The Upper Register

Evangelistic vs. Covenantal Worship, update

On February 29, 2012, I published my critique of Tim Keller's paper on "Evangelistic Worship" on my website. Over the past months, I have received helpful feedback from the session of New Life Burbank and other individuals who have taken the time to dialogue with me. As a result of these interactions, I have decided to revise the paper.

Most of the revisions pertain to clarifying two terms that I used too frequently in the earlier version of this paper but that I now realize were ambiguous:  “address” and “unbelievers.” By “address” I mean to engage apologetically with the aim of seeking to convert. By “unbelievers” I mean those not professing faith in Christ as members of the covenant community. I have also added an Appendix answering questions prompted by my paper.

One point that did not come across in the original version is that I am not opposed to welcoming visitors from the pulpit and demonstrating an attitude of hospitality to them. In addition, I am not opposed to occasional invitations to those who do not profess faith in Christ to come to Christ, as long as such invitations do not overwhelm and detract from the covenantal nature of the worship, although I do not think a preacher has an obligation to include such gospel invitations in every sermon. So those are a couple of points on which I have corrected the paper in light of the feedback. My original language came across as overly restrictive.

I appreciate the feedback and questions, from friends on both sides of this debate, which have prodded me to clarify my thinking and be more precise in my language. It is great when iron sharpens iron in a constructive manner, something that does not happen frequently enough when we have disagreements in the church.

Just the Savior We Need

One of my favorite sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith is chapter 8, Of Christ the Mediator:

1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator, and surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father, who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.

4. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

6. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever.

7. Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

8. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.

Jesus Christ is just the Savior we need.

If he were only God but not fully man, he would not be able to sympathize with us in our weakness, to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and he would not be able to undertake the human side of the covenant on our behalf, to represent us before God and yield the obedience we could never yield and to pay the debt of sin that we could never pay.

If he were only man but not fully God, then he might be the most wise, holy, and benevolent man the world has ever known, but we could only admire him from a distance, but could never draw near to him as our all-powerful Savior in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form (Col 2:9) so that he might bring to bear the almighty and infinite resources of his deity for us and for our salvation.

The divine Son of God, who made heaven and earth, who upholds all things by the word of his power, who is immutable and eternal, assumed our nature in order that he might bear our sins and bear the infinite punishment of God’s wrath that we deserved for our sins. Christ is one person with two distinct natures, divine and human. Because of the unity of the two natures of Christ in one person, because the human nature is one that was assumed and brought into personal union with a divine person, the Son of God, this gives infinite value and merit to the obedience and sufferings of Christ. The death of Christ is not the death of any ordinary man, but the death of the God-man. When he died, he satisfied the justice of God in our place. 

No wonder Peter said that we come to Jesus as to “a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious … and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (1 Pet 2:4, 6). 

Jesus, the sinner’s Friend,
  We hide ourselves in Thee;
God looks upon Thy sprinkled blood,
  It is our only plea.

He hears Thy precious Name,
  We claim it as our own;
The Father must accept and bless
  His well-beloved Son.

Thou hast fulfilled the law,
  And we are justified:
Ours is the blessing, Thine the curse;
  We live, for Thou hast died.

Jesus, the sinner’s Friend!
  We cannot speak Thy praise;
No mortal voice can sing the song
  That ransomed hearts would raise.

But when before the throne,
  Thy face we all shall see,
Clothed in our blood-bought robes of white,
  We’ll stand complete in Thee.

Jesus, we’ll give Thee then
  Such praises as are meet,
And give ten thousand thanks to Thee,
  Adoring, at Thy feet.

http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/111

Review of John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One

Review ofJohn H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. 191 pages.

Things I appreciate about the book:

(1) Walton’s Use of ANE Cosmology 

I appreciate Walton’s use of ANE texts relating to cosmology and cosmogony. In the past, Bible-believing Christians who adhere to inerrancy have had difficulty with these materials. We are tempted to ignore them either because they are threatening or because we think they are just irrelevant. I agree with Walton that it is extremely important to interpret the Genesis account in light of the ANE myths. Walton’s claim is not that the Hebrew Bible borrowed from the ANE myths but that the myths show us how ancient people thought (pp. 11-12). This was the ancient cosmology that was “in the air” so to speak, and the Israelite creation narrative is written within that milieu. However, unlike Walton, I would want to carefully observe not only the similarities but also the critical differences between the biblical account and the ANE myths. (More on this below.)

