A Slow Holiday Season for the Historical Jesus
I just got home from the barber shop, where I perused the December 24 issue of U. S. News & World Report, which featured as its “holiday” cover story, not some new theory that threatens to change everything we’ve ever thought about Christianity, like we’ve been treated to for the last several years in a row, but an article on how Catholics, 
Protestants and Jews are all alike seeing a return to ritual and liturgy among the younger generation which is so underwhelmed by the boomer generation’s attempts to relevantize (is that a word? I’ll look it up later.) their respective religious expressions. We evangelicals will certainly think instantly of the seeker-sensitive model of worship. This trend seems to be reflected in Bill Hybels’ recent change of heart about how his church has been weak on discipleship (or “self-feeding”); at least he’s publicly acknowledging a little self-critical reevaluation. Or is it just vying for some of the consumers to be had among the aforementioned younger generation that’s “seeking” more tradition-sensitive models of worship?
Here’s one interesting excerpt featuring the Evangelical version of this phenomenon:
Talk to Carl Anderson, the senior pastor of Trinity Fellowship Church, and you get an idea. “Seven or eight years ago, there was a sense of disconnectedness and loneliness in our church life,” he says. The entrepreneurial model adopted by so many evangelical churches, with its emphasis on seeker-friendly nontraditional services and programs, had been successful in helping Trinity build its congregation, Anderson explains. But it was less successful in holding on to church members and deepening their faith or their ties with fellow congregants. Searching for more rootedness, Anderson sought to reconnect with the historical church.
Connections. Not surprisingly, that move was threatening to church members who strongly identify with the Reformation and the Protestant rejection of Catholic practices, including most liturgy. But Anderson and others tried to emphasize the power of liturgy to direct worship toward God and “not be all about me,” he says. Anderson also stressed how liturgy “is about us—and not just this church but the connection with other Christians.” Adopting the weekly Eucharist, saying the Nicene Creed every two or three weeks, following the church calendar, Trinity reshaped its worship practices in ways that drove some congregants away. But Anderson remains committed, arguing that traditional practices will help evangelical churches grow beyond the dependence on “celebrity-status pastors.” (emphasis added)
Having looked over Trinity’s website, the only critique I have is in their fear of being divisive with a “detailed confession of faith,” favoring instead as their confession a combination of the Nicene Creed and the ankle-deep NAE Statement of Faith. A little too bare-bones for my taste, but the rest, I really like. But then, I’m part of that younger generation that isn’t into commercialized worship. Would that more “traditional” churches would seriously examine a more historical, liturgical worship that centers on the regulative principle of worship and actively encourages an appreciation of “the communion of saints,” our “connection” with the entire church in all times and places, as we worship God in the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22-24). Speaking of which, the current episode of The White Horse Inn which is featured in my sidebar, deals with this very kind of topic. I highly recommend your listening to it. It will expand your understanding of what’s going on spiritually in Sunday morning worship, and help you have an idea of where I’m coming from on all of this stuff.
Be that as it may, I was relieved that it so far seems to be a slow holiday season for debunkers of the historically orthodox understanding of Christianity in general, and Jesus in particular. As I was flipping through the pages of the magazine, the only thing of that kind of “historical Jesus” hand-wringing was a timely recycling of all the recent junk that had been polluting our airwaves for the past few years.
Hybels Still Mistaken
The Christianity Today Blog, Out of Ur, posted on Willow Creek Pastor Bill Hybels’ recent remarks that his seeker-sensitive research led them to make a “mistake.”
Here’s Hybels’ newsmaking confession:
We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between service, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.
Can you see why I say Hybels is still mistaken? The answer to seeker-sensitive Christian consumerism isn’t “self-feeding.” I hear that this has already been the common advice given to attendees of the seeker-sensitive megachurches in my community. What many tell their consumers is that since we’re not going to talk a lot of doctrine from the stage (I can’t say, “from the pulpit”), you need to make sure you study on your own or among yourselves in your small groups. The star (aka, the pastor) is here to inspire us with motivational principles for living and entertain us with humorous autobiographical stories and illustration upon illustration, sandwiched between P&W sessions with the amps turned up to “11.”
Yes, I submit that Bill Hybels’ mea culpa is an example of a blind leader falling into a ditch. Up on the narrow road, were God to graciously grant him reformation, lies a neglected Bible, preached from a neglected pulpit, signified and sealed by neglected sacraments. The answer to seeker-sensitive demographic polling is what the Reformed call, “The Ministry of Word and Sacrament.”
