How to Orchestrate a Revolution
What does this mean for the Christian living in a given neighborhood? What does this mean for a Christian going to work? What does this mean for a Christian taking their child to soccer practice and how they mix with other parents? What does this mean for the children themselves and how they act towards their friends on the team who are not Christians? This is where the rubber meets the road, isn’t it? And from 1 Peter the answer should be quite obvious. The kind of true revolution we are talking about, the one that Paul himself spoke about in 1 Corinthians, where it is truly a work of God in people, not just a work of humans, is one where the Holy Spirit transforms lives and those lives shine out to others. No gimmicks, no shortcuts.
When the first Christians were in process of becoming something big, something substantial from the perspective of all around them, a Jew named Gamaliel stood up and gave this speech:
35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:35-39)
From this it seems that there can be no “theories” of effective revolutions. They just are. They must just happen. The Holy Spirit either will or won’t blow with gale force strength in the direction he intends, carrying along the otherwise pathetic little boat, taking it to exactly the place he intends it. This is about absolute divine agency. Paul writes about this too by way of his strategy in evangelism:
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)
Note, however, there is still a strategy here, its just a strategy to focus on the right things, things that will rightly direct people towards God and his power, not towards human powers.
Not too long ago I was inspired by something I read in Fredrick Nietzsche. (I know, but stick with me….) It was in a section on how to learn from history. Nietzsche was walking a tight rope – on the one hand, as a true modernist, he wanted everyone to find their own way, not looking always backwards to tradition, yet on the other hand he recognized that to take a completely renegade attitude risked failing to learn good lessons from the past. So, Nietzsche advocated a balance, sifting through what is good and inspirational from the past and taking it on board, while at the same time never being bound by the parameters of the past. As an example of such inspiration, Nietzsche gave the Renaissance, a movement form the 13th century, predominantly in Florence, wherein roughly two hundred people had a common vision which they worked out together. Pause and consider! If one knows anything about the effects of the Renaissance on the history of Western Civilization, it is quite extraordinary to realize that it all started with roughly two hundred people.
Also not long ago I read Immanuel Kant’s little essay, Was ist Äufklarung? (“What is Enlightenment?”). In this powerful little essay Kant effectively warned that the Enlightenment would never become an effective movement while people in their enthusiasm were just dislocated, just running madly in their own individual directions. The world traditions, the systems of society, will take such enthusiasm and simply crunch it up, grind it to dust. So, in order to really have an Enlightenment movement, Kant argues, what is needed is group support, people striving together for the cause.
What both Nietzsche and Kant say is quite similar: we must all at least have a vision and know where we are going.
None of this will sound very novel. It is simply the stuff of good management. One needs to set a vision of which people can grab hold, and one needs to unify people around that vision. But missing are Gamaliel and Paul’s insights: respectively, things failing unless God is in them and making sure that God is at the center, not people.
The danger here is that we see both Gamaliel and Paul as presenting an alternative to what we learn from Kant and Nietzsche: worldly effective revolutions have vision and commonality, but Christian ones have neither, they are just carried by a force bigger than any human force.
In this essay I want to briefly explore 1 Peter, because it seems to me that 1 Peter presents us with something of a middle-ground in this whole debate (and possibly also then a middle ground between James Hunter and his critics). 1 Peter is a letter about a Christian revolution, a revolution that is anticipated and expected to impact the whole of society. What Peter touts is quite clearly a God-centered Christian revolution, but it is not at all “disorganized” in a kind of “let-go and let-God” kind of way. It has definite structure to it. It is also revolutionary in the truest sense of the word too. In other words, it is not just a benign kind of pattern being presented. Everything in 1 Peter shouts: “Here is how Christianity will turn the world upside down!” So what does it say? What is the message?
Ancient letters kept a standard form, a normal way to write them. Just as children in more modern times have been taught to start a letter with “Dear John” and finish it with “Yours Sincerely,” so in the ancient world letters had a form. What is often unrecognized is that this form included a section where the author was meant to tell the audience why they were writing. This is gold! This is extraordinary, because if we are able to learn to pay attention to this it will make it a whole lot easier trying to understand the purposes of the many letters in the New Testament of the Bible. 1 Peter was a letter, and it also followed the form-guide in terms of having a section intended to disclose the purpose for writing. Here is the relevant section, according to letter theory:
11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:11-12)
Three clues show the first readers (and us) that this is meant to be Peter’s statement for writing: the position of these verses (coming after the prayer of thanksgiving), the word “urge,” and the direct address to the readers.