(2) Walton’s Critique of Extreme Concordism (pp. 14-15, 103-5, 109-10)

Walton is right on the money when he shows the folly of trying to read modern scientific ideas out of the creation text. I agree with his critique of Hugh Ross's concordistic hermeneutic (pp. 109-10). Walton is right that concordism gives no respect to the human author (p. 104). However, I think he goes too far in the other direction of essentially evacuating the text of all material significance, thus ruling out the possibility of finding any concord between the biblical account and what really happened as understood by science.

(3) Cosmic Temple (pp. 71-85)

I agree with Walton that the Israelite tabernacle/temple was a microcosm of the cosmos, and that the cosmos itself was a temple. The seventh day is God’s taking up his rest in his temple as the King of all creation. Interestingly, Meredith Kline also held this view, but I did not get the sense that Walton was aware of this. 

(4) “Origins Pie” vs. “Layer Cake” Model (pp. 113-15)

Walton rejects the notion that God’s activity and natural causation form an “origins pie,” so that the more that science attributes to natural causation, the less there is that is left for God. Instead, the issue of causation is better viewed as a “layer cake.” “The bottom layer might be identified as the layer of secondary natural causation while the top layer is identified as ultimate divine causation” (p. 114). I agree with this. It flows from the Reformed doctrine of God’s providential concursus (WCF V.1-3). All things and events are caused ultimately by God, the primary cause, but he also uses secondary causes (WCF III.1). He works his will in and through the secondary causes that he himself created, sustains, and governs. 

(5) Young Earth Creationism’s False Stumbling Block

Walton is eloquent about the danger of interpreting Genesis 1 so literally that it creates false and unnecessary stumbling blocks for faith.

My criticisms of the book:

(1) Walton’s Interpretation of Genesis 1:1

Walton interprets the Hebrew word bara to mean functional creation rather than material creation. He also takes “in the beginning” to refer to the whole creation week, rather than the absolute beginning. But Prov 8:22 and John 1:1 suggest that it should be taken as the absolute beginning. On Walton’s interpretation, Gen 1:1 does not teach that all things were created by God out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Walton himself affirms that doctrine, but he sees it only in Col 1:16-17 and possibly Heb 1:2 (p. 96). But where did the NT writers get the doctrine from, if not from Gen 1:1?

(2) Walton’s Total Separation of Material and Functional Ontology 

This is the heart of Walton’s view. But it is neither biblical nor logical to make such a total separation. It is not biblical, because the biblical view of the material/physical creation is that it is created and sustained by God, is good, and will ultimately be glorified in the new creation. This is theologically important because the biblical world view has a positive view of matter in contradistinction from the negative view of matter and the human body commonly held in the ancient world. For example, Platonists, Marcionites, Gnostics, and Manichees held that matter is intrinsically evil. 

But it is not just unbiblical to make such a radical bifurcation between material and functional ontology. It is also logically impossible to separate the material from the functional. Walton says the Genesis 1 account details the functional creation of time, weather, and food for man (p. 58), but these all have irreducible material components. Time may not be directly material, but the creation of the heavenly bodies to mark the passage of time, and their relationships within the solar system, is clearly both material and functional. Of course there is a functional aspect having to do with God’s establishment of the inter-relationships of the sun, moon, and stars so that these heavenly bodies can serve to help humans mark the passage of time. But the creation of the sun, moon, and stars still involves material creation of these physical bodies. Weather also involves a material component, such as the establishment of the atmosphere, the chemical and physical properties of water and other gases, etc. Food obviously has a material component.

(3) Are the ANE Creation Myths Interested Only in Functional Creation?

