The CREC Aficionados?

Presbyterians and Baptist pastors (the worlds I am most acquainted with) are dealing with Moscow fans in their congregations. I know this because I receive questions from such parishioners regularly. 99% of them do not want to cause friction in their local churches, but they are tired of direct attacks from the pulpit about the CREC or Douglas Wilson or some supposed boogeyman called the Federal Vision. Most of them have read a few things I’ve written (though I am far from the most prolific in our group). Still, lots of them have come across the Canon+ app, Crosspolitic, or the various high-quality publications from Canon Press, and invariably something from Pastor Wilson.

My recommendation is rarely, if ever, to encourage them to leave. In fact, my encouragement is that they find peace within the body and not raise their convictions to issues of first importance. However important their issues may be, there is a greater right than being right. They should speak with the pastor. Build a history of peace-making within the body. And if there should be an opportunity to leave, leave peacefully and quietly without internet noise. We have enough growing pains not to desire additional turmoil, which is why we don’t waste time selling our agendas in private meetings with members from other churches. We invest in our calling as local bodies and shepherd those under our care, and God gives the increase.

The reaction of high-profile pastors to the supposed threat of Moscow/CREC is, first and foremost, pastoral. Kevin DeYoung is genuinely seeking to protect his flock from what he perceives as a danger to the long-term well-being of his congregants. Others speak out from a position of defensiveness and even react aggressively, which exemplifies a lack of confidence in the ministry of the Gospel. These churches/pastors become watchdogs, constantly looking for trouble where there is none, thereby creating congregants suspicious of everything and everyone who does not uphold identical dogmas.

My suggestion to pastors is to draw these questioners close. Engage the topic with concerned parishioners and grant that their interest in healthy families, a strong political backbone, and a high view of worship (things our Communion cherishes) are good things to pursue and that you share these pursuits, though from a different perspective. But don’t act defensively or aggressively. I guarantee you will find much more agreement if you carefully engage rather than overreact.

Should I Follow the Church Calendar?

Dear friend,

You expressed so much joy in coming into a liturgical understanding of time. As you and I have experienced growing up in non-liturgical traditions, the Church Calendar is a tough sell in our evangelical culture. You asked me where you think you should begin communicating these thoughts with family and friends.

The first point to consider is that a lack of calendar knowledge is not a lack of godliness. So, you should avoid chronological snobbery when considering these issues and remember just how long it took you to get here.

I don’t think the denial of a church calendar stems primarily from historical illiteracy, though it may at times. The issue is not “to calendar or not to calendar?” but “which calendar?” Most in our culture have chosen calendars of their own making. They are fond of national, localized, athletic festivities over and above other ecclesiastical memorials.

As I’ve said, it’s not a poor keeping of time; it’s a selected keeping of time. I want to argue that there is a time that supersedes civic time, which is Church time. Of course, some take strict positions based on confessional commitments. I have little beef with them, and they are not my audience. My audience is those still uncertain about this business and eager to contemplate its place in their lives.

Now, I know that once we begin this conversation, there will be all sorts of fears about celebrating days for saints, angels, and other such things. But I am simply arguing for a celebration of the evangelical church calendar, namely the evangelical/Reformed seasons: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Good Friday, Easter (Ascension), and Pentecost. If most churches cherished and celebrated a general outline for the calendar, we could begin to see a greater harmonization of themes, topics, and vision for the church universal.

If some were to say, “Why can’t we sing Christmas carols whenever we want to; after all, every Sunday is Christmas?” The answer is: “For the same reason you don’t sing “Happy Birthday” to your child whenever you want to. Every Sunday is indeed Christmas, but every Sunday is also Easter and Pentecost and Trinity Sunday, etc.”

You can do those things, but it takes away from the appointed observance of such a time. If some were to say: “Why am I bound to observe this church calendar?” Answer: “You are not bound to. Your church is not bound to; simply, history has shown its wisdom, and its longevity has shown its importance.” But most importantly, the Bible offers a rich theology of time, and God’s people throughout sacred history have followed such patterns in remembering and commemorating defining moments in the lives of our forefathers.

