Essence and Energies

Western Christianity has a two-fold distinction by which it classifies all of reality. Either something is part of the divine essence, and thus fully God, or it is part of creaturely reality, and thus not God. This distinction seems to be quite important to maintain since Scripture teaches that God is transcendent and completely "other" from the rest of his creation. One's options become extremely limited, however, when for example Peter tells us that we as Christians are "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4). How ought we classify this "nature" that we are partaking of? Forcing one to choose whether we partake of God's essence or not has lead to two extremes: either God is totally inaccessible (hyper-transcendence) or he is part of creation after all (hyper-immanence). Typically, the latter option is taken leading to such notions as divinization, where we as creatures become divine, or pantheism, where God is becomes part of creation.   

Michael Horton has found in Eastern theology a helpful solution to this conundrum. Of the two-fold distinction which I mentioned, Eastern Christianity has always had a third option, that is, the energies of God.  Divine energies are God's words and works whereby he interacts with his creatures. They are not part of God's hidden essence nor are they simply part of his creation, but as the rays from the sun are not part of the sun itself nor part of the world it's illuminating, so also God's energies deserve their own classification. Furthermore, the East has been careful to maintain that we as Christians do not experience God according to his essence, but rather, through his energies. Thus his power, love, glory and grace... are what we partake of and know, not his very essence. God reveals himself to us through his energies.

Reformed theology shares this notion with its emphasis upon the covenant. It teaches that God has chosen to interact with his creatures only by way of covenants and thus we as his people know God through his words (oaths, promises, commands, threatenings, consolations, etc.) and his works (creation, preservation, redemption, etc.). We do not and cannot know God according to his essence, but rather what he has revealed to us about himself (Duet 29:29). God is with us in that he is God for us, the God-in-action who is moving redemptive history along. 

Be good for goodness sake?

It's amazing to me how embedded the notion of meritorious deeds is in our society. It is held by almost anyone you meet that if you do what is good, then good things will happen to you, but if you do bad things, then you better watch out. This seems to fit very well with what Paul says concerning the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers. Perhaps this notion is no more clearly seen than during the holiday season when people inevitably reflect upon how well they behaved themselves this year and how much better they would like to do the next. Even our children are nor spared from this principle of the lex talionis ("law of retribution") when they are told that Santa has a list that he's checking twice to find out whose been naughty or nice.  Thankfully, the gospel tells us that Christ has come and lived a perfect life of obedience in our place and through his death and resurrection, has obtained for us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting righteousness. No longer do we as Christians strive to do good works in order to obtain our salvation, but we do good for gratitude's sake, showing our thankfulness for what Christ has done. This is how it must be because we all deserve much worse than just a lump of coal in our stocking.

What do the gospel and In-n-out Burger have in common?

Besides having "John 3:16" printed on the bottom of their cups, the Gospel and In-n-out Burger are similar in that they do not change.  This is something I appreciate every week at church as I hear the preaching of the gospel as well as when I enjoy a tasty burger (which I do at least once a week).  The thing is, when you have a good product, there's no need to modify it in order to increase its sales.  Typically fast food chains will come out with a "new" item about every six months or so that sounds and looks good, but hardly ever lasts.  For example, the other day I tried Taco Bell's new "fully loaded nachos," and not only was my first chip completely devoid of any of the nacho toppings, but it was also overpriced (30 cents extra for jalapenos!) and not even as good as the classic "nacho supreme." But I'm sure Taco Bell execs already know this and they know that these nachos won't last long, but are only good for a quick buck.  One can find obvious parallels of this in the way that seeker and emergent churches adopt any number of "new" programs, styles, agendas, practices, etc. to stay "relevant"  and to gain new followers.  I am not suggesting that every one of these church leaders are conscientiously engaged in crass marketing techniques, but the shallowness in many churches is undeniable. I love the fact that the liturgy we use in our church is essentially the same as that of Calvin's and the Reformers, and theirs was a conscience reproduction of the ones used in the early church.  That being said, I think I'll go get a burger.

God Does What He Says

It may seem a bit obvious to you, but one of the major "findings" in what is known as Speech/Act theory is that we do things when we speak.  Speech involves more than just sound utterances proceeding from someone's mouth, but it is a complex and powerful medium that includes both the speaker as well as the hearer. Scholars have divided a speech/act into three parts: the first, known as the locutionary act, is the act of speaking itself. For example, someone performing the speech/act of warning others about a fire in a theater.  The next part of speech is known as the illocutionary act.  This is the content of the speaking, that is, what it is the speaker says.  In our example, it would be the word, "Fire!" Lastly, there is the perlocutionary act. This is the effect or result of the speech/act.  Someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would no doubt result in people quickly evacuating the building. 