So, what is the outcome Peter hopes to see? A revolution. He hopes that when God comes to visit an expansive number of people will glorify God. This sounds an awful lot like the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which asks: “What is the chief end of man?” The answer: “To glorify God and enjoy him forever.” 1 Peter 2:11-12 is revolutionary in that it describes a movement throughout humanity, among not just Christians but the wider society, such that those who are not Christians will either become Christians or at least be directed towards God’s overall glory in the future.
Then notice here is what comes next. 1 Peter has much in common with other New Testament letters, especially Ephesians and Colossians. All these letters have large sections at the end where they go through different classes of people and tell them how they should behave. But interestingly in 1 Peter there is a difference. Whereas in Ephesians and Colossians the direction of discussion seems to be about unity of the body of Christ and also protection against future attacks—do these things and you will be an effective Church for effectiveness sake—in 1 Peter pretty much everything is directed towards the impact such behavior will have on the outside world.
-
A Response to David Coffin Concerning Overtures 23 and 37—Part Two
Time will fail us to fully consider other elements of the OMSJC, such as its requirement in 2.10, partly quoted by Coffin himself, that every SJC member is to “perform the duties of his office with impartiality and shall be diligent to maintain the impartiality of the Commission” and that each member “must be objective and open-minded with respect to all issues and parties.” It is a little hard – lo, impossible – to be impartial, open-minded, and objective when you have publicly come down on one side of an issue.
In the previous article we looked at David Coffin’s arguments against Overtures 23 and 37 to the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order (BCO), and now we will consider what is entailed in him, a member of the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), publishing an article against said overtures. Coffin includes a disclaimer in which he asserts that the SJC’s Manual (OMSJC) permits him to publish this sort of article of opinion, and in so doing he interprets OMSJC 2.6 as sufficiently tempering the other provisions of the manual to allow him to do so. Here is the full text of that section:
So long as he complies with Section 2.5 above, a member may make public or private statements in the course of his duties as a presbyter or Session member with respect to biblical teaching, confessional interpretation, the principles of the form of government and discipline, the requirements of the BCO, the Rules of Assembly Operation, Robert’s Rules, and may explain Commission procedures.
Note that it is section 2.5 that modifies 2.6, not the reverse. That is significant because Coffin first quotes 2.5 in his disclaimer and then says, “that notwithstanding, I am permitted to,” and quotes the bulk of 2.6. Consider that Coffin’s article is not an example of doing the bulk of things which he is allowed to do by 2.6. It is not explaining “the Rules of Assembly Operation,” “Robert’s Rules,” or “Commission procedures.” It is not a bit of exposition of “biblical teaching” or “confessional interpretation,” as he only alludes to the Westminster Standards once to say they don’t include the term identity, and as he only alludes to two passages of scripture (1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9) as a parenthetical remark noting they are the scriptural basis for BCO 21-4’s requirements. He somewhat explains current requirements of the BCO, but only as part of a larger endeavor to argue against proposed amendments to the same BCO. It seems doubtful that the “explaining the requirements of the BCO” that the OMSJC allows is intended to allow that explanation in the course of a polemic article, an objection we might also bring to his explanation of “the principles of the form of government and discipline.”
The question then is this: is publishing an article of intradenominational political opinion a part of one’s “duties as a presbyter or Session member”? It seems doubtful, at best. It would be one thing for him to circulate this article among his session, congregation, or presbytery, but to publish it generally is to put it in a different category. The duties of a presbyter, as explained in BCO 8.1-3, for example, do not include telling the whole denomination how it should vote outside of a stated meeting of a church court, and BCO 11-4 seems to limit the sphere of elder operation to session and presbytery, and even then, only to the matters that are properly in their jurisdiction. Trying to persuade people in other presbyteries how to vote when their presbyteries vote on this question is not exactly respecting the division of jurisdictions or doing what presbyters are formally intended to do. In other words, Coffin’s article seems to be, not an example of official discharge of presbyterial duty, but rather a piece of personal opinion, the giving of which is by no means limited to presbyters. Now look at the introductory text of OMSJC 2.5:
A member of the Commission shall not make any public or private statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a pending matter or impending matter in any court of the church (BCO 11-4; 39-3).
