feasting-with-christ-sept-oct-2014

VOL.23 | NO.5 | SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2014 | $6.50

FEASTING WITH CHRIST

J U LY 3 1 AUGUST 1 2015

WHITE HORSE INN

WEEKEND PASADENA, CA on the CAMPUS of PROVIDENCE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE

WHO IS JESUS? You have to know him before you can follow him.

V I S I T W H I T E H O R S E I N N.O R G / W E E K E N D F O R M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N. S PA C E I S L I M I T E D.

features VOL.23 | NO.5 | SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2014

18

Feasting with Christ

26

The Invitational Life: Extending the Hospitality of Christ

30

Be My Guest

36

Welcoming a Pariah?

40

Spirit-Formed Communities

BY M I CHA E L S. HORTON

BY CRA I G VA N D IXHOORN

BY M A RY E LLEN GODFREY

BY A NO NYMO U S

BY K E LLY M. KAPIC

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

1

Read, Hear, and Learn Together with Study Kits from White Horse Inn. NEW STUDY KITS EVERY TWO MONTHS. Our new study kits, designed for groups or individuals, combine WHI radio and MR magazine resources with group study questions and include leader and group guides and complete WHI audio clips selected for use during discussions.

D OWNLOAD NOW AT W H ITEHO R SEI N N.ORG/ST UDYKI T.

departments 04 05 09 10

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

BY RYA N G LO MSRUD

INTERVIEW ››

Reformation Romania

Q&A with M I HA I CO RCE A

CHRIST & CULTURE ›› “Love (III)”

BY G E O RG E HE RBE RT

THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD ››

The International Gospel

BY Z ACH K E E LE

13 47 56

INTERVIEW ››

60

BACK PAGE ››

Making Room

Q&A with C HRI ST I NE D. P O HL

BOOK REVIEWS B ONHOEFFER, KALANTZIS AND LEE, AND BEEKE AND B OEKESTEIN

Crowded House: A Short History of a Reformation Parsonage

GEEK SQUAD ››

BY BRI A N W. T HO MA S

The Practice of Table Graces

BY BRO O K E VE NT URA

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Executive Editor Ryan Glomsrud Managing Editor Patricia Anders Assistant Editor Brooke Ventura Marketing Director Michele Tedrick Design Director José Reyes for Metaleap Creative, metaleapcreative.com Department Editors Ryan Glomsrud (Letter from the Editor & Reviews), Michael S. Horton Designers Tiffany Forrester, Harold Velarde, Ashley Shugart Copy Editor Elizabeth Isaac Proofreader Ann Smith Modern Reformation © 2014 All rights reserved. ISSN-1076-7169 Modern Reformation (Subscription Department) P.O. Box 460565 Escondido, CA 92046 (855) 492-1674 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org Subscription Information US 1 YR $32. 2 YR $58. US 3 YR $78. Digital Only 1 YR $25. US Student 1 YR $26. Canada add $8 per year for postage. Foreign add $9 per year for postage.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

3

LETTER from the EDITOR

at which we extend Christ’s hospitality to others.

In antiquity, Christine Pohl reminds us, “the most hospitable communities had a strong sense of identity” and were able to welcome others “because of their deep commitments.” As Brian Thomas explains, Martin Luther and Katherine von Bora showed this same spirit of hospitality, an “invitational life,” as they welcomed many into their crowded house.

Chad Van Dixhoorn writes that love and hospitality are genuine when we extend them to others regardless of our personal convenience or profit. Brotherly love must follow Jesus’ teaching and have regard for “the least of these”—but sometimes this includes the social “pariah.” An RYAN GLOMSRUD executive editor anonymous pastor shares a story about a sex“Let love be genuine.… Contribute to the needs offender who joined his church and how that of the saints and seek to show hospitality” (Rom. congregation had to prayerfully determine the 12:9–13). “Let brotherly love continue. Do not extent of its love and hospitality. neglect to show hospitality to strangers” (Heb. In his article, Kelly Kapic explains how 13:12). As we see in just these brief examples, the Spirit of God works to bring unity among Scripture calls us to live a life of genuine love us and that we need to “make every effort to and hospitality. keep the unity of the Spirit In this issue, Michael through the bond of peace” “Beloved, let us love Horton observes that this (Eph. 4:3). And, as we learn one another, for love is divine hospitality is most from Zach Keele and Mihai from God, and whoever “fully and lavishly exhibited Corcea, we see this same in the Father’s gift of his Son Spirit working on the day loves has been born of and the Spirit who unites of Pentecost in ancient God and knows God. . . . us to him as coheirs of the Jerusalem and in today’s In this the love of God everlasting estate.” This is a Romania. Christian hoswas made manifest game-changer for our perpitality, writes Mary Ellen among us, that God sent spective on life, fellowship, Godfrey, “begins with a realhis only Son into the and stewardship. At the core ization that we have received world, so that we might of this hospitality is the love grace.” How we show hoslive through him. In this of God in Jesus Christ who, in pitality acknowledges this is love, not that we have the power of his Spirit, is our and helps us honor fellow loved God but that he love-enabler. In his article, image-bearers and children loved us and sent his Son Horton traces the scriptural of the same Lord, faith, and thread of “eating and drinking baptism (Eph. 4:5). to be the propitiation for in the presence of the Lord”— Truly, that is food for our sins. Beloved, if God the Lord’s Supper anticipating thought. so loved us, we also ought the marriage supper of the to love one another.”

Lamb (Rev. 19:7).