Allow me to give you an idea of what I mean by introducing to you something I wrote several years ago as I was wrestling with this concept. It’s called “The Worshipers’ Creed and Prayer.”
We believe that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone
by means of the proclamation of Christ’s death for our sins
and his resurrection because of our justification (Romans 4:25),
signified and sealed to us in our baptism.
Likewise, we believe saints are sanctified by grace alone through faith alone
by means of the proclamation of Christ’s death for our sins
and resurrection unto our sanctification (Romans 6:4),
signified and sealed to us in the corporate observance of the Lord’s Supper.
Therefore, we believe the gospel is the agent of spiritual birth
by which the sinner comes to faith,
and also the agent of spiritual growth
by which his faith is nourished and strengthened.
So may we confess our sin in response to the application of the Law of God;
likewise may the gospel of Christ be thus proclaimed,
signified and sealed to us for our justification
and our sanctification until our glorification;
And so may we, out of gratitude for our justification,
and in hope of the glory of God,
glorify and praise our Savior,
as we gather for worship this Lord’s Day,
being afterward mindful to love one another, and our neighbor,
in the name of him who died for our sins,
that we might live in the power of his resurrection.
AMEN.
Since you’ll probably need further clarification, you may like to consult Part III of the PCA’s Book of Church Order, entitled, “The Directory for the Worship of God” (beginning on page 143 of the PDF file).
Is Reformed Important? Saturday Night Outline
At long last, now that the Sean Michael Lucas conference is a week’s worth of history, here’s the outline he allowed me to publish from his presentation.
Why bother being Reformed as a way of being Christian?
- It is not possible to live a “generic” Christian life
- Historically not possible
- Logically not possible
- The Christian life must be embodied through a particular identity
- Even “Bible churches” communicate a particular identity (beliefs, practices, stories)
- Genuine conversations with others must be rooted in a real sense of knowing who we are.
During this portion of the outline, Dr. Lucas gave the example of the Cane Ridge Revival, explaining how Barton Stone desired to reduce his denominational identity to “Christian.” Out of this revival emerged the Christian denomination (Disciples of Christ), Cumberland Presbyterianism, and others I forgot before I could jot them down. Now back to the outline . . .
- The question becomes, then,
- Which beliefs and practices are most biblical?
- And which communion most closely holds to those beliefs and engages in those practices?
- In the end, the reason it is important to be Reformed (and specifically, Presbyterian) is
- Because Presbyterian beliefs and practices are the closest to the biblical material, and,
- Because they provide the most workable identity for engaging life in this postmodern world.
Presbyterian beliefs
- God is King (the sovereignty of God)
- The Priority of Grace (in salvation, sanctification, consummation)
- God’s story, promises, and reign (covenant and kingdom)
- The nature of the Church (visible/invisible)
- The nature of the sacraments (baptism and Supper)
Presbyterian practices
- Piety
- Centering on worship [corporate, family, and private], stewardship, and service
- Worship
- Centering on its biblical, covenantal, and gospel-driven nature
- Polity
- Centering on a proper balance of church authority and liberty of conscience
Presbyterian stories
- These beliefs and practices make sense to us, in part, because of the stories (positive and negative) that we tell:
- Calvin, Knox and the Westminster divines
- Scots and Scots-Irish Presbyterianism
- Early American Presbyterianism
- 19th Century Presbyterianism
- 20th Century Presbyterianism
- North (PCUSA, OPC, BP, EP, RPCES)
- South (PCUS, PCA)
- Identity
- It is out of this particularly Presbyterian way of speaking the Gospel that we must speak.
- Catholicity
- In order to confess “one holy catholic church,” we must desire relationship and even partnership with other Christians.
- Our relationships with other Christians must be guided by the Gospel and must serve the Gospel.
- Humility
- The most productive partnerships come from recognizing the importance of others in imaging forth the Kingdom of God (Romans 1:11-12).
Check back periodically . . . I’ll post Dr. Lucas’ Reformation Sunday Sermon link when the church posts it.
Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King?
Every October when I start warming up for the coming of Reformation Day, I start telling friends around me about Martin Luther. I am becoming troubled, however, that the more I talk about him with more and more people, more and more people are not thinking of the German monk who posted his 95 Theses on the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, but when I say the name “Martin Luther,” they hear, “Martin Luther King”! This ought not to be so!
