idolatry

Paragraph One, "The Future-End of Protestantism":

Protestants often act as if the Reformation were the end of history, the moment when the Church reached its final condition. For these sorts of Protestants, the future of Protestantism can only be more of the same. This cannot be. God is the living Creator, still at work in his world, and that means that the Protestantism of the future will be something new, and, given the pattern of God's creativity, something better.

Keeping in mind what I pointed out in an earlier piece, that Dr. Leithart originally titled this project "The End of Protestantism," it's clear Dr. Leithart has his work cut out for him in proposing Protestantism's "end" as a positive move. Paragraph one sets up Leithart's metanarrative. He prods readers to stop "acting" foolishly. We are to put aside our sectarian tribalism and hop on board his Train called Hopeful headed into a "better" future because an always-better future is "God's pattern of creativity."

In his second paragraph, Leithart moves on to build a sort of Biblical foundation for his metanarrative:

Paragraph Two, "The Future-End of Protestantism":

In the beginning, God created the world in six days, and each day improved on the previous one. He spoke light, separated light and darkness, and said it was good. Come the next day, and first-day good was not good enough, so he separated the waters below from the waters above and inserted a firmament between. After he tore the waters and called earth to fruitfulness, he said that was good too. Another evening and morning, and again good was not good enough, so he spent the fourth day hanging lights in the firmament, the fifth calling swarming things to swarm in the sea and birds to hover on the face of the sky, the sixth filling the earth with animals and creating man male and female in his image. Each day was good, but each was followed by darkness and dawn that made good better. When he finished, Yahweh God pronounced it very good and rested in what he had made.

Nice, that turn of phrase "tore the waters." Leithart enters the days of creation and the state of perfection to show God violent in his intense commitment to improvement: God tears things. Certainly, then, we may expect He'll tear things after the Fall, also. It's just His way: He tears things to improve things...

(NOTE: This is the third post in a series on Reformed worship. Here are the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth.)

We have shown how Calvin and his fellow Geneva reformers were willing to live without weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper, yet there was not one service ever held in Geneva and her surrounding parishes that failed to place the reading and preaching of God's Word front and center. So why the growing shift to an emphasis of the sacraments in worship, over and against preaching?

There are many contributing factors, but one is in reaction to the American church of the twentieth century. In many corners, the church started taking on the naturalistic and materialistic culture around it, broadly accepting the mistaken theology that the Lord’s Supper is merely a memorial ordinance—a good way for us to rehearse in our minds what Jesus did for us long ago. Thus, as we started to rediscover the spirituality of the sacraments, we again recognized that Jesus Christ is really and spiritually present in the sacraments and, in them, He gives us Himself for our spiritual food. This is good, but in this...

(NOTE: This is the first post in a series on Reformed worship. Here are the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth.)

Calvin and the Genevan reformers worked to reform every aspect of Rome's doctrine and practice, and this was especially true of worship.

Leaving behind the priorities of the New Testament church, the worship of medieval Rome was deformed beyond recognition. Whereas the Jerusalem church's first devotion had been the teaching of the Apostles,1 Rome displaced preaching with the idolatry of the Mass. Read Calvin on many passages of Scripture and his opposition to Rome’s sacramentalism is front and center. Here is an excerpt from a sermon on Galatians 2:14-16:

But the good works which they (Rome) set afore us are, that we must go devoutly to Mass ...and do this and that. So then, all these hypocrites which will needs become righteous by their own works, have nothing but gewgaws [trinkets, showy trifles] and dotages: and yet for all that, they think themselves so holy and perfect, that nothing is amiss in them. They think that God ought to content himself with the great number of murlimews and countenances which they make. But that is not the coin wherewith he must be paid, for his law is spiritual. He looketh not upon the outward gesture, nor upon the things that carry a fair gloss before men, insomuch that if men set their minds too much upon his own Ceremonies, he rejecteth it utterly: And that is a thing well worthy the marking. For men seek still some startinghole, that they might not yield themselves to the obeying of God: and they bear themselves in hand, that when they have once dispatched their fond devotions, then they are well discharged and all the rest of their sins must be forgotten, because they ransom them by that means.