This section goes on to give the definitions of pending and impending, saying in 2.5b that:
An impending matter is a matter that is reasonably expected to (a) become a case of process or (b) otherwise be brought before an appropriate court for consideration. “Reasonably” refers to the judgment of one in possession of all the relevant facts, which facts are subject to a fair-minded assessment.
And now consider what Coffin says in the fourth paragraph of his second section: “I do not doubt that this question [of Overture 23’s sentence structure and terminology] will give rise to controversy and litigation in this matter.” Or again, consider the statement of his disclaimer that “nothing I have said in this essay is intended to intimate, hint, or suggest which party should prevail in any case that might come before me under our current BCO, or under these proposed amendments, should they be adopted.” Coffin himself seems to think that litigation related to the overtures is likely. Indeed, why would he include a disclaimer at all unless he believed it’s very probable they will pass and come before the SJC of which he is a member?
Now if Coffin himself seems to think that Overture 23 and 37 related litigation is quite probably impending, why then is he writing such an article at all, seeing as OMSJC 2.5, as he admits, prohibits giving such public statements on impending cases? If this seems to be stretching impending a little much as regards potential future litigation viz. the overtures, note, again, that 2.5 prohibits any statement that will affect the adoption of any matter now pending or impending before any church court. Presbyteries are church courts (BCO 10-2), and the question of adopting Overtures 23 and 37 is now pending with dozens of them (and by extension, the sessions of their constituent churches, which are also courts, BCO 10-2). Coffin is at odds, then, with the requirements of OMSJC 2.5. Also consider the full text of OMSJC 2.8:
Notwithstanding Section 2.5 above, a member of the Commission may fully participate in a judicial matter before the Presbytery or Session of which he is a member and advise his Presbytery or Session in judicial matters.
Mark that carefully. He may participate in something like debating the overtures before his own session and presbytery only. He may not participate in debating them beyond the bounds of those courts, a thing which he does when he publishes an article arguing against them in an online magazine.
Time will fail us to fully consider other elements of the OMSJC, such as its requirement in 2.10, partly quoted by Coffin himself, that every SJC member is to “perform the duties of his office with impartiality and shall be diligent to maintain the impartiality of the Commission” and that each member “must be objective and open-minded with respect to all issues and parties.” It is a little hard – lo, impossible – to be impartial, open-minded, and objective when you have publicly come down on one side of an issue. Cue 2.10d:
A member shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which the member’s impartiality might reasonably (see Section 2.5.b) be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:2) The member . . . has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the member to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.
By publishing his article Coffin has ensured that he will have to recuse himself if, as he suggests is rather probable, cases come before the SJC regarding these overtures.
Now one may object and say that I have not properly interpreted and applied some of the elements of the BCO and OMSJC to which I have appealed here or even that I am not competent or qualified to undertake such arguments. Perhaps there are established precedents that have caused us to determine the interpretation of some of these individual clauses I have quoted and to give them a different meaning than I have given them here.
Lay that aside and lay aside also my belief that I have faithfully interpreted all of this in accord with the plain meanings of the words. Look not at the minutiae of legal clauses and interpretations, whether mine or others, and look rather at the large picture. Can it seriously be maintained that it is an ethically proper thing for a member of the SJC to argue against these measures? Maybe our constitution does not fully mandate a separation of powers in which SJC members are required to only judge cases that come before them and are strictly required to keep silent about legislative questions related to the adoption of this or that measure or BCO amendment. Maybe it is lawful for David Coffin to publish an article such as this by the current standards of the BCO and OMSJC (though I think I have dispelled that suggestion). But is it right? Is it an example of upholding the spirit of orderly church government, or of keeping aloof not only from wrongdoing but also from any hint or appearance of the same? Is it not rather likely to strike many of our members and ministers, and probably more than a few outside observers as well, as a rather odd way of doing things that reeks of conflicts of interest and imprudence? And is it not the sort of thing that causes our members, when made aware of it, to have less confidence in the impartiality and integrity of our courts, and of our form of government generally?