In the interest of raising awareness about the difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, I have written the following quiz. Each question will describe something about one or the other figure, and it is your job to pick the right answer, either A) Martin Luther, B) Martin Luther King, or C) Both. Post your answers, and any comments you may have, in the comments section.
Have fun, and Happy Reformation Day!
1. Which is African-American?
2. Which is German?
3. Which belonged to a religious order that was named after an African theologian?
4. Which delivered his “I have a dream” speech?
5. Which delivered his “Here I stand” speech?
6. Which was born in the 20th Century?
7. Which was born in the 16th Century?
8. Which advocated religious reform?
9. Which advocated civil rights for African-Americans?
10. Which was assassinated?
11. Which was kidnapped?
12. Which authored “Bondage of the Will”?
13. Which likely had ancestors who were literally in bondage?
14. Which translated the New Testament into German?
15. Which was a Baptist?
16. Which founded the Lutheran denomination?
17. The birthday of which can get you a day off work?
18. Which advocated non-violent resistance?
Is Reformed Important? Friday Night Outline
Dr. Sean Michael Lucas
New St. Peters PC, Dallas, TX
October 26-27, 2007
Who Are You?: Understanding Identity
When you think about who you are, what comes to mind?
- Son, upper middle class, suburbs, two parents married 38 years, one sister
- Moved many times, mainly up an ddown the I-95 corridor between Washingong DC, and NYC.
- Husband, married nearly 14 years, four children
- Became a believer when a teenager–unusual religious journey
- Pastor with scholarly bent; historian with a pastor heart
- Writer and reader–love Mark Twain and Wendell Barry
- Gardner
- Avid sports fan–Indiana sports teams
- Springsteen, U2, country music
- Trucks, Fords, but when I follow NAsCAR, I am a Gordon fan.
Three Key Aspects to identify.
Belierfs
- the core understandings that form and motivate what and how I practice; they are also reinforced by these practices and by my stories.
Practice
- The regular activities that I engage in shape my understanding of myself and the world.
Stories
- narratives that help to make sense of what I believe and what I do.
“Identity Crisis”
- When someone is having an “identity crisis,” he/she has become disillusioned or is experiencing dissonance within her core.
- Perhaps produced through a lengthy questionaing of previously held beliefs.
- Perhaps caused through an interruption of key practices that reinforced identity.
- Perhaps result of a disillusionment with the master story
- A version of this identity crisis would be the “mid-life crisis.”
Identity Formation in “Modernity” and “Post-Modernity”
Pre- and Early Modernity
- Social relations and family connections
- Trade generally passed on through generatons.
- Church connections more by birth than over belief.
- Identity fairly stric==pre-determined by others and before birth.
Late and Post-Modernity
- Social mobility, loss of extended and nuclear family.
- Trades determined through interest,
- Church connections determined by belief less than birt; challenge to lay on any type of denominationalism
- Identity radically dynamic-self-created through choices
Forging Christian identity
The transition from “non-religious” [non-Christian] to “religious” (Christian] identity.
- New Beliefs–from Idolatry to faith in Father, Sond, Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:9)
- New Practices–from non-observent to observant (Ephesians 4:17-24)
- New Stories—from “self-determined” to divinely determined within the story of Israel and the Church as found in the Bible.
- The forging of Christian Identity is varied and common
- Varied:
- No two transitions are exactly the same
- No two experiences of sin, grace, faith, repentance are exactly the same
- Common:
- The need experience by all human beings is the same
- The Gospel embraced by all believers is the same
- The grace granted to believers is the same
- Varied:
- The means for forging Christian identity (Acts 2:42-47)
- Word
- Sacraments
- Prayer
- Fellowship
Tomorrow, I’ll post Saturday night’s outline.
Is Reformed Important?
A friend of mine (actually, my old boss), is a member of New St. Peter’s (NsP) 
Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas. Over this past “Reformation Weekend,” as I call it, NsP hosted a conference by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. The topic of the conference, “Is Reformed Important?” was a Power Point presentation summarizing the material from Dr. Lucas’ book, On Being Presbyterian, which I have not read. I found the conference very interesting, for his approach does not start with a defense of all of the Reformed and Presbyterian controversial, distinctive doctrines. The approach Dr. Lucas took was to deal with what it means to be Presbyterian as a facet of one’s personal identity. In this I think he’s attempting to appeal to, or at least converse with a postmodern worldview, which seems, by and large, skeptical of evangelical theologizing.
