The great difficulty with the Old Testament, because of its lack of rhetorical beauty and of lofty philosophy, was resolved in Saint Ambrose’s preaching through his typological interpretation of the Old Testament: Augustine realized that the whole of the Old Testament was a journey toward Jesus Christ. Thus, he found the key to understanding the beauty and even the philosophical depth of the Old Testament and grasped the whole unity of the mystery of Christ in history as well as the synthesis between philosophy, rationality, and faith in the Logos, in Christ, the Eternal Word who was made flesh. (171)

Interesting…Biblical Theology via a typological interpretation of the OT was part of the breakthrough for St. Augustine in understanding the Scriptures. The Old Testament is a way to Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made flesh.

Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging with Early and Medieval Theologians

This edited work examines eight key theologians in the Christian tradition who have shaped what we believe today. The theologians included in this volume are the following (with the author in parenthesis):

• Irenaeus (W. Brian Shelton)
• Tertullian (Gerald Bray)
• Origen (Bryan Litfin)
• Athanasius (Carl Beckwith)
• The Cappadocians (Robert Letham)
• Augustine (Bradley G. Green)
• Anselm (David Hogg)
• Aquinas (Mark W. Elliott)

Each entry contains a short biography introducing the theologian, an introduction to specific writings, and a theological analysis. The individual sections close with a bibliography for further research.

To take an example, Brad Green’s chapter is a good introduction to Augustine’s thought. Covering almost 60 pages (pp. 235-292), Green provides a glimpse into key aspects of Augustine’s life and theology. After surveying Augustine’s life, Green examines some of the major points of his thought: God, Creation, Providence, Man, Grace and Salvation, Incarnation and Redemption, Church and Sacraments, Bible and Knowledge, and Civil Authority. In each case, although Green cannot go into detail, he does go to the important sections of quotes in Augustine’s writings (such as the Confessions for aspects of salvation and City of God for issues related to Civil Authority). What I found helpful about the chapter is that it gives you the ability to see where something is in Augustine’s massive writings, and go there for yourself. That is the benefit of an introductory volume like this, and each chapter does something along these lines.

Here is an endorsements by First Things own Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School: “This is a superb collection of essays on the greatest theologians of the Great Tradition during the first thirteen centuries of church history. It is encouraging to see such fresh and creative engagement with the development of Christian doctrine seen through the prism of its major shapers. Highly recommended!”

Teaching high school for a year at a very interesting little Berkshire boarding school got me onto shared class reading projects–the kids I was teaching were very smart, but, like most kids these days, just didn’t have much experience reading. So we read and read out loud together, stopping from time to time to talk about the language and the ideas and so on. I have very fond memories of doing that with “Song of Myself” in winter time, the whole class clustered around the wood-burning stove in our otherwise unheated classroom. When spring rolled around, we lay on the grass and read Gatsby together. Part of me felt guilty about spending class time on such a pleasant and low key activity–but you really couldn’t argue with the results. Kids got turned on to the language, read closely, loved talking about what they were reading as they were reading it, and greatly improved their comprehension and their close reading skills along the way. When the most reading-averse kids in the class are spontaneously picking out “favorite” passages in Whitman, you know something cool is happening.

So when I returned to college teaching the next year, I imported this teaching model and adapted it to Ivy League undergrads–which actually didn’t take much adapting at all. Once every couple of weeks, we’d read something together in class, going around the room, taking turns, everyone reading as much as they felt like reading and then leaving off for the next person. I worried that Penn students might think this was “beneath” them–might find it a silly or infantilizing activity. But they never did, and in fact, I think the class dynamic benefited a great deal from the relaxed, shared, contemplative quality of those sessions. Certainly they brought the literature we were reading “to life” in a way that silent, solitary reading can never do.

[HT: Alan Jacobs]

Tremendous Trifles

Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.

A helpful reminder about evil, and while we are on the topic of Chesterton, I noticed that several of his individual works are free on the Kindle, but there are a few sets of his works that are worth a look that cost only 99¢. The Classic British Literature series has this one: Works of G.K. Chesterton, 29 books in a single file with active table of contents. It is one of the best because it has an active table of contents. Also, don’t miss the new Chesterton volume: The Everyman Chesterton, edited by Ian Ker. It was just published on April 5, 2011, and it is 952 pages of the best of Chesterton.

He proposes in the place of that anguish that Gide called the Catholic’s ‘cramp of salvation’ — obsession with personal salvation — an anguish transmuted into charity, anguish for another. Thus for Sartre, ‘hell is other people,’ but for the Christian with Mauriac’s anguish others are Christ. We realize that this way of looking at life was so completely left out of Mauriac’s youthful Catholic education that it has had to come to him as a discovery of later life. (The Presence of Grace and Other Book Reviews by Flannery O’Connor)

What caught my attention is that quote about Sartre, that “hell is other people.” The Christian perspective, informed by the reality of Christ and the work of grace, is that “others are Christ.” That is one of the best descriptions of a sacramental worldview that you will find in one sentence.