(1 John 4:7, 9–11) But our role now is also around more common tables

4

INTERVIEW

REFORMATION ROMANIA Q&A with MIHAI CORCEA

ILLUSTRATION BY TIFFANY FORRESTER

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

5

INTERVIEW

What is the history of Christianity in Romania?

a.

Archeological evidence for Christianity in the Romanian territories goes back to the third century AD when the proto-Romanians living in Dacia Traiana and Scythia Minor were part of the Roman Empire. In the first centuries of its existence, the Romanian Christian church was influenced by the Western church, but in the later centuries of the first millennium ties with the Byzantine church increased, so that in 1054 the Romanian churches joined the East in their separation from the Latin Church.

In the time of the Reformation, during the sixteenth century, there were a couple of attempts to bring the Reformation to the Romanian people. One of the first attempts was made by Jacob Heraclides, who ruled in the 1560s over one of the Romanian provinces. He founded a Renaissance academy and declared Lutheranism the official state church, although the vast majority of the population was Eastern Orthodox. After he was overthrown, neither the renaissance school nor Lutheranism survived.

A second attempt was made in Transylvania, which is now part of Romania, though in the sixteenth century was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. There Romanians, Hungarians, and Germans lived together, and the Hungarian Reformed Church started a mission to the Romanians. The Geneva Psalter, the Heidelberg Catechism, and other Reformed books were translated into the Romanian language, and several Romanian Reformed churches were established. However, the majority of the Romanian population remained Eastern Orthodox and became increasingly hostile toward the Reformed Romanians.

Because of this conflict, and also because of the rise of the Romanian nationalist movement, the Romanian Reformed churches died out in the nineteenth century, and the remaining Romanian Reformed believers were assimilated by the Hungarian population. Since that time, leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church has been considered by many Romanians to be not

6

only an act of spiritual apostasy but also an act of national treason.

What was the plight of the church before the fall of the Soviet Union?

a.

Although Romania was not part of the Soviet Union, the politics of Romania were shaped by Russia for almost four decades of the twentieth century. After the end of World War II, Russian troops remained stationed in Romanian territory and helped Romanian Communists overthrow the king and the democratic government of the Kingdom of Romania.

Following this, all the Christian denominations were controlled by the Communist Party, which persecuted any insubordinate Christian leaders across denominational lines. Many Christian

“I STARTED TO REALIZE THAT THE REFORMED BOOKS WERE PRESENTING DOCTRINES THAT WERE FAITHFUL TO THE TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURES, AND I WAS DELIGHTED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY AND DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMATION.�

“CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS WERE CONTROLLED

BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY, WHO PERSECUTED ANY INSUBORDINATE CHRISTIAN LEADERS ACROSS DENOMINATIONAL LINES.� priests and pastors were imprisoned, tortured, and killed for not subordinating themselves to the Communist regime and conducting ecclesiastical affairs according to the government agenda.

Religious leaders were expected to be part of the Communist propaganda and help inculcate party ideas and attitudes in the minds of the believers who attended their churches.

The Communists also created a large secret police and intelligence agency offering benefits to citizens who enrolled and provided information about their neighbors, family, and friends. Sadly, many Christian priests and pastors signed up as informers for the secret police and spied on their congregants. This introduced corruption inside all Christian denominations, who even twentyfive years after the fall of Communism are still trying to figure out how to heal these wounds.

How did you come in contact with Reformed theology?

a.

While growing up in Romania and being raised in an Arminian evangelical congregation, I started reading Christian books during my high school years. I happened to stumble upon some Calvinistic books I found at the local Christian bookstore. In the beginning, I was quite confused because it seemed that the books were contradicting one another. On the one side, I was reading Finney, who argued that spiritual revival can be produced if you know and apply the necessary methods, and on the other side I was reading Calvin, who had quite a different perspective on church life. Within a few months, however, I started to realize that the Reformed books were

presenting doctrines that were faithful to the teaching of the Scriptures, and I was delighted to learn more about the history and doctrine of the Reformation.

The first time I attended a Reformed worship service was in 2006 during a trip to the Netherlands. There I first saw what a confessional Reformed church looks like, and I was glad that my contact with Reformed theology went beyond the books I could find in my home city. I realized that is the way churches should be, but at the same time I was sad I could find no Romanian Reformed church back home.

How do you plant a church in Romania?

a.

In April 2011, I started thinking about planting a confessional Reformed church in Romania when I began meeting with a small group of Romanian believers to study Reformed doctrine.

During the year that followed, a confessional consensus emerged that we could no longer be part of evangelical churches that rejected or at least were ambivalent toward the historical Reformed confessions. Since we did not have a Romanian Reformed denomination, we tried to contact confessional Reformed churches in Southern or Eastern Europe. Shortly, Rev. Andrea Ferrari, a United Reformed Church of North America (URCNA) missionary in Milan, Italy, responded to our call for help. With the advice of the consistory, we entered in the catechetical process and became members of the Chiesa Riformata Filadelfia of Milan in July 2012. The consistory of Milan, with the concurring advice of the overseeing consistory, advised that I should come MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

7

INTERVIEW

to Westminster Seminary California to prepare for returning as a URCNA missionary to Romania. In July 2013, I started my first year of studies hoping that, Lord willing, I would be able to complete the Master of Divinity program in 2016 and return to my home country to plant a church in Bucharest. Our small group in Bucharest is looking for ways to reach other people from Bucharest with the sound doctrine recovered by the Reformation.