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, SC. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the leadership or members of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church. -
Good News for 2023: It’s Not About You
Amid the New Year’s hubbub about self-focused resolutions and self-improvement and self-care and self-whatever, don’t forget that 2023 is not about you. It’s about Jesus. It’s good to ask how this year could be different than the one before—but for Jesus’ sake, not just ours. Whatever our plans, intentions, hopes, or fears are as we think about the future, let’s enter this new year intent on making much of Christ, not ourselves.
I’ve been reading through 1 Kings with my kids, and we recently got to the section about Elijah. Introduced abruptly in chapter 17, the early record of his ministry is a near barrage of miracles. After being fed by ravens, and then a never-ending supply of flour and oil, he raises a widow’s son to life before confronting Ahab and the false prophets on Mt. Carmel. In response to Elijah’s prayers, first fire falls from heaven, and then rain, ending a three-year drought. Chapter 18 ends with him supernaturally outrunning a chariot to beat the king to his palace.
And then Elijah falls apart. A death threat from Queen Jezebel shows him that the war with Baal worship is far from over, and he crumbles. He starts running for his life and doesn’t stop until almost six weeks later when he finally arrives at Horeb.
When God asks him why he’s there, Elijah’s answer is revealing: “I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away” (1 Kings 19:10, 14).
Even though he should know better (18:13), Elijah has come to believe he’s the last prophet standing. And now that his initial bout of despair (19:4) has passed, self-preservation has become his main goal. If he dies, he thinks, so does all true religion in Israel. It all comes down to him. As I explained it to my kids the other night, Elijah seems to think he’s the main character in this story.
God’s response gently cuts him down to size. Elijah still has a job to do, a part of which includes appointing his own replacement (v. 16). Almost as a by-the-way, Elijah is informed that a full 7,000 Israelites will remain faithful to the Lord. Clearly, not everything rises or falls with Elijah. This story is a lot bigger than him.
The continuing narrative of 1 Kings itself reinforces this point. After the calling of Elisha, chapter 20 recounts a series of events involving Ahab’s wars with Syria. At least four unnamed prophets have a role in this account—but not Elijah. After briefly reappearing in chapter 21, Elijah once again fades into the background as yet another prophet speaks to Ahab in chapter 22. And then, after a final confrontation with a wicked king in 2 Kings 1, Elijah is taken off the scene.
Read More
Related Posts: -
What Is Experiential Theology?
Experiential or experimental theology addresses how a Christian experiences the truth of Christian doctrine in his life. The term experimental comes from the Latin experimentum, meaning “trial.” It is derived from the verb experior, meaning “to try, prove, or put to the test.” That same verb can also mean “to find or know by experience,” thus leading to the word experiential, meaning knowledge gained by experiment. John Calvin used experiential and experimental interchangeably, since both words in theology indicate the need for measuring experienced knowledge against the touchstone of Scripture.
By experiential or experimental theology, we mean Christ-centered theology which stresses that for salvation, sinners must by faith have a personal, experiential (that is, experienced) Spirit-worked knowledge of Christ, and, by extension, of all the great truths of Scripture. Thus we must emphasize, as the Puritans did, that the Holy Spirit causes the objective truths about Christ and His work to be experienced in the heart and life of sinners.
For example, our lost state and condition by nature due to our tragic fall in Adam, our dire need for Jesus Christ who merits and applies salvation by His Spirit, and our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel of God’s freely offered salvation in Jesus Christ all must be known and experienced in our lives. Experiential theology stresses that the Holy Spirit blesses man-abasing, Christ-centered theology that makes room for Christ within the soul; believers will then yearn to live wholly for His glory out of gratitude for His great salvation. John 17:3 says, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” The gospel truth of sovereign grace that abases us to the lowest and exalts Christ to the highest in our salvation must be proclaimed and experienced.
Read More