The sum of the conference was that a person’s identity is the result of one’s beliefs, practices and stories (bps), which colors his perspective on life, the universe and everything (to borrow from the British theologian, Douglas Adams). Therefore, the basic outline of “Is Reformed Important?” is a look at the beliefs, practices and stories of confessional, Reformed Presbyterianism in particular, rather than merely Reformed in general.One benefit of the format of the two day conference, followed by a Reformation Sunday sermon at NsP (which I did not attend, but the link to which I’ll post if and when it becomes available) lies in the fact that the first night really helps a non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian (like my beloved wife) not have to immediately endure all the stuff he disagrees with, but gently points out that one’s beliefs andpractices are worth taking a critical look at. Dr. Lucas did this by sharing much of his own bps in a rather disarming manner. This is definitely user-friendly material, not fodder for theology geeks, but down-to-earth and practical stuff.
At one point during the second lecture, Dr. Lucas brought up the prospect of what he’d do were he to notice that someone had published a book with the same title as his, On Being Presbyterian, yet noticed that the table of contents seems an awful lot like the one in his own work, and not only that, but that the other author happens to mention that he comes from the same hometown as Dr. Lucas. He said the first thing he’d probably do is punch the guy in the nose. This compelled me to approach him after the lecture to request permission to post his outline on my blog, which permission, Christian man that he is, he graciously granted. Thus, in my next post, I’ll give you Lecture Number One of “Is Reformed Important?”
Hope you all had a pleasant Reformation Sunday!
Reformata Semper Reformanda (”Reformed, Always Reforming”)
update
I just took a look at http://www.newstpeters.org/ and noticed that they give their members something called “Rooster Tracks” which provides short, weekday theological and devotional items to think through and/or study. The one for this week, naturally, introduces us to the Reformers and asks its readers to think through a topic related to the contribution of each individual Reformer which is treated, namely, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox.
P.R.O.P.I.T.I.A.T.I.O.N.
You’d be amazed at the kinds of useless stuff that passes through my mind. Today I’m going to punish you with it. It’s just one of my little tests of friendship. Today, I wondered if I could come up with an acronym for the word “Propitiation.” You know, this year in AWANA, I’m teaching through Romans 3:21-26, which includes the gospel-rich terms “redemption,” “justification,” and “propitiation.” No, I haven’t come up with any for the other two terms, but here’s what I got for “propitiation.” I’m afraid it doesn’t help with the meaning of the term or anything, but it made me chuckle.
Presbyterians
Rarely
Ordain
People
Into
The
Institution
After
They
Invalidate
Old
Notions . . .
. . . Charles Finney excepted.
Yes, Charles Finney was ordained by the Presbyterian church, and yes, he did “invalidate old notions.” What old notions, you ask? Only biblical things like . . .
Original Sin . . . “The doctrine of original sin, or of a sinful constitution, and of necessary sinful actions, represents the whole moral government of God, the plan of salvation by Christ, and indeed every doctrine of the gospel, as a mere farce. Upon this supposition the law is tyranny, and the gospel an insult to the unfortunate.” (Systematic Theology, Lecture 24 on “Moral Depravity”)
Penal-Substitutionary Atonement of Christ . . . Finney’s invalidation of the old notion: the Moral Government theory–“Consequently, we find that, in this atonement, God has expressed His high regard for His law and for obedience to it. The design of executing the penalty of the law was to make a strong impression of the majesty, excellence, and utility of the law. Anything may answer as a substitute, which will as thoroughly demonstrate the mischief and odiousness of sin, God’s hatred to it, and His determination to carry out His law in all its demands. Especially may the proposed substitute avail if it shall also make a signal manifestation of God’s love to sinners.” (Charles Finney on the Atonement see also, Theopedia: Governmental Theory of the Atonement)
Imputation . . . “The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.” (Horton, Michael: “The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney,” the quote may be found under the heading, “Distorting the Cardinal Doctrine of Justification.”)
Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone . . . “That gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. Dr. Chalmers and those of his school hold that it is. But this is certainly a great mistake, as we shall see.” (Systematic Theology, Lecture 36, “Justification” )
The Miraculous Nature of Revival . . . “It is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. There may be a miracle among 13its antecedent causes, or there may not. The apostles employed miracles, simply as a means by which they arrested attention to their message, and established its divine authority. But the miracle was not the revival. The miracle was one thing; the revival that followed it was quite another thing. The revivals in the apostles’ days were connected with miracles, but they were not miracles.” (Lectures on Revivals of Religion, Lecture 1, “What a Revival of Religion Is“)
But, after all this, if what you really want is some good reading on “propitiation,” then check out the Wikipedia article.
A Life Remembered
from the Haven Today Program Archives for Wednesday, September 12, 2007:
He was all about truth. And the number one truth was God’s grace and that led the late D. James Kennedy to found Evangelism Explosion, a program that taught others how to share their faith in Christ alone. On the day before his memorial service, don’t miss the next HAVEN Today with Charles Morris and a program called “A Life Remembered”.
Also, don’t miss the Live Webcast of Dr. Kennedy’s funeral which will take place at 1pm Eastern, 12pm Central.
Update
Christianity Today has posted an article on the ministry and impact of Dr. D. James Kennedy, including links to many sites around the web regarding his life and his death.
My Newest “Study Bible”!
This one is definitely an “easy-to-read” Bible! Not only that, there are pictures on every page! What can be learned from this “study Bible” is not what the Greek word for so-and-so means, there are no charts of the Kings of Israel or anything like that, this study Bible teaches the reader that among the other popular and overused and often abused interpretations of Scripture, the main reason the stories of the Bible are written is to teach us about the One God promised to send to crush the Serpent’s head. And that’s all it teaches.
That’s also what preachers are supposed to base all their practical application and character studies on, too. How easy it is to forget. I can testify just in trying to write Sunday School and AWANA lessons for elementary age children. How much more is it necessary to keep in mind when the moms and dads are being preached to by the “teaching elder” (Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 5:17).
Modern Christians have plenty of the other kinds of “headknowledge” about dates, locations, and name meanings, but most forget (in word and action, which are the ways that count), no, neglect, that which is “of first importance” according to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
Bob Hayton of Fundamentally Reformed, in his post, “The Storybook for Preachers,” quotes Dr. Tim Keller as saying, ““I’d urge ministers to buy it and read it for themselves. It will improve their preaching.” That’s what hooked me, and that’s why I bought it. Sure, I’ll probably tackle one or two of my younger children (who are well into chapter books by now) and force them to listen to one or more of these stories on occasion, and any grandchildren the Lord may send my way someday will certainly benefit from it, but in the meantime this children’s book is mine! I’m also going to buy a copy and donate it to my church library, and I suggest you do the same. But some of you more daring (yet gentle and respectful–see 1 Peter 3:15) sorts may like to sweetly give a copy to your pastor with a copy of Keller’s quote tucked in as a bookmark.
One of my new favorite old radio shows is Haven Today, featuring the warm, fuzzy and comforting tone of Reformed radio man, Charles Morris (think Steve Brown, but not as funny), features a few recordings of Jesus Storybook Bible author, Sally Lloyd-Jones (I wonder if there’s any relation to D. Martyn? I suppose if there were, it would have come up), reading her Christ-centered children’s Bible stories. There are a lot of other interesting videos and links related to Sally and her book on the “Going Deeper” section of Haven Today’s homepage (on the right sidebar toward the bottom). Check out The Jesus Storybook Bible Sampler, and buy a few copies. We need to encourage Christ-centeredness in Christian publishing!
A Primer for Fantasy-Phobes
End Time Redux
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 3
The History of the Relationship Between Church, State and Tithing
I highly recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Tithe. It gave me some very interesting insight into the way in which the historically blurred line between church and state has helped to seal in our minds the assumption that giving ten percent of one’s income (at least) is a New Covenant principle.
It seems that the Roman Catholic Church adopted tithing from the Old Testament as a workable, pragmatic model to ensure a regular income for their growing heirarchy. As you know, Rome during the middle ages exerted enormous influence over the nations of Europe, during which millennium, the concept of tithing became well ingrained. Thus, when the Reformation began, the governments of Europe seized the opportunity to protect themselves from similar influence from the diverse Protestant churches, by themselves exerting influence over the church, rather than allowing the status quo to continue at the hands of these upstart Protestants.