His text is the Holy Spirit's declaration that man is “not justified by the works of the law" and this is the occasion for Calvin to condemn “hypocrites" for their habit of “set(ting) their minds too much upon (God's) own ceremonies." Yes, Calvin recognizes the Lord's Supper is a ceremony commanded by our Lord that gives grace to those who discern the Lord's Body rightly, yet he warns those "setting their minds too much upon" it that God does not accept their ceremony, but "rejecteth it utterly." Heart religion is dependent upon the grace of the Holy Spirit and Calvin points out how men turn from it to ceremonies, thinking their ceremonies are God's Own currency. Didn't He Himself institute them?

In the time of Christ, the church's priests and Bible scholars made a show of obeying God by circumcising foreskins, yet they disdained the work that is dependent...

Our Clearnote Pastors College theology of worship class has been discussing the question of whether or not ministers should wear liturgical vestments in (as well as out of) Divine Service, and if so on what grounds? Our readings have ranged from the gushingly “for” to the violently “against.” Perhaps the most interesting and helpful writer we've encountered on the subject has been Dutch polymath, Abraham Kuyper.

Recently published for the first time in English, Kuyper’s Onze Eeredienst (Our Worship ) is a rare, matter-of-fact treatment of biblical worship—the topic Scottish luminary James Bannerman declared to contain ecclesiology's most interesting and difficult questions. Having ventured out beyond my depth in the turgid waters of worship theology, Kuyper’s frank, level-headed approach is a welcome gulp of fresh air, even where I disagree with him. He has a way of demystifying things. And today, worship theology needs demystifying. 

On the issue of vestments, Kuyper makes two historical claims I want to summarize for our readers to discuss. 

He begins with the suggestion that if a preacher from one of the New Testament churches—say, Ephesus, Colossae, Athens, or Rome—were suddenly to appear today, people would think he looked...

But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. - Proverbs 4:18

On the occasion of Pastor John Piper preaching his final sermon as the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, I take this opportunity to salute the man for his financial self-discipline. We need to learn the lesson this man preaches through the way he handles his money.

First, the back story.

Some time back, David and I co-authored a post revealing the huge amounts of money Reformed men pull in through their church salaries, conferences, speakers fees, sermon and video sales, book royalties, and the salaries they pay themselves through their nonprofit businesses. We spent time on Guidestar downloading and reviewing IRS 990s filed by various nonprofit businesses including Ligonier, Grace to You, Masters College and Seminary, Insight for Living, and Desiring God.

The Internal Revenue Service holds to a high doctrine of original sin. They take money and conflict of interest seriously, requiring nonprofits to file Form 990 which asks a whole host of questions the government believes should inform the giving of those inclined to support these nonprofit businesses. Here are some of the questions they ask:

To reform the Church is to reform her worship.

Everything about our worship indicates our reverence, zeal, and love toward the Triune God; or alternately, our flippancy and indifference. Hearts aflame for God cry out for men to preach the Word, read Scripture, pray, and sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with zeal. Sadly, though, worship today is aimed at the mind or the heart. It's intellect or passion--never both. When there is zeal, it's rarely "in accordance with knowledge." And those claiming knowledge make a principle out of their absence of zeal.

Five hundred years ago, John Calvin worked to reform every part of the Church's worship. We must give ourselves to this same work today.

That's why I'm very thankful to announce ClearnoteSongbook.com. The men behind the Songbook--Jody Killingsworth, Philip Moyer, and the Good Shepherd Band, along with Ben Crum, Joseph Bayly, and Lucas Weeks--have put together a site that is a call to reform our worship. The Clearnote Songbook is jam-packed with goodies to help in that work...

One more gift to readers from the choir of Clearnote Church, Bloomington, and Phillip Moyer, one of our Sons of Asaph. This is Isaac Watts's "Behold I Fall Before Thy Face," set to Balloon.

Here are the words of Watts's hymn. (The choir sings only stanzas 4 and 5.)

They're at work. Again...

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! (2Corinthians 13:5)

We Reformed types have our shibboleths. “You’re not really Reformed,” we say, “unless…(insert qualifier of choice)."

"Unless you’re a cessationist."

"Unless you’re Sabbatarian."

"Unless you're Psalter-only (sing only Psalms in worship)."

"Unless you’re liturgical (as if any worship isn't)."

"Unless your worship is robustly liturgical (Lutheran)."

"Unless your robustly liturgical worship is ordered according to Jeff's principles of Covenant Renewal."

"Unless you celebrate 'the Eucharist' every Lord's Day (just like Calvin didn't)."

May I add another to the list? Trust me, this one will weed out all those Reformed posers. It will separate the men from the boys. It will make all the other shibboleths look really silly...