What are the main challenges a confessional Reformed church faces in Romania?

a. Looking at the social and religious outlook

of Romania, one of the greatest challenges for a confessional Reformed church is the fact that it represents a small minority. In Bucharest there are about two million people, of whom almost 97 percent are Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic and 1 percent are evangelicals. In differing degrees, both Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are hostile toward Reformed theology, piety, and practice. Not having another established Romanian Reformed church nearby is a challenge faced by many missionaries who are ministering in a country with little or no confessional Reformed presence. This would also be the case for the future church plant in Bucharest.

Another challenge is the relatively high level of secularism among Romanians. Although in Romania there is an overwhelming majority that identifies itself as being Christian, most people are just nominal Christians and have little or nothing to do with their church. For example, in Bucharest there are a total of about three hundred churches (including all denominations), most of them of a small to medium size, and they are rarely full on Sunday. If these three hundred churches were full on Sunday, only about 5 percent of the population would be attending. As secularized and nominal Christians, most Romanians view religion as traditional folk culture, and they seek other

8

“THE TRAUMA OF COMMUNISM AND THE MARKS OF THE 1989 REVOLUTION INCREASE THE DIFFICULTY OF COMMUNICATING TO ROMANIAN PEOPLE THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.� answers for questions related to their origin, life, and death.

Another challenge to take into consideration is the fact that Communism and the post-Communist chaos of the 1990s have made the Romanian population quite suspicious of anyone who has strong doctrinal convictions and established church government. The 1989 anti-Communist revolution left an imprint in the consciousness of many Romanians who feel called to reject any authoritative claim beyond the necessary civil government. The trauma of Communism and the marks of the 1989 Revolution increase the difficulty of communicating to Romanian people the Reformed doctrine of the church, in a way that does not endorse individualistic piety but also does not leave room for confusing proper ecclesiastical authority or church discipline with authoritarian dictatorship.

Mihai Corcea is a student at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido and a member of Chiesa Riformata Filadelfia in Milan, Italy. Read his updates at www.reformationromania.org.

C H R I S T & C U LT U R E

“ L OV E ( I I I ) ”

by GEORGE HERBERT (1593–1633)

Love bade me welcome, yet my soul drew back, Guilty of dust and sin.

But quick-ey’d Love, observing me grow slack From my first entrance in, Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning If I lack’d anything.

“A guest,” I answer’d, “worthy to be here”; Love said, “You shall be he.”

“I, the unkind, the ungrateful? ah my dear, I cannot look on thee.”

Love took my hand and smiling did reply, “Who made the eyes but I?” “Truth, Lord, but I have marr’d them; let my shame Go where it doth deserve.”

“And know you not,” says Love, “who bore the blame?”

“My dear, then I will serve.”

“You must sit down,” says Love, “and taste my meat.”

So I did sit and eat.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

9

THE

G R E AT E ST STORY EVER TOLD

The New Testament

PART V

10

THE

I N T E R N AT I O N A L GOSPEL

by ZACH KEELE

W

HEN YOU ARE surrounded by people speaking another language, it can be a bit intimidating. The foreign language may ring beautiful like an Italian opera or scratch like fingers on a chalkboard. But if you do not understand the language, it all sounds muddled, like Charlie Brown’s teacher. Languages are the walls that outline the countries of the world. More than skin color or even gender, languages partition the human race into compartments separated by misunderstanding—and misunderstanding scares us. Like the stock market, boldness suffers a bear market when misunderstanding is riding the bulls. Without a translator, in the absence of hope for understanding, we stick to ourselves and we go our own way.

This fear and intimidation (sired by misunderstanding) clearly crippled the disciples. You would think after seeing the risen Christ, the disciples would be brimming with understanding and boldness. In his resurrected glory, Jesus had talked with them. He ate fish with them. The disciples saw and touched his resurrected body. For forty days and nights, Jesus rained upon his disciples the blessing of his presence. But even after this personal encounter, the disciples kept the doors locked (John 20:26) and remained in the upper room. Going out was not on anyone’s to-do list.

Our Lord had told them, though, to stay in Jerusalem. He ordered them to wait for the promise of the Father to come: the Holy Spirit. During the

Last Supper, Christ had highlighted how essential the Spirit was for his people. Jesus had to ascend so the Spirit could come and dwell in the disciples and remain with them. The Advocate would lead them in all truth and make them witnesses. Only the wind of the Spirit could blow away the fog of misunderstanding and fear. And so with one cup obedience and one cup fear, the disciples waited, huddled in the upper room, praying. When and how would this promise from the Father come? They did not have to be patient long—a short ten days.

Counting from the day of resurrection, fifty was the magic number. From one feast day to the next, from Passover to Pentecost, the Father’s plans fulfilled the Old Testament holy feasts.

The three pilgrim feasts of the Old Testament had always been special occasions, markers and reminders of God’s great deeds. Jews from every hamlet and metropolis of the empire hitched their wagons and Oregon-trailed it to Jerusalem. Pentecost transformed Jerusalem into Times Square on New Year’s Eve. The worshippers toasted the Lord’s giving the law at Sinai, but little did the myriads know that the new was about to surpass the old.

On that day of Pentecost, the streets teemed with people, and in the temple the priests did the red-carpet walk toward center stage. Yet off to the side, there was a room. In the quiet part of town, one hundred twenty disciples prayed in the second story. But this hushed prayer meeting was about to be interrupted. Suddenly, in the blink of an eye, a MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

11

T H E G R E AT E S T S T O R Y E V E R T O L D

sound from heaven roared like a tornado. The sounds of Sinai filled the room where the disciples prayed. The crowds of pilgrims rubbernecked to see what was going on.