Theologians have sought to use these categories in their understanding of Scripture. For example, since all the acts of God are Trinitarian in nature (each member doing His respective part), it seems helpful to view the Father as the one performing the locutionary act, the Son (the Word) performs the illocutionary act, and the Spirit bringing about what is spoken in the perlocutionary act.  This notion is nothing new. Look, for example, at the Belgic Confession of Faith, written in 1561:

The Father is the cause, origin, and source of all things, visible as well as invisible. The Son is the Word, the Wisdom, and the image of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Biblically, this is clearly seen in the act of creation. The Father said "Let there be...", the Son, through whom he made all things, was the content spoken ("The Word" cf. John 1:1-3), and it was the Spirit who was "hovering over the waters," bringing about that which was spoken (Gen 1:2).  With this in mind, we see along with the Ancient church's analogy, that the Son and the Spirit are "the two hands" of the Father. Thus we see that everything the Father does, it is through the Son, by the Spirit.

Michael Horton, in his book Covenant and Salvation, seeks to apply this communicative model to the act of justification. Taking the traditional distinction of the "external" and "internal call" of the gospel, he posits that the external call involves the Father speaking (locution) the content (illocution) of the gospel, which is the Son, to all the world. And the internal call is where the Spirit brings about the results (perlocution) of that word spoken in the lives of the elect by his regenerating power. Thus, the verdict of justification does what it says. When God declares us "righteous" it is not because of any inherent righteousness of our own, for God "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5). But, just as He spoke the world into existence ex nihilo, so also he "calls into existence the things that do not exist," (4:17) i.e. our righteousness. 

This way of understanding justification further bolsters the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, since it insists that God's speech/act is not based upon any inherent or infused righteousness or moral abilities in the sinner. Also seeing God's sovereign act of salvation in this communicative model may also help our Arminian brothers understand what we mean when we suggest that God works sovereignly, however not by brute force, as if we were inanimate objects, but spoken to as humans with creaturely integrity.  

The office of Deacon

In Acts 6 we are told that the early church in Jerusalem was increasing in numbers, but as numbers increased, so did certain problems. Apparently the Greek-speaking widows were being discriminated against and the Hebrew widows were receiving special treatment. The apostles deemed this an important matter, but they did not want to neglect their primary calling of prayer and ministry of the word, so we find them choosing seven men to serve in this task of overseeing the distribution of material gifts for those in need. Here we find, in all likelihood, the formation of the diaconate. Some scholars suggest that because Steven and Philip later engage in preaching that we have some other temporary office being established here, but I do not find that persuasive. 

The Greek word diakonos simply means "servant" or "minister"and sometimes it is properly translated that way. But we also find also in the New Testament the office of "the deacons" mentioned along with "the elders" (Phil 1:1, I Tim 3). The duties of a deacon consist in insuring that the material needs of the church are met. The Lord not only wills that his people be ministered to in their spiritual needs but also our physical needs as well. James reminds his readers that pure and undefiled religion is caring for orphans and widows (1:27). He also questions the authenticity of one's faith if they ignore a fellow believer who is poorly clothed or lacking in daily food (2:15-17). At the end of his letter to the Galatians, Paul instructs his readers to "do good to everyone" as they have opportunity, "especially," he adds, "to those who are of the household of faith" (6:10).

This command of the apostle to give "special treatment" to Christians brings up an interesting question concerning the duties of deacons. Does the New Testament give any instructions for deacons to engage in their official ministry outside of the church. In other words, is it part of the ministry of a deacon to oversee a soup kitchen or relief organization or hospital? Now, let me be clear, I am not speaking of the obligations of individual Christians who have the opportunity to do good, certainly, we ought to help others, no matter who they are, because they are made in the image of God. However, when we seek to determine from the New Testament what it is that deacons, in their official calling, ought to spend their precious time and resources on, I personally do not see any warrant to go outside of the household of faith. To further support my thesis, when we do see churches in the New Testament donate to the needs outside of their local congregation, they raise money for other churches, as is the case for the donation to the poor Christians in Jerusalem. As Christians living in one of the most materially blessed nations on earth, we ought to be mindful of our millions of brothers and sisters in the Lord who live in abject poverty around the world. 

The Office of Elder

In Acts 15 we find a description of the Jerusalem Council, the fist synod of the Church. It was regarding the issue of Gentiles and whether circumcision should be required of them to join the covenant people of God.  After speeches given by Peter, Paul and James, the council unanimously agreed that Gentiles ought not be circumcised and affirmed the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In Luke's telling of the event, however, we find an odd thing. No less than six times, we read that the ones who were making the binding decision upon the entire church were "the apostles and the elders" (15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4). If ever there was a time in the history of the church where the church of Christ could be led by only a select few, it was the age of the apostles.  What we find, however, is that even those who were given a special commission by the risen Lord himself, and thus possessed unparalleled authority, felt it necessary to include "elders" in even the most important of their decisions. 