There is a historical harmony established on these general feast days that all churches of all ages share. This alone should be a persuasive argument.

In sum, my point is that patterns, rhythms, and feasts play a role in the rationale of the Scriptures, and this is a good place to begin these dialogues.

Many blessings as we approach the first Sunday of the Church year.

Pastor Uriesou Brito

The Church in a Social Media Age

The use of social media platforms can be incredibly rewarding in our day. I have met some of the kindest people through online interactions. I have stayed in their homes, though we had only met previously via Facebook or another platform. I have built a network of alliances on moral and theological issues. I have been strengthened by quotes, moved by the kindness of God among hard providences, grown in my writing, and seen thousands of people interacting with my work over the years.

While some may demur the use of social media, and while some waste away their time lurking at 3 in the morning, entangled in political battles at 4, and opining needlessly at 5, and while some have used platforms to form their own priesthood, undoubtedly, the use of social media has provided the Church with a clear sense of the current temperature on a host of issues and has been overwhelmingly good. When used wisely, it can be a glimpse into the human soul and the hunger of our culture. Social media is what flows out of the heart (Matt. 15:19).

Churches have benefited enormously through this platform by allowing the world to see that it is not dormant or tucked away in some isolated ideological place but is vibrant, doing church in feasts and fellowship; word and sacrament. The Church is, by definition, a visible institution. She is not a spiritualized force dispensing goods on one day and returning to the cave on the others.

To be more precise, social media is used by almost five billion people. Over half of the world’s population is tuned in to some media or another, finding their spirituality and sexuality and satiating their appetite with what is offered. We must take advantage of this season of Church History by using this platform to show who we are to the world.

We are not professionals, but neither are we ascetics. Only the Church is the fountain of life to the nations, only the Church provides bread and wine to a hungry world, only the Church baptizes into a Triune Name. She is the bride of Christ, and we are to make her works known. And we have access to an essentially free means to tell our communities that we exist and stand ready with the Gospel of peace.

This is especially crucial in our day. Most people find new churches on one of these platforms when they move into town. The growth of the Reformed faith is mainly due to the propagation of essays and videos via social media platforms.

While websites can be effective, they are no longer the leading source for searching and finding new congregations. My own assessment is that most people who have joined our Communion of churches (CREC) have come by finding our songs, sermons, and culture through platforms like Facebook.

We are missing an opportunity to proclaim to the desert places, to bring those eager for truth into the blessings of the Church. Use this platform for the glory of God and offer a vision of Church life that is compelling, conservative, vibrant, and biblical for the glory of Christ.

Preaching and Rhetoric

Preaching is not simply conveying data without thought to rhetoric. Healthy preaching develops a rhetorical framework through which ideas can be appropriately communicated and received by the people. It seeks to understand the ecclesial context before proclaiming the ecclesial word.

Much of this comes with time and trust in the pulpit. Each minister will develop a particular flavor that will communicate more astutely to their listeners. But the problem is that while we may communicate well to our particular people, we may not train them to listen well. It is possible to learn from poor communicators, but it is not ideal to learn from poor communicators.

For this reason, ministers need to train themselves in preaching, considering their style and changing it appropriately. I have written about ten questions to ask before each sermon here: https://kuyperian.com/10-questions-preachers-ask-sunday-morning/…

The danger of poor articulation of ideas is that it leaves parishioners weak to more seductive forms of learning. Preachers are imaginative creatures proclaiming a heavenly revelation that changes the thinking and structures of human understanding.

Paul chastises sophistry (I Cor. 2) but does not chastise proper rhetorical pursuits or persuasion (Acts 19:8). The minister brings the kingdom of God to full display in the preached word. He is not simply conveying data but a biblical dramatizer of the Word. #preaching #pulpit

A Christian Case for Halloween

While there are reasons to oppose practices within Halloween, there are also reasons to oppose practices within St. Patrick’s Day, 4th of July celebrations, or any extra-biblical festivities. But the question is whether the abuse of things constitutes an argument against it. I do not believe it does.

