model is canonicity determined by the authority of tradition. Representative of this is the Roman Catholic Church which accepts as canonical those books which have been declared so by the institution. Specifically, books were accepted on the basis of “tradition and liturgical use.”³

In one sense, this is without dispute. Traditional and liturgical use is certainly a basis for Rome’s definition of the canon, but is it the sole or primary basis? The answer is a resounding no.

Peckham’s Criteria for Intrinsic Canonicity

Peckham sets out four criteria for intrinsic canonicity:

The text must have prophetic or apostolic origin.
The text must have antiquity (i.e. it must come from the time of the supposed writer).
The text must have consistency, congruity, and continuity with previous revelation.
The text must be self-authenticating.⁴ Notably, he excludes usage as a criterion.

I struggle to see any substantial difference between the first two criteria. If a text has legitimate prophetic or apostolic authority, by necessity, it will meet the standard for antiquity. If it does not meet the standard for antiquity, we could not reasonably say that it meets the criterion for propheticity or apostolicity. Thus, the second criterion is a corollary for the first.

With that in mind, I would offer a slight adjustment to Peckham’s list, offering only three criteria:

The text must have prophetic or apostolic origin.
The text must have consistency, congruity, and continuity with previous revelation.
The text must be self-authenticating.

Dei Verbum’s Affirmation of Intrinsic Canonicity

Dei Verbum is perhaps the clearest exposition of a doctrine of Scripture in modern Roman Catholicism. For this reason, I think it best to turn to this document to evaluate where Roman Catholicism stands in relation to Peckham’s canon models.

Dei Verbum, Article 11, says:

For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

Note the rationale the Roman Church gives for acceptance of the canon. She first accepts the canon of Scripture based on its inspiration. This affirmation aligns with Peckham’s criterion of self-authentification. He says, “[Their] true canonical merit lies in the providence of God in the revelation, inspiration, preservation, and recognition of the canon.”⁵

Second, Dei Verbum points to the handing down of the Scriptures as a basis. This is certainly related to the concept of tradition, but what is the source of this handing down? It is not the early Church Fathers or the present Magisterium; instead, the true source is the Apostles themselves and the prophets before them. The church certainly serves as a steward of the tradition, but the authority of tradition and the Scriptures comes directly from the Apostles. Thus, Peckham’s first and second criteria are met. The Catholic Church accepts the Scriptures based on their apostolic origin.

Finally, Dei Verbum speaks absolutely on the coherence of Scripture:

God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.⁶

Admittedly, as far as I am aware, the Catholic Church does not seem to use this coherence as a basis for accepting the Scriptures, but she certainly believes in the coherence of Scripture. And she certainly would not condemn the use of this criterion apologetically to prove the veracity of the Scriptures.

Conclusion

So where does the Roman Catholic Church stand between the extremes of intrinsic canonicity and community canonicity.

For Roman Catholics, the canon is not “defined as a set of writings that are selected by the community as a standard.” Instead, God defines the canon through the derivative authority he gives to the prophets and apostles. Authority does not reside in the community to determine the canon, but only to recognize it, and the Roman Church explicitly points to the belief of the Apostles as a trustworthy basis for accepting the canon.

So while the Roman Catholic Church does not use every criteria that Peckham sets forth in the intrinsic canon Model, and while the Roman Catholic Church certainly uses tradition as one basis for accepting Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church is much closer to the intrinsic canon model than the community canon model.

This is critically important for dialogue between Protestants and Roman Catholics. If Protestants want to make any headway, they must be willing to accurately articulate their opponent’s position, particularly from the official documents of the Roman Catholic Church. Until this happens, we cannot expect Catholics to hear to any arguments against their position.

John C. Peckham, “The Canon and Biblical Authority: A Critical Comparison of Two Models of Canonicity,” Trinity Journal 28, no. 2 (2007): 231. ↩︎
Peckham, 234. ↩︎
Peckham, 231. ↩︎
Peckham, 240-244. ↩︎
Peckham, 243. ↩︎
DV, 16. ↩︎

Contact

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Find me on X here.

reid@rwroberson.com
My PGP key can be found here. My fingerprint is
0FCE FDD9 5C47 CDBE 5807 617B EE66 DA51 3639 07F4
Signed and encryted emails get first priority.

If you like what I’m doing and would like to donate, visit my Liberapay:

You may also donate using Monero:

45BtTmXPfbDZy9UxuwZwcRgCUpHK4njxyHrsH7FzBC9sKcH9MQU57VEN7pfLZa3L8EBBAjvRT5PZ8FfRGs3rBk4ZCnBXNE4

Or Bitcoin:

bc1q5y3dz3ukkyk0jhprk989370rdvxfxhxm58kmrq

Resources

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Everything on this page is free to use for two reasons:

Intellectual property is an unethical legal invention. Consider the following arguments:
Most of this work is intended to be useful for Christian churches.

All unoriginal works are in the public domain and may copied or printed at will for any purpose. All original works are licensed under CC BY-SA (full license can be found here). Note that these licenses do allow for commercial use of all items found below; however, I do ask that I be made aware of any commerical use of my original works. If you appreciate the work I'm doing here, I'd also be grateful for donations. Information can be found on my contact page. Your support helps me continue to produce these materials.

Liturgy

Here is the weekly liturgy of the church I currently serve.

This is a brief liturgy for private and family worship based on the above Lord’s Day liturgy. A calendar of catechism and Scripture readings is included. You can download it in booklet form here. Just print like you normally would (two-sided, flip on long edge), fold in half, and staple the middle.

Other Liturgical Forms I Use

Music

Psalms

Book of Common Worship, 1906

Currently, I am in the process of retypesetting the 1906 Book of Common Worship of the PCUSA (see the original scan here). Eventually, I’ll publish the complete work in a nice hardcover along with a full PDF here, but for the time being, I'm putting up the individual chapters as I complete them. If you run across any errors, please send me an email so that I can correct them.