Leithart on the Kingdom of God

Some really good stuff on the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the Church in Peter Leithart's The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church.

I have emphasized in this chapter that Jesus rules as the Son of David and the Last Adam over all things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. At the same time, however, I will insist equally strongly that His rule has a particular focus and center. Paul wrote to the Ephesians that Christ has been exalted far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and has been made head of all things for the church (Eph. 1:20-23). Paul did not deny that Christ rules all things. On the contrary, he stretched the limits of language to express the absolutely comprehensive dimensions of Christ's rule. But Paul also recognized that the central concern of Christ's rule is the church, the assembly of God's people. . . . (60-61)

Scripture explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ rules all things as well as the church. He is "Head" over all things (v. 22), as well as over the church (Eph. 5:23). Headship implies authority and rule. Christ is also said to "fill all things in every way" (1:23); in fulfillment of God's command to Adam, He "fills" the whole creation with His presence. At the same time, the church is called the "fullness" of Christ (1:23). Christ is present among His people in a way that He is not present in the whole creation, and His headship over the church is different from His headship over all things. There is a headship over the church, and there is a headship over the world; there is a filling appropriate to the church, and a filling appropriate to the creation as a whole. We distort the Scriptures if either of these truths is denied, or if either is subordinated to the other.

Jesus, moreover, does not rule the church merely to perfect and build the church. The church exists for the life of the world. Thus the two dimensions of Christ's rule circle back on each other: Christ rules the world for the sake of the church, and He rules the church for the sake of the world. And He rules both to bring honor and glory to His heavenly Father. (62-63)

Immanence and transcendence held in proper balance. This is the same principle at work in a high ecclesiology and in sacramental theology. Does it sound so "un-biblical" now?

Predestination Thoughts

I'm currently in Book 3, Chapter 21 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. This is where he puts forth his comprehensive teaching on the doctrines of predestination and election. I'm still fairly early in his discussion, but so far I'm finding his teaching to be sober, balanced, careful, and non-speculative—all the things that are commendable about him. Instead of forcefully plowing ahead and asserting his point of view, he is careful to let the Bible speak its own words without forcing them into his conclusion. Whether you accept his teaching of double predestination and of unconditional election to salvation versus unconditional reprobation, you can't knock his method.

There are three thoughts that come to mind about my own prejudices concerning this topic. I need to get them out in the open.

First, I am completely comfortable with the idea that salvation is purely by God's free, unmerited mercy without reference to anything I can do, have done, or will do. That sinners accept salvation is totally dependent on God's decision; it is God's means of securing for the elect the end to which He has destined them.

I am not comfortable, however, with the inverse—that our damnation is purely by God's eternal decree and is without reference to the sins that the damned can commit, have committed, or will commit. That people are recalcitrant sinners is God's will; it is His means of securing for the reprobate the end to which He has destined them.

To sum up, I accept that salvation is totally unmerited, but I cannot wrap my head around a damnation that is not conditioned at rock bottom on our sins. I know I can't deserve my salvation, but, if I'm going to be damned, at rock bottom I damn well want to deserve it.

Second, I am not a disinterested party. Granted, I am confident in my own election (looking at the testimonies the Scriptures, the sacraments, and covenant give and my subjective experience of God's grace to me, I have assurance of God's favor-this is a whole other issue, can Christians know for sure if they are "saved"?), but, as a human being, I find disconcerting the notion that at bottom God does not have loving intentions for all of his human creatures. Though I trust that God has saved me, is saving me, and shall save me, I still have an interest in the existential plight of fellow human beings. There's that whole, "Love your neighbor as yourself" thing, you know.

Intellectually, the above is a strike against my ability to make an objective decision regarding the actual teaching of Scripture on this matter. Hopefully, the fact that I am aware of my a priori prejudices can help even this out.

Finally, even if I do not come to accept double predestination as objectively, propositionally true, if one believes, for whatever reason, that he or she is elect, I agree with Calvin that this doctrine should produce humility and gratitude toward God rather than presumption. If it results in presumption, on the other hand, I guess the good circular Calvinist answer would be that it proves the reprobation of the ungrateful sinner who uses it to presume upon God's grace.