An obvious question can be asked, where did these "elders" originate from? Unlike what we find in Acts 6, which describes the origin of the office of deacon, there is no New Testament scene which tells of the beginning  of the office of elder. That is because they were there all along. What I mean to say, is that the covenant people of God were never without those who fulfilled the role of "elder of the people." In the Old Testament, we read of the  zaqen ("elder") who because of his maturity and status was given unique authority over the covenant people (e.g. Num 11).  Therefore, arguing from the fact that there is indeed continuity between the Old and New Testament people of God, we see the infant church adopted the same office of elder in a natural and organic way. There is, however, one major difference between the duties of elder in the OT versus that in the NT. The Israelites were  unique in the fact that their religious life were one and the same with their social and political life ("cult" and "culture" were the same). In the New Testament, however, we read that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, therefore, the office of elder no longer holds any political power, but rather is to focus upon the spiritual well-being of the church. One may contrast, for example, the corrupt Jewish "elders" in Acts who used their political authority to persecute the early church (4:5, 8, 23) with those who are later appointed to lead in each congregation (14:23). 

Clearly, the model of church government  as it is presented in Acts and the rest of the New Testament is not a "one-man show." Ironically, in our day, many churches that heavily emphasize the discontinuity between Old and New Testament, nevertheless, find their model of church government in the OT. Misapplying the so-called "Moses model," their churches are often led by the absolute power of the senior pastor. All decisions are ultimately made by the one charismatic leader because he allegedly is a "man of God" and accountable to Christ alone. There's only one problem with this scenario (actually, there are many)...we're not Moses.  No one living today possess the unique authority and special revelation that he had (see Num 12 and Duet 18). But even Moses knew that he could not do it alone, he appointed seventy elders to possess real authority and decision making abilities (not just "yes men").  When I was first joining a Reformed church, it was during a time when the well-loved and  respected minister was retiring. He assured us new members, however, not to fret because it wasn't his church anyways, after all, the elders weren't going anywhere. 

Three Offices

As you may have already heard, my friend Rev. Shane Lems was able to install an elder and deacon in Sunnyside, WA this past Sunday and thus his church plant became an organized church in the United Reformed Churches federation. Shane was a year ahead of me at Westminster Seminary and the amount of study and effort he put into seminary was nothing short of prolific.  Dubbed "Shane the Machine" by his fellow class mates, he regularly finished all of his papers before the semester even began (I was lucky to even get started the week they were due)! By the time everyone was cramming for finals, he was cruising around with the lasted Bavinck volume, reading just "for fun." But as we celebrate with our brother at the fruit of his labors, it may be helpful to pause and consider Biblically, the significance of this event.  

While Reformed theology has not made a proper church government part of the "essence" (esse) of the church, it certainly has affirmed that it is part of its "well being" (bene esse). In opposition to the hierarchy of Rome, as well as the radical anti-clerical stance of the Anabaptists, the Reformers sought to Biblically define a church government that was neither purely hierarchical nor egalitarian. The Belgic Confession of Faith, for example, states that according to the "spiritual polity which our Lord has taught us," there are three offices in the church: minister, elder and deacon (art. 30).  While there are differences of opinion over the exact number of offices in Reformed churches (for example, the PCA has the so called "two and a half" view), when compared to what is seen either in Rome or in broader Evangelicalism (their structures are strikingly similar) the differences are minute. 

In Romans 10, Paul is speaking about the message concerning "the righteousness based on faith" which declares that "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will  be saved" (v. 13) His logic is simple, yet its impact is often overlooked; he reasons in verse 14: "How are they going to call on him whom they haven't believed? How are they going to believe whom they haven't heard? How are they going to hear unless one preaches? How are they going to preach unless their sent?" Paul speaks here about an official commissioning of certain individuals who are to go out to proclaim the message of the gospel, without which action, Paul does not foresee anyone getting saved.  Further significance of this crucial act of ordaining preachers may be lost if one relies only on their English translation of Romans 10.  The ESV, for example renders v.14b: "And how are they going to believe of whom they have never heard?" In the Greek, however, the "of" does not need to be their (see my paraphrase above). If this is the case, then what Paul is arguing is that when people listen to a preacher, they are not just hearing of Christ, but they are hearing the very words of Christ himself (see Second Helvetic Confession, ch. 1).  

Thus we see the significance in Eph 4 of Paul listing "pastors and teachers" as one of the "gifts" (arguably, the only continuing office listed) given by the risen Lord for the edification of his Church. This is not to knock "everyday evangelism" done by the typical Christians, but rather,  to establish it. 

Coming soon: more on elders and deacons...