Many years ago my late friend J. Christy Wilson was pastor of the first ever Christian church in Kabul, Afghanistan. Through the good offices of President Eisenhower permission was granted to build the church, attended by Christian expatriates. The time came when the Afghan authorities revoked permission and announced they would knock the church down. When the bulldozers arrived what did the Christ followers there do? They served tea to the workers who were destroying their church building!

The pastor is the Manager of resources, financial and personal – no wonder the MBA may be more appealing than the MDiv. Note, however, that this picture of leadership is taken from other social institutions. The Israelites wanted a king like the other nations; we evangelicals want managers of megachurches to be like the megacorporations of our age. On the institutional level, the pastor is a professional manager of organizations. On the individual level, minister function as Therapists, applying psychological technology to individuals. The Manager and the Therapist are the dominant social paradigms for leadership in our times: the question is, to what extent should the Church follow suit?

Hopefully we will start asking the question more frequently, but the answer to it is a bit more complex. For example, some of this depends upon the size of a church. In a smaller, independent-type church, the pastor will often have to wear the hat of not only the minister, but the secretary, occasional janitor, administrator, etc. Now I know (or rather believe) it is not supposed to be that way normally, but it is nevertheless the case in smaller settings.

But consider a larger church. It seems to me that mega-churches within evangelicalism are functionally Anglican. I know we don’t want to admit it, but the significant precursor of the large program driven church with lots of staff is something close to an episcopal structure. What makes this even more fascinating is the numerous churches, usually of a Baptistic tradition, that are going down the road to a multi-site. This too needs to be part of a broader discussion of ecclesiology–what is your doctrine of the church that brings you to function in this way.

Now here is the point in regard to the quote. Since we have not consistently thought through our “doctrine of the church” in regard to these structures that have developed within evangelicalism over the past 50 years or so, and since we have not acknowledged, at least on some level, that this is functionally epsicopal, then we sometimes fail to make the distinctions between the one who has been called to be master of the word and teaching, and the one who has been called to manage the congregation. Of course, we end up calling these rolls Senior Pastor and Executive Pastor, and that is a step in the right direction for the large churches, but as we see more church planting movements, and more “campuses” connected to a central church, and multi-site ministries, etc…etc. I’m just wondering out loud now for ways to think through the importance of this distinction Vanhoozer made, and the necessity of “managers” and “masters,” and what kind of ecclesiastical structure we are conveying as we think through this. I’m also wondering out loud, although I didn’t get this far, about the responsibility of those evangelical churches with resources to those who are further away from the city center without resources. Again, that involves a discussion of “connectionalism” that evangelicals tend to avoid.

But what if you wanted to revive something like the Sabbath today? What if you coveted some of that sweetness and slowness and went looking for ways to get it? What would you do? Would you commit yourself to the Sabbath’s rituals and laws? Would you transform yourself into an Orthodox Jew or latter-day Puritan? How much would you be willing to change?

The article is not specifically Christian because it engages a broad range of religious choices, but it is a cultural evaluation of our current situation in this technologically crazy world.

James Grant: Let’s start with the obvious question: what is a catechism? And isn’t this some Roman Catholic thing?

Kevin DeYoung: A catechism is simply a tool for teaching the fundamentals of the faith. Unlike a creed or confession a catechism uses questions and answers. Many Protestant confessional traditions, like Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Reformed, have used catechisms for centuries. Initially, most catechisms were intended for children. Though we probably aren’t as biblical or theologically astute. So our adults need them too.

James Grant: What would be the benefits of using a catechism in the life of the church?

Kevin DeYoung: I can think of a lot of benefits: 1) It’s an intuitive way to learn about the faith. There’s almost a conversational element to reading through a catechism. 2) When we use old confessions and catechisms were help teach our people that their faith is an old faith, shared by millions over many centuries. We also help them realize that other Christians have asked the same questions. 3) Catechisms are ready made documents for Sunday school, new members classes, or even the occasional sermon. 4) Catechisms guard us against faddishness and chronological snobbery.

James Grant: How do you use it at your church? And what are some other suggestions regarding how to use a catechism.

Kevin DeYoung: We use the Heidelberg Catechism in our worship. Sometimes we read it responsively. Other times I’ll work it into my communion liturgy. I’ll quote it in my sermons from time to time. I’ve seen the Catechism used effectively as Sunday school material. It’s best to have littler kids memorize parts of it and have older kids explore the nuances of the theology. We also have a section on the Catechism in our membership class and leadership training. And of course, my book on Heidelberg started out a weekly devotionals for my congregation.