For the uninitiated, Halloween is a contraction for All Hallows’ Eve. “The word “hallow” means “saint,” in that “hallow” is just an alternative form of the word “holy” (“hallowed be Thy name”).” All Saints’ Day, which liturgical churches celebrate on November 1st or the first Sunday after, is a festive occasion remembering the faithfulness of God to the sons and daughters of the kingdom who gave their lives and from their labors now rest with Christ. Jesus claimed victory on the cross as an act of triumph (Heb. 2:14; Rom. 16:20). He died and rose so that we might live abundant lives (Jn. 10:10). We affirm and cherish the life we have and the life of the saints gone before us, who now embrace the God-given sabbatical of eternity (Heb. 4).

Christians should delight in Halloween in our households because Jesus makes a mockery of evil (Psalm 2; I Sam. 5; Is. 46:1-5) and because joy is a distinctly Christian virtue. Christ is Lord over all human festivals, especially those that establish a background to celebrating all his saints.

God is a playful God who delights in treating evil with all the playfulness and mockery He can muster. In the divine currency, that’s an infinite supply of it. God loves to bring wicked things low, and he uses his redeemed image-bearers to replicate his acts in history.

Jesus is Lord over demons and outfits of superheroes. Now, if your eight-year-old is dressed like some sexy version of Catwoman, you’re doing it wrong, but I suspect most of you are more self-aware. You can participate in an event with Presbyterian zeal and have a blast without failing basic biblical principles of modesty.

In my estimation, the best way to prepare to celebrate the saints gone before us is by spending the Eve of that day eating candy, being neighborly, dressing up with your favorite outfit, and singing Psalm 2 with Lutheran vigor as a parting hymn.

Everything is Christ’s, and we are his, and everything the world has is ours (Rom. 4:13). They may drink like sailors and eat their candy like gluttons, but we drink in honor of St. Peter and St. Augustine and eat for the joy set before us (Heb. 12:2).

Reformation and Penance

The Reformation sought to change the nature of confession. For the church in Luther’s day, penance was an act of satisfaction to pay for the temporal penalty of sin. If you did the right things, showed enough contrition, and received sufficient priestly absolution, you could earn certain benefits in the world to come or reduce the debt of punishment from loved ones in purgatory. Luther wrote 95 theses in many ways to correct this idea, which was present in the Church of the day.

It’s not that Luther denied confession or absolution; he denied that such acts were earned and could be performed without faith. Luther even says in Thesis 24, “Most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.” The people were deceived in the 16th century by the shiny offers of charlatans and false teachers; by the promise of eternal life, and by the emotional appeal that if we gave money to the work of the Church, we could diminish the years of torment of grandma or uncle or cousin or brother who had died.

These shiny relics were false measures. The result was that the people took their eyes off Jesus. They looked to penance to give them something only Christ could give. It is easier to trust in my own actions than in the work of Jesus.

But beloved, we are only freed from our sins when we come to Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith. We can be as contrite as Judas, as fervent as the Pharisees, as zealous as the revolutionaries in Jude’s day, as fanatic as the wise of this age, but if we do not trust in the finished work of Jesus for us, we are of all people most to be pitied.

These promises may appear to be high and noble; it may be appealing to the flesh, it may seem easy to achieve forgiveness or remission of sins, but they are empty promises. The Reformation argued that only one High-Priest could truly forgive; only one High-Priest could give you eternal life, only One High-Priest could snatch you from the gates of hell, and his name is Jesus. Solus Christus; Christ alone!

We are anti-penance Protestants! We trust in the work of Christ to cover our sins, and we confess our sins on this Reformation Sunday precisely because we know that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins; without Christ, our self-formed confessions would only get us the favor of man; but with Christ, our confessions put us in the favor of God. And that is why we come to worship—because the favor of God rests upon us.