Part of this influence was in the various ways the governments of Europe extracted “tithes” from the people and supported their various state churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc.), which trend has just in the past couple of hundred years begun to diminish. Here’s an example of how America “dun good!” (for once, if you consider Americanism’s various other less than fortunate influences on American Christianity–no nation is exempt from syncretism) in refusing to take money from the church and give money to the church (the current President excepted–I wonder what other Presidents have likewise contradicted this national emphasis in other ways? That would be an interesting history lesson . . . ). Another way the government prevented complete Reformation was on the issue of the Lord’s Supper (at least in “Calvin’s Geneva”). But I’m done with that topic for now, but the comments apparently keep rolling in, much to my glee!
More on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . .
Kingdom Coffers: “Flat Tax” or “Love Offering”? Part 2
Abram, Melchizedek and “Christian Tithing”
Is it, or is it not, appropriate to call our giving to God in the church “the tithe,” applying Mosaic principles regulating the giving of it (“Will a man rob God?”), and stressing its importance (“The tithe is the LORD’s!!!”), or would it be more biblical to simply “purpose” in one’s own heart how much he ought to give, in order to ensure that it is given with love (1 Corinthians 13:3) or, as Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, as a “cheerful giver?”
It is held by many that tithing is only a part of the civil/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law and it is, therefore, assumed to be abrogated in the New Testament, in which Paul gives a New Covenant principle of “cheerful giving.” In light of this argument, Christian tithing is defended on the grounds that Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20b) precedes the Mosaic Law and thus ought to be retained after the civil/ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law are abrogated. For example, consider the Statement of Faith of the World Baptist Fellowship, International. In Section 20 on “The Grace of Giving,” it reads, Under grace we give, and do not pay, the tithe – “Abraham GAVE a tenth part of all” – “Abraham GAVE the tenth of the spoils” – Hebrews 7:2-4 – and this was four hundred years before the law, and is confirmed in the New Testament; Jesus said concerning the tithe, “These ye ought to have done” – Matt. 23:23.
This was the view with which I had been raised. In fact, the Statement of Faith I just cited was the one adopted by the church in which I was saved and baptized. Ever since I’ve been earning money, I’ve been striving to be faithful to this principle. My current church is the first to which I have belonged which specifically denies this concept of some kind of eternal principle about tithing that ought to be retained, even though the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law have been abrogated. I have been considering the relative merits of both views for the last few years.
If tithing is an eternal principle which transcends the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace by virtue of Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek, then tithing ought to be retained in Christian worship, further informed, I would say, above and beyond the letter of tithing by Paul’s teaching on evidencing one’s love for the Lord and the people of God by the cheerful giving of that which the believer purposes in his heart in gratitude for the Lord’s blessings (2 Corinthians 8-9).
But if it is a mere aspect of the temporary civil/ceremonial laws, then it is abrogated by Christ and the Pauline giving principle is the only rule for the people of God today. So the challenge for me has been to evaluate whether or not the Abram/Melchizedek tithe in Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7 is a valid basis for the idea that tithing is demanded outside the Mosaic Law.
One of the points that got me thinking about this issue is the claim that the New Testament does not expressly command tithing, therefore it ought not be retained. This argument that there is no explicit New Testament command to tithe was coming off as another application of the same argument invalidly used (in my mind, with all due respect) by Baptists when they argue against pedobaptism. It did not sit well with me to hear pedobaptists using this line of reasoning. So the question is raised in my mind as to just what it is about the New Testament that abrogates the practice of tithing?
There are New Testament Scriptures abrogating everything from sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10:9) to eating unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16); but nothing was surfacing as I searched the Scriptures in my mind that explicitly abrogates the principle of giving ten percent of one’s income to the church. In my mind, this pointed to the perpetuity of tithing as a New Covenant principle.
So that’s what helped me think to scrutinize the Abram/Melchizedek tithing account. How does the New Testament treat this passage? Does its treatment affect the tithing question? Simple answers:
The New Testament treats the Abram/ Melchizedek tithing account as a type fulfilled by Christ. The very same New Testament book which gives the apostolic interpretation also warns us against reinstating Christ-fulfilled types and shadows. So if the account of Abram tithing to Melchizedek typifies the superiority of Christ to the Levitical priesthood, then this Old Testament passage is irrelevant to the question of giving in Christian worship. Therefore, I conclude that the New Testament treatment of that Old Testament account does affect the tithing question by taking this event off the table as a passage to be considered in the context of Christian giving. To do so would be tantamount to returning to Old Testament types and shadows.