In the Old Testament, when the Glory-Spirit moved from the summit of Sinai to the tabernacle, the cloud of the Lord filled the Tent of Meeting (Exod. 40:34). At Solomon’s dedication of the temple, the Glory of the Lord filled the temple (1 Kings 8:10). When the Lord roared at Sinai, the people trembled and cried out in fear, “If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, we shall die” (Deut. 5:25). Moses and the priests had to flee as the Glory-Cloud filled the tabernacle and temple. What else would you expect? At a close encounter with the glorious majesty of the One God of heaven and earth, all people tremble in fear.

Yet on this Pentecost, the Glory-Spirit did not fill a room. The Spirit’s target was not an architectural structure. The sound filled the disciples’ prayer room, but the Spirit filled the disciples (Acts 2:4). Atop Sinai, the Glory of the Lord blazed in one pillar of fire encased in thick darkness (Deut. 4:11–12). At this Pentecost, many tongues of fire danced atop the heads of the disciples. Men and women were crowned with the fiery presence of the Spirit. In filling the people, the Spirit created the true and new temple of God, the church. The promise of the Father had come.

Christ had fashioned a new creation—his body, the living stones of the true temple.

The centuries of Pentecost celebrations longed for this Pentecost. The stone temple of Solomon thirsted to become flesh. And now, Christ had done it. He had poured out his Spirit and fashioned his body on earth. By faith, the Spirit made us the temple of the Living God, the body of Jesus Christ. The Glory of the Lord never shone as brightly as it did on that Pentecost.

But what was the disciples’ reaction to this fiery glory of the Spirit? History had only known fear and trembling at God’s glory. Yet on this final Pentecost, the fiery tongues made the disciples burn with a boldness that couldn’t be contained by the upper room. The disciples burst out as witnesses, as preachers of the mighty works of

12

“IN FILLING THE PEOPLE, THE SPIRIT CREATED THE TRUE AND NEW TEMPLE OF GOD, THE CHURCH. THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER HAD COME. CHRIST HAD FASHIONED A NEW CREATION—HIS BODY, THE LIVING STONES OF THE TRUE TEMPLE. ” God. So great was the Spirit’s power, the disciples found them speaking the words of God in different languages.

And what did the disciples preach? As Peter eloquently represented, the apostles spoke the gospel in foreign languages. The international pilgrims heard the good news of Jesus Christ in the tongue of their infancy. For centuries, the message of salvation had only been heard in Hebrew or later Aramaic. But on this Pentecost, the Spirit appointed translators. The gospel was to go boldly where it had never gone before—to the nations and in their own language.

Today, we can hear the greatest story ever told in our own language—be it English, Chinese, or Farsi—because Christ poured out his Spirit on Pentecost. May this glorious understanding fill us with boldness for Christ and to translate the gospel into even more languages!

Zach Keele is pastor of Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Escondido, California.

INTERVIEW

Q&A with CHRISTINE D. POHL

A

t first glance, it appears that hospitality is a pretty straightforward concept—inviting people over to your (reasonably tidy) home for a meal and conversation, for the purpose of developing your relationship and deepening your friendship. Easier said than done in twenty-first century society in the age of commuter churches, busy families, demanding work schedules, and a culture structured around the needs of the individual (instead of the needs of society as a whole). In her book Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, Dr. Christine D. Pohl explains the scriptural and historical contexts of hospitality, giving the reader a careful and comprehensive understanding of the tradition of welcoming the stranger. Earlier this year, Dr. Pohl discussed with Modern Reformation the recovery of the hospitable life in an individualistic world.

In the introduction to Making Room, you explain that ancient Israel understood themselves as “strangers and sojourners, with responsibility to care for vulnerable strangers in their midst.” How did this idea of the people of God influence the New Testament church?

a.

From the covenant between God and Abram (Gen. 15) onward, the theme of being aliens and strangers was central to Israel’s identity. Even after they received the Promised Land, the people of God were to see themselves as aliens

and tenants in it. This almost paradoxical combination of being chosen and yet aliens operated at several levels. Partly, it helped the people to remember their dependence on God and that, ultimately, everything belonged to God and they dwelt in the land by God’s grace and invitation.

But also, if everyone is an alien or stranger, it has a profoundly egalitarian impact on the community.

Additionally, it was one of the bases for Israel’s response to the literal alien or sojourner in their midst. Because of their own experience of vulnerability and need for God’s provision and grace, MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

13

INTERVIEW

Israelites were to care for the aliens among God? And how does this factor into a Christian’s them. In Exodus 23:9 we read, “You shall not understanding of hospitality? oppress a resident alien; you know the heart When we offer hospitality to someone of an alien, for you were aliens in the land who is usually overlooked or undervalued by of Egypt.” It is a basic part of the covenantal their society, we’re saying that the person is relation that the people of God understand valuable and interesting, interesting, and that themselves as aliens in the world and that they their needs matter to us. This is care for the aliens or stranga powerful expression of recogers among them. nition. Part of the way we know In the New Testament, the that we have worth and value is theme of alien identity conby how others respond to us, tinues. In 1 Peter, his letter and when we are systematically is addressed to exiles—those excluded or ignored, our sense early Christians who have of self is undermined. So when been scattered. In 2:11, Peter a person or community invites says that you are aliens, so someone to be with them and live as aliens. Here he uses gives him or her full attention, alien identity to reinforce CHRISTINE D. POHL it is a way of acknowledging the idea of living distinctly our common humanness, as from the world as God’s own well as the person’s gifts and people, holy as God is holy. needs. The Christian tradiPaul also writes that the tion provides an extraordinary Gentiles who have come to theological framework for faith are no longer aliens recognition. Both Calvin and and strangers but members Wesley understood this well of the household of God (Eph. Making Room: and articulated it beautifully.