At any rate, certain biblical passages do seem to teach at face value unconditional reprobation. Even if the explicit words of such passages are not literally word-for-word true, these passages can still be useful not as timeless, propositional truths but as inducements to bow in humility and gratitude before God that He has chosen to show such mercy to pitiful creatures he could just as easily have chosen to damn. Still, if this scenario were the case, I would worry that it would still paint God to be unjust and amoral and induce us to worship Him just for His benefits to us and not for His intrinsic nature. We shall see.

The Worship Wars 2

Not the ranting of a curmudgeon on the pitfalls of worship forms but a few remarks about the relationship between worship forms and culture inspired by an article in this month's issue of Christianity Today. In "Here We Are to Worship," (page 33) Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger give us six principles that should guide our efforts to keep worship relevant and authentically Christian. They draw these principles from John D. Witvliet's book, Worship Seeking Understanding.

The burden these six principles place on us is to answer this question in the affirmative: "Do changing worship forms adapted from popular culture facilitate an authentic encounter with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit as described by the Scriptures and understood by historic Christian orthodoxy?"

1. All liturgical action is culturally conditioned.

We've got to determine the level of contemporary culture's influence on our worship. How deeply influenced are our worship forms by Western consumer culture?

2. The relationship between liturgy and culture is theologically framed by creation and the Incarnation.

Creation implies that human cultural activity is a God-given good, and the Incarnation, with Christ coming in the flesh and taking upon Himself a particular cultural identity, shows us that God is fully capable of revealing Himself through the particularity of human cultures. Thus, popular culture forms and symbols can be utilized powerfully and positively in worship.

3. Integrating liturgy and culture requires us to be critical of our own cultural context.

Does a culturally-conditioned worship form represent God and communicate the Gospel with integrity? For instance, are we coming before the throne of God to offer him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or, are we simply looking for an ecstatic experience of a higher plane of reality? Are the needs we seek to address in worship the biblical needs of forgiveness of sin, repentance, and reconciliation with God and neighbor, or, are we simply seeking to address the popularly cultivated desires that drive the consumer marketplace?

4. The extremes of either complete identification with or rejection of a given culture should be avoided.

As Harper and Metzger state it, "The best array of worship forms will illustrate that the church is both embedded in culture, speaking through its constantly changing forms, and also a countercultural community, one that represents transcendent values and truths that confront cultures' fallenness."

5. Worship must reflect common elements of the Christian tradition through the unique expressions of a particular cultural context.

In tailoring a church's worship to a particular culture or subculture, we must be careful that those outside that particular culture be able to connect the church's worship to Christ and the Gospel. Harper and Metzger make the point that the strategy adopted by larger churches of offering both a contemporary service and a traditional service effectively divides congregations, as younger people invariably opt for the contemporary service and the older for the traditional. If we continue to divide churches into smaller and smaller segments, such as adult Sunday school classes and youth groups, for instance, when are there opportunities for a particular church to come together as a single multigenerational and multicultural community to worship its common Lord?

6. The liturgical actions of the church—including proclamation of the Word, common prayer, baptism, and Eucharist—are among the "universal" or common factors in the Christian tradition.

While it is essential for the Church to communicate the Gospel and draw people to worship God in ways that appeal to their particular cultural situations, we must not forget that the Church is a historical community that "always finds its identity in the same God revealed in Jesus Christ." As such, we must maintain a certain continuity in our symbols and forms of worship with those of the past. The symbols, rituals, creeds, and texts that have united Christians throughout the ages are nonnegotiable because without them we forget who we are and we risk losing the central theological and relational realities that can only be expressed therein.

Imagine expressing Christ's sacrificial death and the life we must live as a response in any way other than through the cross. What about the Lord's Supper? In light of the importance of bread in the biblical narrative (think about the manna in the Exodus, the showbread in the temple, or the miracle of the loaves and fishes) and the appropriateness of breaking bread to symbolize the breaking of Christ's body, could we use anything other than bread here? Can you think of a replacement for wine that better represents life, blood, sacrifice, and judgment? How better do we express the central reality of the Church, namely, Christ dead, buried, and risen, and the communal character of His body than through this most elemental meal?

How does this all relate to the question of contemporary versus traditional worship? I think these principles are sustainable in either worship form. At any rate, in either form we must maintain the tension between the ancient, normative liturgical actions and the culturally-determined innovations that aim at relevant expression of "the faith once delivered to the saints" and worship of the Triune God. Perhaps the best way to do so is to combine elements of contemporary and traditional worship forms.