OPC's General Assembly

Since last Wednesday, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has been in session. During the meeting this year two major items are on the docket for the commissioner’s consideration, the Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification and the Amended Proposed Revisions for the Directory for Public Worship. Both of these documents and the issues surrounding them have major implications for the future of the OPC as a denomination. Please pray for wisdom and balance for those charged with considering these important issues.

Inspiration and Incarnation II

After a bit of a delay, I finally return to writing a little more about Dr. Enns’ book. I want to write about my second major concern with the book in this entry, and in subsequent entries deal with some of the responses particularly by those in the conservative reformed tradition to the book.

Dr. Enns notes that much of conservative, evangelical treatment of the Bible minimizes the humanity of Scripture, to the point of tacit denial. Sadly, as a general characterization, this statement is undeniably true. Dr. Enns labels this conception as docetic; parallel with those early heretics who denied the true humanity of Christ. As a remedy for this, Dr. Enns proposes the Incarnation as an analogy for an evangelical doctrine of Scripture- not a new concept in a conservative doctrine of Scripture. I cannot help but wonder though if Dr. Enns proposed correction tends to the opposite danger of Arianism- denying the true deity of Scripture.

I am not asserting that Dr. Enns truly holds to an Arian-like concept of Scripture. He says nothing explicitly or implicitly which leads to such a conclusion. Yet no good evangelical would explicitly state that he holds to a docetic doctrine of Scripture. What is at stake is a lack of balance. I recognize that fully addressing the divine aspect of Scripture was not Dr. Enns’ concern. Further, it could be argued that so much emphasis has been paid to the Divine that little need exists for further treatment; however, the lack on the human demands sustained and focused attention. Dr. Enns is clear throughout the book to acknowledge the human and divine in Scripture. Yet his emphasis on the human and the lack of synthesis with the divine leads one to question the unity of the two truths. Throughout the book, Dr. Enns presents data which points strongly to very human characteristics in Scripture, such as connection with larger cultural pattern of its time, clear signs of individuality in the various books composing the Old Testament, and observable patterns of interpretation by those using the Old Testament text, especially in the New Testament. While his concern is to present this data in order to bolster and protect the faith of the reader, I wonder if the lack of attention played to the reconciliation of the human with the divine might not lead some to serious doubts and questions. Many minds, like my own, need to hear not only that something is the Word of God, but need to see how the divine and the human can coexist and be reconciled by doing full justice to both truths.

The Chalcedonian Creed attempted to do justice to both the Divine and human in Christ, and to produce a systematic statement of the doctrine. Focusing exclusively on one aspect of the person of Christ to the exclusion of the other is not consistent with a fully orthodox Christological conception. To present a true statement of the person of Christ one must present “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man…recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.” If the Incarnation is the analogy which one chooses as the basis for one’s conception of Scripture, then it is necessary to follow the analogy consistently and present the Bible “without confusion, without change, without division and without separation” in both the true humanity and the true divinity. Any doctrine that fails in this fails to be a truly orthodox doctrine of Scripture.

What I Learned From the da Vici Code

I never realized until reading The da Vinci Code that the Dead Sea Scrolls are early Christian writings like the Nag Hammadi library deliberately suppressed by the church.

Jaroslav Pelikan

Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Professor of History at Yale University died this past weekend of lung cancer. Dr. Pelikan was one of the most significant scholars writing on church history. Among his many works, his five volume masterpiece, The Christian Tradition, is a must read for anyone studying the history of doctrine. His work Jesus Through the Centuries is likewise a masterful blending of history, art and doctrine; and is a valuable resource in tracing the development of the church and culture's perception and reaction to the person of Jesus.

The clear and insightful thinking and writing of Dr. Pelikan is a quality that will be sorely missed in the field of church history; but the contributions Dr. Pelikan has made to the discipline will be appreciated and utilized for generations to come.

More Thoughts on Church Discipline

I do plan on getting back to some thoughts about Dr. Enns’ book soon, but this topic has really been on my mind a lot lately. I hope to blog a little more regularly since getting a laptop computer; but I know I have said that in the past, and you know happened with similar intention. But wireless internet, and computing mobility are great aids to computing diligence.

I have been thinking a little more on the elder and session’s responsibility with regard to church discipline.

The first thought is that discipline epitomizes the special responsibility of an elder. This does not mean that the elder is supposed to seek whom he may file charges against; but that it is his special interest to guide and guard the believer’s growth in grace. In my last post, I mentioned the analogy between the rule of the elder’s household and his rule of the flock entrusted to him. A father not only seeks to correct a child when they are in sin, but also to instill the necessary experience and maturity to avoid sin in the first place. Scripture is clear that the elder must be diligent to guard and to protect the flock. To cite just one passage making this clear, Paul writes to Titus concerning an elder, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus1:9). It is clear from the rest of the letter that an elder’s task involves not only doctrine, but also life. The OPC’s Form of Government defines the task of an elder with regard to discipline in the following manner:

Ruling elders, individually and jointly with the pastor in the session, are to lead the church in the service of Christ. They are to watch diligently over the people committed to their charge to prevent corruption of doctrine or morals. Evils which they cannot correct by private admonition they should bring to the notice of the session. They should visit the people, especially the sick, instruct the ignorant, comfort the mourning, and nourish and guard the children of the covenant. They should pray with and for the people. They should have particular concern for the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word and help him in his labors. (X:3)

Failure with regard to church discipline is failure in the intent and special vocation of an elder.

Second, the identity and the purity of the church demand that elders diligently attend to discipline as a vital aspect of their work. Reformed churches, following the Belgic Confession have identified the three marks of a true church as the faithful proclamation of the Word, the pure administration of the Sacraments and the diligent exercise of church discipline. And while it is necessary to recognize that no church is faultless in any of these three areas, imperfection is not an excuse to abandon semper reformada. These three areas stand together, and failure in one will in time effect the others. No church should ever claim its purity by appealing to faithfulness in one or two of these areas while excusing the neglect in the other. Purity of doctrine is meaningless unless that pure doctrine filters through to the thoughts and life of the congregation.

Third, neglect of church discipline hinders the exercise of future discipline. Especially regarding public sins, the neglect of serious and decisive disciplinary action by a session causes the congregation to lower its esteem for the session, even if this is not explicitly expressed. It is a given that at times the process of formal discipline necessarily takes time, but it there is a distinction between care and neglect- and a congregation is able to discern the difference. When a session is negligent concerning confronting a sin and taking necessary actions, its call to repentance for another member caught in the same or a similar sin becomes hollow. In order to counteract this negative response, the session should repent and seek the church’s forgiveness concerning its past failures- while publicly committing itself, by the grace of God, to be diligent and faithful to its God-given responsibility in the future.