2), so the theme is powerful Recovering So, for example—to paraand multi-stranded throughHospitality as a phrase the insights of both out Scripture. Understanding Christian Tradition men—when we encounter a ourselves as aliens or strang(Eerdmans, 1999) homeless person on the street, ers in the world helps us to we see their rough exterior and remember that we are dependegraded position. Perhaps we dent on God and are called see their need. But each person to live in a way that demonis so much more than a bundle strates to whom we belong, of needs. Each is an individual that we hold lightly onto the of infinite worth with whom things of this world and yet we share the experience of faithfully engage the world, human identity, suffering, and and that we have a special Living into need; each person bears the responsibility to those who Community: beauty of God’s image. Such experience the literal vulCultivating Practices understandings provide a nerability of being strangers. that Sustain Us foundation for viewing every (Eerdmans, 2011) stranger as having great worth, Why is it so important to recand as worthy of our attention ognize in others the image of and response.

a.

FOR FURTHER READING

14

You believe that “hospitality is fundamentally connected to a place—to a space bounded by commitments, values, and meanings” and that part of “the difficulty in recovering hospitality is connected with our uncertainty about community and particular identity.” How does the confusion of who we are and where we fit hinder our ability to share our lives with other people, even other brothers and sisters?

a. Contemporary understandings of hospital-

ity often equate it with tolerance, where there is little commitment to anything and a minimal sense of community. But historically, the most hospitable communities had a strong sense of identity, and hospitable individuals offered welcome because of their deep commitments.

There are tensions in hospitality related to welcoming people and preserving a particular identity. It was a concern for ancient Israel and the monastic tradition, and it continues to challenge hospitable communities today. When we welcome strangers into a household or community for more than a brief period, they will be changed, but so will we. Mostly this is a blessing, but it is also a continual challenge because it requires that we think about what defines our communities, where we need to be more porous, and what it means to be faithful. Understanding that we are called by God to welcome strangers reverses the cultural focus on self and pushes us outward. We find ourselves and our place partly by caring for others and making a place for them.

What does a group’s commitment to hospitality look like, and how does welcoming a stranger combine public and private life?

a. Hospitality is most commonly understood

to be rooted in the household—homes are our most personal and intimate space for welcoming people. Inviting someone in to share a meal or a place to stay is a basic expression of hospitality. But today our households are often empty and all the adults are working outside the home.

There isn’t much structure into which to welcome folks—so a recovery of the importance of the household seems crucial. But it is still not

“WHEN WE WELCOME STRANGERS INTO A HOUSEHOLD OR COMMUNITY FOR MORE THAN A BRIEF PERIOD, THEY WILL BE CHANGED, BUT SO WILL WE.” enough. If our focus is on welcoming strangers, we also need to pay attention to threshold places.

Before folks are welcomed into the intimacy of our homes, we often need more public spaces in which we can begin to get to know one another. In the past, the front porch and the city gate served as threshold places. Today we need to find or create equivalents—it could be our place of employment, school, or a church dinner or activity.

Hospitality, however, is bigger than the household. Because it is a way of life, we can embody it in all sorts of situations. Churches and communities are particularly important in offering welcome and in creating life-giving environments.

How does gracious hospitality effectively minister to the marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities?

a. In our age of specialization, we have tended

to assume that there is a professional who is trained to meet every need. But people are not just a collection of needs; they are individual human beings. Untrained people often feel like they aren’t equipped to welcome someone with a significant disability or a troubled home situation. But what ordinary, untrained followers of Christ have to offer is distinct. People don’t necessarily need another program to meet their needs; they need a family or a community to which they can belong. They don’t want to be another of our projects; they want friends. And that is what hospitality can offer—the chance to recover the significance of relationships in the healing of persons and communities.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

15

Partner with Us.

HELP OTHERS KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHY THEY BELIEVE IT. Through your monthly support as a partner of White Horse Inn you will help others rediscover the riches of the Reformation.

Our partnership benefits include a subscription to Modern Reformation, private partner podcast or CDs, books, and invitations to special events.

TO B E C OM E A PA RTNER , VISIT W H ITEHO R SEI NN.ORG/SUP P ORT.

features 18

FEASTING WITH CHRIST

30

BE MY GUEST

26

THE INVITATIONAL LIFE

36

WELCOMING A PARIAH?

40

SPIRIT-FORMED COMMUNITIES MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

17

FEASTING WITH CHRIST

by MICHAEL S. HORTON

18

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

19

H

ospitality is a fading art. Of course, we still host and enjoy meals at one another’s homes. But now they are often lavish with hours of preparation, putting out the china for the boss or for friends. It’s hard to imagine what was normal not that long ago: making an extra bowl of stew in case someone dropped in for dinner, or checking in on the elderly neighbor a few houses down, inviting a new employee we met at work to enjoy a meal or a movie, or taking a meal to a family with a new baby. Many of us recall Sunday dinners when you never knew exactly who would be coming over after church—or how many. In the ancient world—which lacked hotels, restaurants, and electric lights for evening travel—hospitality included strangers. It may not have been a lavish feast, but there was always something in case someone dropped in unexpectedly.

Where the habits of modern life have not yet become dominant, hospitality to strangers remains a significant feature of traditional cultures—in the East and West. Addressing his report to Greek patron Theophilus, Luke—a physician and an intimate of Peter and Paul—set out to compose “an orderly account” of Jesus’ life, ministry, and teachings by interviewing eyewitnesses. His complete work, Luke’s Gospel and Acts, documents the expansion of the kingdom from Jerusalem to “the ends of the earth,” concluding with Paul’s preaching in Rome. A new family is being created out of Adam’s fallen race, a true Israel out of the fallen nation. In short, the host of the banquet has arrived and is welcoming his guests to the feast that never ends.