Therefore, it is not a misguided baptistic argument to say that New Covenant believers don’t tithe because the new Testament doesn’t command us to tithe but does command us to give cheerfully that which we purpose in our hearts to give as we have been blessed. This is an offering made in the context of New Covenant worship that is pleasing to the Lord!
An IFB associate pastor friend of mine counters this argument with the principle, “There is one interpretation, but there are many applications,” as justification to take this passage about how much greater Christ is than Levi and apply it to the doctrines of giving in New Covenant worship. While it may be true that there are (at least some of them) many applications, those applications are accountable to the one interpretation, rightly exegeted. Does the application of the Abram/Melchizedek type to “Christian tithing” meet this exegetical standard?
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 1
Why Weekly Communion?
While the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not common in Protestant churches, we at Arlington Presbyterian believe it to be the biblical and preferred practice for the following reasons:
THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH
Although we do not have any clear-cut command, the New Testament evidence does seem to point in the direction of weekly communion, especially if one understands “the breaking of bread” to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-20; cf. 14:26).
EVIDENCE FROM CHURCH HISTORY
There are very clear and early (second century) allusions to the practice in the Didache and Justin Martyr’s The First Apology. While the history of the Church does not have the authority of God’s Word, it at least ought to interest us that the Christian community observed this practice, apparently without much discussion, so shortly after the time of the Apostles.
CONSISTENCY WITH OUR USE OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP
Why should the Lord’s Supper be the only regular element of worship which does not find a place in each Lord’s Day worship service? To be consistent, any argument against weekly communion would be an equally valid argument against weekly hymn-singing, weekly praying, weekly preaching, and so on.
BRINGING US BACK TO BASICS
Regardless of the sermon text or topic, the congregation is always brought back to the fundamentals—the death and resurrection of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28).
APPEAL TO THE WHOLE MAN
Since the Lord’s Supper is the only element of worship that appeals to all five senses, its weekly observance helps to prevent an “intellectualizing” of the worship service. If we do not celebrate the Sacrament frequently, we should not be surprised when our members leave Reformed worship for something more “stimulating.”
OPPORTUNITY FOR COVENANT RENEWAL
The Lord’s Supper is the ideal means of meditating on God’s Word and renewing our faith and repentance so that we may serve the Lord in the upcoming week (Acts 20:7).
PROVIDING ASSURANCE, PERSONALIZING THE GOSPEL
Every week the believer receives tangible and visible assurance that Christ died for him (Matthew 26:28).
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF GOD
This Sacrament stresses the corporate dimension of the Church, thereby promoting unity and the restoration of broken relationships. Don’t we need this every week (1 Cor. 10:16-17)?
One of the stages of discipline in many Reformed churches is suspension from the Lord’s Table. One of the purposes of this is to make the unrepentant sinner aware of his sin that he might be restored. But how effective can this be if the Lord’s Supper is not celebrated frequently? Even once a month would not seem to constitute effective suspension (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
VISIBLE MARK OF A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST
There is always the need to distinguish believer from unbeliever (Eph. 5:6-8). Since one of the purposes of the Sacraments is to make this difference visible, we should produce this visible difference often.
NATURAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL TO UNBELIEVERS
By setting forth so plainly the work of Christ on the cross, and especially by fencing the table, any unbelievers present are called to faith and repentance. Weekly communion thus provides a natural and regular opportunity to present the claims of Christ to visitors.
SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT
Since the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, through faith it provides us with what we need to grow in grace. Thus, the frequent partaking of the bread and the wine for our spiritual nourishment is as necessary as the frequent partaking of food for our physical nourishment (1 Cor. 10:16).
CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION AND REPENTANCE
Such should be our daily practice. Weekly communion reminds us of this and gives us opportunity to actually do so on a regular basis (1 Cor. 11:27-32).
REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
One of the problems with an infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is that it tends to produce unrealistically high expectations as to what should “happen.” People expect something magical and exciting to happen at quarterly communion, but are often disappointed; they go away wondering what they missed and why they missed it. By celebrating the Lord’s Supper each week our expectations become realistically high; we look forward to and enjoy it much as we do prayer, preaching, singing, and the other elements of Christian worship.
TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD!
Prepared by the Staff and Session of Arlington Presbyterian Church
1320 West Pioneer Parkway, Arlington, Texas 76103
Phone 817-261-8938; Fax 817-459-1136; Email mailto:info@apcweb.org
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