Walton argues that the ANE creation myths are interested only in functional creation. This is the linchpin of his argument (p. 103). But I am not convinced that the ANE creation myths had no interest in material creation, at least the forming of material things like the dry land, the seas, etc. I suspect that it is true that the ANE mind had little concern with the origin of matter itself, since the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is a unique revelation from God in Israelite theology that stands in stark contrast with the ANE world view. The pagan ANE world viewed the primordial waters (Gen 1:2) as eternal and did not concern itself with the question of where they came from. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that the ANE mindset had absolutely no interest in the material shaping of the cosmos and the physical formation of things like the sun, moon, and stars, the firmament, the dry land, the seas, etc. These things may have been viewed mainly in terms of their functional relation to humankind, but that does not eliminate the material component. See Walton’s own excellent description of how the ancients thought on pp. 27-28: “Old World cosmic geography is based on what they could observe from their vantage point,” etc.

(4) No Unique Revelation (Gen 1:1-2)

Walton is so intent on showing the parallels and similarities between the biblical creation account and the ANE myths, that he is left with nothing distinctive about Yahweh’s revelation. He says, “Throughout the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity” (p. 17). But what about creation out of nothing? This was unique, and this seems to be precisely the point of contrast between Genesis 1:1-2 and the ANE myths. Whereas the ANE myths begin with the primordial chaos-waters, which are viewed as eternal, and then progress to the shaping of the orderly cosmos, Genesis 1:1-2 begins with God’s act of absolute creation out of nothing, then progresses to the primordial chaos-waters (cp. Prov 8:22-24 which also puts the absolute “beginning” prior to “the depths” - the same word as used in Gen 1:2, albeit in the plural). But on Walton’s interpretation, Moses should have written v 2 as the very first verse of the narrative, followed by v 1, since Walton interprets bara as bringing functional order out of chaos, not as an act of absolute divine origination out of nothing. This would bring Genesis into perfect harmony with ANE mythology. But the fact that Moses has v 1 first, then v 2, shows that at this point, Yahweh is in fact revealing a unique scientific perspective through the prophet Moses, and not simply working within the parameters of the ANE world view.

(5) “Material Phase” vs. “Inauguration Ceremony” of Cosmic Temple (pp. 86-91)

It is unconvincing to say that Genesis 1 only recounts the “inauguration ceremony” that makes the cosmic temple function, and not also the “material phase” of the construction of the cosmic temple. If anything, Genesis 1 seems to be precisely about the construction of the cosmic temple. It shows the divine architect separating, building, constructing, and getting the temple ready for his coming to take residence in it on day 7.

(6) Inconsistent “Face Value” Interpretation of Yōm 

It is strange that Walton evacuates everything in the Gen 1 narrative of any material, “face value” significance, except for the word yōm, which he interprets as a literal 24-hour day (pp. 90, 108). Yet he himself acknowledges that God’s rest in the temple on day 7 is highly functional; in fact, it is the crowning moment of functional creation. So why take the other six days literally? Walton and Kline are almost mirror images of one another. Both recognize that the text is not to be taken at “face value” in every respect; there is literary shaping in the creation account. Kline takes the snapshots of the divine creative activity as literal acts of divine origination, and the temporal framework of the divine work week figuratively. Walton flips it and takes the temporal framework literally and the snapshots of the divine creative activity as figurative acts of “functional creation.” Ironically, the one thing in the passage that is most clearly figurative (the framework of the 7 days), Walton takes at “face value.”

(7) What is Walton’s View of Historical Adam?

Walton does not address this clearly, but his hermeneutic leaves the door open for the view of Peter Enns and others who deny the historicity of an individual Adam from whom all humankind descended by ordinary generation. But the historicity of Adam as the federal head of the human race is a critical underpinning of Paul’s “two Adams” covenant theology (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49).

(8) Creation and Providence (pp. 118-23)

I am uncomfortable with the blurring of the line between creation and providence in Walton’s thinking. Theologians have historically held that God’s work of providence is distinct from and subsequent to his work of creation. If the doctrine of creation is not taught at all in Gen 1, but only in two texts in the NT, and if creation is on a continuum with providence, then the doctrine of creation seems to be teetering on a weak foundation. I recognize that Walton affirms the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. But on what basis?