20

In the central section of Luke’s Gospel, we are told, “When the days drew near for him to be taken up, [Jesus] set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51). And yet what follows—for ten chapters—is a miscellany of apparently unrelated sayings, controversies, and parables. Whatever happened to the journey to Jerusalem? Yet everything in this central section is like a parenthesis in the journey, as Jesus reveals himself as the Master of the House who is sending out his emissaries to gather guests for his feast. In other words, everything here indicates precisely what Jesus is going to do when he reaches Jerusalem.

As we see in Acts, hospitality was at the heart of Christian community. Yet it was grounded ultimately not in social custom but in the hospitality

that God shows to his enemies as he brings sinners, outcasts, even Gentile strangers to the covenant. As we’ll see below, Jesus upbraided the Pharisees for their highly selective “hospitality”—that is, separating the respectable from the outcast and demanding the best seat at the table. The gospel reveals a hospitality that is most fully and lavishly exhibited in the Father’s gift of his Son and the Spirit who unites us to him as coheirs of the everlasting estate. In what follows, I want to look at Luke’s Gospel, particularly the integrating motif of “eating and drinking in the presence of the Lord” that displays obvious and intentional echoes of Deuteronomy.

THE J O U R N EY I NG GUEST I N D E U TE R O NO M Y In order to see what Luke is up to, it is important to explore the Old Testament backdrop. The theme of eating and drinking in the presence of God is prominent from Genesis to Revelation. Instead of waiting for their host to give them the fruit from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve wanted their Happy Meal and ordered from their own menu.

After the golden calf incident, when God renewed his covenant with Israel, God called Moses, Aaron and his sons (Nadab and Abihu), and seventy elders to ascend the mountain into the cloud of his presence.

There the Lord ratified the covenant as his guests “beheld God, and ate and drank” (Exod. 24:11). Moses then received the tablets of the Ten Commandments and remained on the mountain, in the cloud with God, for forty days and forty nights (v. 18).

For their continued unbelief, however, most of the desert generation were barred (along with Moses) from entering the Promised Land. Instead of enduring the trial and entering the land “flowing with milk and honey,” that generation died just short of the Jordan River. Significantly, God commanded the Bread of the Presence to be placed in the Holy of Holies as a perpetual confirmation of his provision for his people (Exod. 25:30).

This theme of journeying to the feast where there is “eating and drinking in the presence of the Lord” is evident especially in Deuteronomy. That is the great goal of the Promised Land, “flowing with milk and honey,” we are repeatedly told. In fact, God tells them that immediately on entering Canaan they are

“THE GOSPEL REVEALS A HOSPITALITY THAT IS MOST FULLY AND LAVISHLY EXHIBITED IN THE FATHER’S GIFT OF HIS SON AND THE SPIRIT WHO UNITES US TO HIM AS COHEIRS OF THE EVERLASTING ESTATE.” to “sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deut.

27:7). It will be a place where only the best wine will be produced. In the wilderness, God says that apart from the miraculous provision, “You did not eat bread, you did not drink wine or strong drink” (Deut.

29:6). Yet the ultimate goal was feasting with God, rejoicing together with the saints in his fulfillment of his covenant promises (Deut. 14:23, for example).

AVOI DI NG T HE F E A ST Like Adam, the unbelieving generation in the wilderness “demanded the food they craved” instead of trusting God to host his own banquet with them in Canaan (Ps. 78:18). Already in Deuteronomy 1, the people delivered in the exodus are found questioning God’s promise instead of entering his rest. Moses asks for permission simply to pass through the territory of pagan kings, but they offer no hospitality and instead declare war. Yet even after handing these MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

21

kings over to Israel, God tells Moses that he will be barred from leading his people into Canaan because of his conduct in the wilderness (3:26).

At Sinai, Moses passionately exhorts Israel to keep God’s covenant and so become his holy nation, “a light to the Gentiles” (4:6). He calls them to remember that Yahweh fed them miraculously in the wilderness despite their rebellious hearts, but they must follow God’s word rather than their stomachs (8:1–10). Yet even while Moses receives the law on the mountain, the people are committing idolatry around the golden calf (9:13–16). The Lord was ready to destroy them, but Moses interceded for the people and God relented (9:17–29).

Everything else in the historical books and the prophets moves toward Jerusalem—Mount Zion, the place where God will dwell. Mount Sinai is a desert weigh station between Egypt and Canaan. No longer merely leading the journeying people, pitching his tent outside the camp, God will make his permanent dwelling “in their midst”—Immanuel, “God with us.”

Be silent before the Lord God! For the day of the Lord is near; the Lord has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests. (Zeph. 1:7) THE M A STE R O F T H E HO U S E PREPA R E S H I S FE AST The theme of “eating and drinking in the presence of the Lord” is carried forward in the New Testament, beginning with Jesus’ trial in the desert—for forty days and forty nights, recapitulating Israel’s trial (and echoing Moses’ mediation on the mountain with God for forty days and forty nights). This time, however, Jesus rebuffed the serpent’s enticement for “glory now.” Instead of demanding the food he craved, Jesus replied with the words of Moses in Deuteronomy: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matt. 4:4).