James Grant: Regarding the Heidelberg Catechism in particular, what makes it so helpful?

Kevin DeYoung: With one or two exceptions, it is very irenic. It’s warm, personal, and focused on the gospel. The theology is solidly evangelical with Reformed leanings, but broad enough to be used outside reformed circles. The Catechism majors on the majors: the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. Also, the division of 52 Lord’s Days makes Heidelberg ideal for weekly reading or study.

James Grant: Is there a particular aspect of the Heidelberg Catechism or a section that left a stronger impression on you this time?

Kevin DeYoung: I’m not a Heidelberg scholar. I’m sure I’ll continue to learn more about the ins and outs of the document. But this time around I was struck by the relentless focus on the gospel. The Catechism does talk about our obligations as Christians, but the main theme is grace: how God comforts us, how the cross and resurrection benefits us, how Christ mediates for us. The Heidelberg Catechism is like a refreshing bath with cool gospel water.

James Grant: Outside the first question, have other questions made an significant impression on your study? Which ones?

Kevin DeYoung: I’ve memorized several questions and answers over the years. Q. 21 on true faith is solid gold. Q. 27 on providence is my favorite. I’m also blessed every time I read the question on the Lord’s Supper. I enjoyed thinking more about the ascension too from Lord’s Day 18.

James Grant: What resources would you suggest for someone who reads your book and wants to dig deeper in the Heidelberg Catechism?

Kevin DeYoung: G.I. Williamson has a nice little commentary on the Catechism, though it can be strident at times. Lyle Bierma’s Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism is very helpful. There are several multi-volume expositions of the Catechism, but they can be pricey and a little too much of a good thing. If you can get your hands on Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism that may be the best supplementary resource.

Michael posted a quote from John MacLeod’s Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History, which is a compilation of his lectures at Westminster Seminary in April of 1939. MacLeod explains:

From the point of view of modern pedagogy as set forth by so many theorists, who aspire to rank as specialists in the subject, exception has been taken to the wisdom of the method taken by the Reformers in conveying instruction. Their critics hold that it was neither wisdom nor sound educational method for them to frame careful statements of Christian truth to be learned by heart by those under their charge. Now we may take it that our fathers never meant to satisfy themselves when a mere rote acquaintance with such statements was attained. They aimed at the opening up of the form of sound words in which they set forth the truth of the Gospel. And when what was committed to memory was opened up by loving teachers at the fireside or in the congregation, the good of having learned the letter of such statements, which were a valuable exhibition of the Faith, came out. And, what was more, those who, in the immature years of childhood, had their minds stored with what at the time when they learned to repeat it might be beyond their reach had, in later years, when their powers came to a measure of ripeness, the chance of working in their mind what they once had learned only by rote. They carried with them from childhood a treasure the good of which they had been long familiar. Often have those who have gone through a course in catechistic training in their early days come to discover how useful this teaching is to them now that in later days they have come to feel the power of the truth. They are like a mill with all its mechanism in order that waited for the turning on of the water that it might work. Once the power is brought to bear upon them they learn to their profit the connections in which the various portions of divine truth stand to one another. And thus they start their new life of discipleship with valuable assets to their credit. When bread is thus cast upon the waters it may be found when most needed – in after days. There is this over and above the blessing that often attends at the time the opening up and explanation of these statements to the mind of the child. For those who teach a Catechism are expected to open up its teaching and explain its meaning. (101-102)

In the process of the conversation, Tim and Jennifer explained that Timmy had a rare nerve disease. This disease was causing his body to break down. At that time, Timmy could crawl and talk, and he had a small vocabulary, but over the course of the next six years, Timmy’s body started to deteriorate. He stopped talking and crawling. He also lost the ability to eat and needed a feeding tube. He lost his hearing and sight, and in 2008, he had surgery to remove one of his eyes.

That summer, we talked about Timmy’s life and his future death. We talked about his funeral and things that would take place when Timmy finished his course in this life. Tim and Jennifer also asked about the possibility of baptizing Timmy. I didn’t have a problem with it and thought it was an important decision. So on August 9, 2008, we had a baptismal service for Timmy at our church. It was a wonderful service, and it stands out as one of the most significant worship experiences of my own life.

Last Tuesday, April 13, 2010, around 3:15 pm, Timmy finished his course in this life. He was eleven years old. I was with Tim and Jennifer when Timmy died at the hospital, and although the grief was real and painful, it was very obvious that they had a hope beyond what others could see. Back in 2008, they had decided to stay with Timmy and his body until the end, so in the hospital, we explained to the nurses that we would wait until the funeral home arrived before we left. This came as a surprise to the nurses and some of the doctors. They thought this would be too hard on the parents. But with a quiet confidence, Tim and Jennifer explained that they had taken care of this little body for eleven years, through sickness and pain, and they were going to stay with him until he was transported to the funeral home.