Why Moscow, ID Keeps Winning

The opposition to Moscow from various corners will likely continue in the days and months ahead. There is a happy momentum that is unhappy with speed limits. The fruitfulness of the worldview touching on every element of life is attractive. Until people see the Kuyperian batteries driving the Moscow train, they will remain dumbfounded about why a little town keeps driving the modern theological and political conversations.

The latest attempt by Baptist pastors to derail the Moscow train reflects a desperate movement to focus on minutiae in order to gain some cheap brownie points. But that case is doomed before it starts.

Christopher Hitchens did not need a sweet Wilson; he needed Gospel serratedness. So, he did get the kindness that should come with your fries, but he also got the rough edges that should come along with your Scotch.

When Jesus came to Jerusalem, one of the first things he did was to destroy all the hallmark cards written in his honor. People expected Jesus to walk in holding a sheep with flowing blond hair, sustaining his rhetorical discourse. But when he came in, he looked like Elijah and Knox. He saw all the revolutionaries gathering inside and outside the temple courts. He brought out his inner Jeremiah and scolded them with rhetorical and physical force. “The temple is for the nations, and you have turned it into a John Hagee fest filled with charts, and worse, you have gathered the thugs of Israel, including maybe even Barrabas, to lead the Bible studies.”

Jesus did not pull out Phil Vischer’s magic vegetables for a presentation. He pulled out his serrated rhetoric and went to town, tearing down idol after idol, table after table, and politician after politician. The religious leaders wanted baby Jesus then, but they got the mature God/Man wrapped in “Hell hath no fury” like a man called by the Father to speak truth to powers. Of course, there is time for kindness and gentleness to rule the day.

And I suspect Jim Hamilton and others would concur that there is time for the happy scolding of thugs. But in this calculated effort, I prefer to be Mark’s Gospel over the Gospel of Russell Moore. I prefer to use rhetoric to call people back to soberness in an age of drunken stupors by our elites, even within the church. And further, I have seen too often that those holding back have also been viciously silent when they should act like maniacal prophets screaming from the rooftops.

The Captivity of Evangelical Worship

Evangelicals are allergic to Roman Catholicism for all the wrong reasons. Instead of being concerned with sacerdotal impulses, they are concerned about chanting God’s words. I will never forget a visitor who grew up in an evangelical home and castigated our worship service for singing the Lord’s Prayer. “That is Roman Catholic,” he argued. He then observed that kneeling was not helpful because it kept our eyes looking down instead of up to heaven. I will give him an A for creativity but an F for Bible basics (Ps. 95:6).

There is a general mental paralysis when it comes to the Roman Catholic question. Anything that resembles order becomes catholicized, labeled as “too formal,” or “too-not-what-we-have-always-seen-and-heard-before.” This creates the kinds of problems with modern worship, which produces everything new, and creativity becomes the product of the week.

Roman Catholic dogma has lots of problems. Their current pope is opening the doors to a dismantling of the modern dogma on sexuality, and, likely, something like a Vatican II revolution could disrupt the Roman Catholic order, sending millions to Protestantism.

But their problem is not their kneeling or the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Evangelicals need to realize that biblical practices, no matter how similar they may look to your Roman Catholic experience as a child or something you heard from a third-party, are non-negotiable. You do them because they are at the core of Christian expression.

The Reformation fixed these tendencies by ordering the liturgical loves according to the Scriptures instead of long-held traditional practices. Instead of elite choirs singing on behalf of the congregation, Luther returned it to the people: “So that the word of God may be among the people in the form of music.” Instead of viewing the Church as authoritative by itself, Luther writes: “The Church is your mother who gives birth to you and bears you through the Word.” Luther restored music to the people and placed the Church’s authority as a Word-centered authority.

Our evangelical problem is a captivity problem. We are captive by the wrong things and wrong fears. We need to be captive to Jesus Christ, our righteousness. The Reformation takes us back (ad fontes) and places us in the textual practices that strengthen and call us to an unadulterated faith in the Person of Christ as our central liturgist.