Jesus is “the prophet like Moses” (Deut. 18:15– 19). In Deuteronomy 12–26, the central theme is “eating and drinking before the Lord” in the place that he has appointed. There is also the appointed time with the major feasts: Passover (the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” and the “cup of salvation”) and Pentecost (also known as Tabernacles or Booths) celebrating the final harvest in which the

22

“LUKE’S POINT IS THAT IT IS THE NEW MOSES WHO SPEAKS FROM THE MOUNTAIN.” households are told to “rejoice in the feast” (6:13– 15; cf. 31:10–13).

Luke’s Gospel particularly emphasizes the theme of Jesus as the journeying guest who is not received, even by his own (9:52–19:44). In fact, he is rejected in Jerusalem (Luke 19:45–23:49). “Eating and drinking in the presence of the Lord” (Luke 13:25) explicitly invokes the covenantal meals of the Old Testament. Only now, it is the “insiders” who refuse the invitation and are cast out, and the “outsiders” who are seated at the kingdom feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

It soon becomes obvious, however, that Jesus is not just a distinguished guest of the great feast.

Moses, Elijah, and John the Baptist were servants and messengers, but Jesus is the Master of the House. Rejected by his own, just as he was when the spies returned with their firstfruits of the good land, he nevertheless sends his messenger “into the highways and byways” to gather guests for his banquet. Jesus moves toward Jerusalem, teaching the disciples to invite to the banquet those who cannot repay them (Luke 14:14). After all, isn’t that what God does with us?

The central section of Luke then puts the spotlight on Jesus as the one greater than Moses, leading his coheirs to a greater feast. It is a “new exodus.” In the transfiguration, we read that Moses and Elijah were engaged in conversation with Jesus, “speaking about his exodus [exodos] which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem” (9:31).

Luke’s point is that it is the new Moses who speaks from the mountain. Even the grumbling of the Pharisees is meant to echo the grumbling Israelites at Sinai and in the wilderness. With the disciples, we too are provoked to ask, “Who are the true leaders—the true stewards—of Israel?” As each

episode unfolds, it becomes clear that it is not the religious leaders. They are offended at this rabbi who “eats and drinks with sinners.” But Jesus turns their inhospitality back on them: they are the ones who killed even their own prophets. Now the Son himself has arrived and they want to kill him too, unfolding between Luke 9:52 and 19:44.

Although Jesus is refused hospitality in a Samaritan village, he rebukes his own disciples for wanting to call down “fire from heaven.” It is not yet the final judgment (9:52–56). It is Christ’s hospitality, not the Samaritans’ lack of it, that is in view. Recall in Deuteronomy that Moses sent out messengers but was denied permission from the pagan kings to pass through their territory on

their way to Canaan. Jesus also sends out messengers for the same purpose in 9:52–10:1 but is denied hospitality. A few join him on his journey to the feast, but generally he is rejected. But it is the Jewish leaders who reject the Master of the House who are more culpable.

Even Jesus’ sayings about riches in 12:13–48 focus specifically on the urgency of this journey to Jerusalem. As in the first exodus, those who turn their face to Jerusalem must dress for the road.

The fool will be distracted by daily cares, but Jesus warns, “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so they may open the door to him at once when he MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

23

comes and knocks.” It is the religious leaders, as false servants, who exploit the master’s delay by raiding his wine cellar and meat locker for their own party (12:45–46).

Counting the cost, good stewardship, and being watchful for the master’s arrival aren’t generic proverbs of piety, but they are part of this overarching theme of the master who is not only refused hospitality as a guest on the road but must face a stand-off for his own house when he arrives in Jerusalem.

Before we rush to draw legitimate applications, it is crucial to recognize the uniqueness of this journey. When Jesus and the disciples arrive in Jerusalem, he becomes increasingly isolated. He does there what only he can do—suffer for our sins while his disciples scatter, disillusioned that the Master of the House has been murdered by unrighteous servants.

“I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Luke 12:49–55) The house will be divided, and the wicked will treat the disciples as they have treated the Master, but they will be cast out of the house into outer darkness forever, barred from the feast. But this is still the time of gathering guests for the feast, not the final judgment. At dinner with a ruler of the Pharisees, Jesus focused directly on the wedding feast (Luke 14). Unlike the Pharisees, Jesus’ disciples show hospitality at the wedding feast, being willing to take “the lowest seat” to make room for others (vv. 7–11). Don’t invite those who can repay you, Jesus says, but rather “the crippled, the lame, the blind” (v. 12). “When one of those [Pharisees] who reclined at table with him heard these things, he said to him, ‘Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (v. 15). This pious exclamation, however, sets this reality off in the distance, something that doesn’t really impose any obligation on us now.

But Jesus continues with the parable of the wedding banquet. The great feast promised in the prophets is a great idea in principle, but when invitations are actually sent out, everyone seems to have an excuse. The original guest list dwindles,

24

so the master sends his servants out to the alleys to “compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those who were invited shall taste my banquet” (Luke 14:23–24). The promised feasting in God’s kingdom is no longer a pious hope, but a present reality. The Master of the House is dining with them, but as their judge whom they reject.

All of the other parables are different ways of making the same point. In Luke 15 the real master of the house is a Good Shepherd who finds even the one sheep who has strayed (vv. 1–7), the woman who sweeps the whole house just to find one lost coin (vv. 8–10), and the father whose exuberance over the return of his prodigal son provokes a lavish feast in celebration that fills the older brother with jealous rage (vv. 11–32).