Once the funeral home arrived, they followed the body out of the hospital until the funeral director left. The next day we met at the funeral home. They brought Timmy’s clothes and made the arrangements for the funeral, which was held at our church on Friday. Jennifer fixed Timmy’s clothes and hair, and the funeral home brought Timmy’s body to our church on Thursday afternoon, where he remained through the night. Tim and Jennifer had decided back in 2008 that they would also remain with the body that evening. During that time, they decided to cloth him with the baptismal robe we had used back in 2008. It was a special moment because that baptism defined Timmy and this moment more than his sickness or death. The funeral was Friday, April  16th, at 2:00 pm.

Why did Tim and Jennifer care for the body of their son, even after his spirit had departed? What was the point or reason for all of those decisions and actions? As Christians, we believe in the resurrection of the body, the body that was cared for in the hospital and at the funeral home and at our church. We believe that Timmy’s body, the body that was broken and weak because of his sickness, that body will be raised from the dead to a new life, with strong bones and strong muscles. Tim and Jennifer’s care for that body is a witness to the resurrection. As they walked down the hall of the hospital, they were witnessing to the resurrection. As they dressed him for the funeral, placing his baptismal robe on him, they were witnessing to the resurrection. And as we finished the ceremony and placed him in the tomb, we were witnessing to the resurrection. The tender care of that dead body was a witness to the resurrection at each step of this journey.

Timmy’s body is now resting until the day that Jesus returns and makes all things new. On that day, Jesus will wipe away the tears from Timmy’s eyes, and Jesus will wipe away the tears from his parents’ eyes. On that day, there will be no more pain or dying, for those things will have passed away. But until then, may God the Father, who created his body, may God the Son who by his blood redeemed his body, may God the Holy Spirit who by baptism sanctified his body to be His temple, keep his remains until the day of resurrection and provide hope for his parents to trust their Heavenly Father and be confident in the hope of the resurrection accomplished by Jesus Christ.

In the face of an uncertain future, our hope as Christians is rooted in what older generations called “Providence.” Providence is the term we use to explain that God is so sovereign that everything takes place according to his purpose. If you affirm the providence of God, you are confessing, even in the face of all appearances to the contrary, that God cares for you and is in control of your life. One of the important passages describing the providence of God is Romans 8:28, where the Apostle Paul says, “All things work together for good to them that love God and are called according to his purpose.”

The word providence actually comes from two Latin words: pro, which means before or in front of, and videre, which means to see. The concept of providence is that God not merely looks at human affairs, but he looks after human affairs. Watching after us is the heart of the doctrine of providence.

One of the early examples of Providence occurs in Genesis 22, when God tells Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. As they are going up the mountain, Isaac sees the fire and the wood, but he wonders where the lamb is for the burnt offering. Abraham says, “God will provide himself a sacrifice.” Indeed, God did provide a sacrifice in the place of Isaac, and Abraham called the name of the place, “The Lord will provide” (Genesis 22:14), which is where we get the older name Jehovah-Jireh, the God who provides.

About two thousand years after God provided a sacrifice for Abraham, He again acted to provide a sacrifice through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The cross is at the center of our hope for the future, and the Apostle Paul explains it this way: “If God did not spare His own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will He not also with him graciously give us all things?” (Romans 8:32). If God has given us His Son, He will surely see us through the coming year. You can trust the Providence of God, for He has already provided for your greatest need: He has given you His Son, which is good news indeed.

All of this is to suggest that just because many in the church today have a faulty idea of “living the gospel”, we need not over-react to this principle by making the gospel to be totally outside of us.  Such an idea would have been foreign to Thomas Goodwin, and I’m sure the Apostle Paul.  Based upon the above, any charge of moralism towards those who make the gospel larger than simply justification by faith is utterly groundless.  Indeed, in my opinion, moralism is best avoided when the gospel includes the whole Christ, who is both for and in us, the hope of glory.

Read the whole post here.

The issue boils down to a matter of judgment, not a disagreement in principle, between those Council members who signed and didn’t sign. The non-signers believe that the content of the document and the associations of the primary authors imply an ECT-like confusion about the Gospel. The signers believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. Further, they believe that it is important for individuals from the major quadrants of the historic Christian tradition to speak on these pressing matters in solidarity.

The Council members have had good, robust discussions on these things among ourselves about this whole matter. We continue to love and respect one another, and we all want to continue to serve and work with one another. The bonds of our fellowship are unbroken. Our commitment to the mission of the Alliance is unchanged. Our unity in the Gospel, and in the great solas of the Reformation is stronger than ever.

You can read his whole statement here.