T HE GU E ST AS T HE HOST: T H E SE RVA NT A S T HE M AST E R OF T HE HOU SE As Jesus nears Jerusalem, he foretells his death, but his disciples do “not grasp what was said” (Luke 18:31–34). He heals a blind beggar and invites himself to dinner at the house of Zacchaeus, a tax collector—“for the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost”—while the Pharisees murmur again that he eats and drinks with sinners (19:1–10).

With the triumphal entry, Jesus finally arrives at his destination. His actions during Holy Week are the culmination of this theme of the Master returning to his house amid the wicked tenants who kill the prophets sent, even the Son himself (20:9–18).

“DON’T INVITE THOSE WHO CAN REPAY YOU, JESUS SAYS, BUT RATHER ‘THE CRIPPLED, THE LAME, THE BLIND.’”

“AT PASSOVER, JESUS EATS AND DRINKS WITH HIS DISCIPLES IN THE UPPER ROOM.... MOSES AND THE ELDERS ATE AND DRANK WITH GOD AS GUESTS ON THE MOUNTAIN, BUT JESUS TAKES OVER THIS MEAL AS THE HOST.” He speaks of the temple as his house and drives out the money changers, but also foretells the destruction of the temple (21:5–9) and subsequent wars and persecution before the return of the Son of Man in judgment (vv. 10–28). Yahweh has installed his king on his holy hill, inviting all peoples to his feast.

At Passover, Jesus eats and drinks with his disciples in the upper room. Moses saw the Lord’s arm in the first exodus, but the one standing before them is the Exodus Lord. Moses and the elders ate and drank with God as guests on the mountain, but Jesus takes over this meal as the host. Here is a king who, instead of gorging himself, feeds others, just as he had fed the five thousand. Here is a king who, instead of demanding their blood to enrich his estate, gives his blood to deliver his estate to his enemies and outcasts. It is the cup of salvation and the bread of life that he gives them, “the new covenant in my blood” (22:20).

In this Supper, he makes himself the sacrificial meal, replacing Passover, promising to share the meal with us only when he comes in his kingdom (v. 18).

Finally, in Luke 24—the day of the resurrection—

Jesus meets two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Even though it is the day of the greater exodus, they are confused by the events and reports of the empty tomb. After proclaiming himself from the Law and the prophets, he accepts their invitation to dinner.

Jesus knows the rules of hospitality, and rather than lording it over them as he could have (revealing himself as the Risen King all at once), he lets himself be a stranger, invited to dinner simply because “it is toward evening and the day is now far spent” (v.

29). Even after the resurrection, Jesus displays his humility, serving us in descending mercy.

Reversing the proper roles of hospitality, Jesus becomes the host (vv. 33–35). Just as the disciples had entered the upper room for one meal (Passover), only to receive a new meal (the Lord’s Supper), now Jesus takes over and transforms an ordinary meal into the first post-resurrection Eucharist. As he does, their sorrow is turned to joy and their unbelief is turned to recognition. The formula here, reminiscent of the words of the upper room in Luke 22, is unmistakable: “took…broke…gave.” As Calvin points out, not only in the action but in the form of words that Jesus repeated, the disciples recognize the one who instituted this Supper. “And their eyes were opened and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight” (v. 31). The preaching of the Word gave the content, but through the action of Jesus as the host of this meal they recognize him as the Lord of the Banquet. At last the “breaking of the bread” in the upper room makes sense as the breaking of Christ’s body for the life of his people.

The good news begins with the nucleus of this first band of Christians and then works itself out to “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth.”

Our Eucharistic table is not the heavenly wedding banquet; it is the sacrificial meal in which Christ is the food and drink. Through this, we proclaim Christ’s death until he returns and we participate in the renewing powers of the age to come. We taste the morsels of that wedding banquet when the meal of Christ’s sacrifice will become the feast of unending delight. On that day, Christ will be the host rather than the meal, and we will eat and drink with him in an everlasting exchange of gifts.

Michael S. Horton is editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

25

The

INVITATIONAL LIFE Extending the Hospitality of Christ

by CRAIG VAN DIXHOORN

26

I

T WAS THE PERFECT MEAL PLAN:

lunch for three with French fries and chicken pot pies—a two dollar lunch that even I could cook. I read the instructions on both packages and simply averaged oven times and temperatures to thirty minutes and 400 degrees for everything. It was August in Philadelphia, and the defunct A/C window unit created only noise, blocked any breeze, and was no match for the oven. We moved to my bedroom to eat. Our female friend gestured to my other guest and me, indicating that we could take the chairs while she would sit on the bottom bunk. That bunk only enjoyed two surviving slats near the center of the mattress. Each night my roommate sat carefully on the midpoint of the bed and gingerly spread himself north and south at an even pace, minding the weight distribution on either side of the fulcrum. Thinking my choked noises and hand waving were merely expressions of chivalry, she plopped herself down cheerfully at the foot of the bed, only to lurch to her feet as the bed gave way beneath her—thus whacking her head on the steel support of the bunk above.

Dizzy with pain, she fell backwards, hot chicken broth spilling onto her lap. Within minutes they had thanked me for lunch and were gone.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

27

I think word got out. Occasionally innocents would come for a Sunday lunch, but the best defense is a good offense, and most people would invite me over to their home or volunteer to bring a lunch to mine. My friends thought it was another bachelor trick. To this day, I continue to protest that I have never deliberately injured a guest.

The word hospitable actually means “lover of strangers.” There have always been times and places where traveling Christians have found it difficult to find or afford public lodging. Leaders in the church are to care for these people and to set an example of hosting the people of God who happen to be passing through. At the time of the early church, inns were generally risky or raunchy, so hospitality to any person was an act of kindness. But as we can see in 1 Peter 4:9, Christians were especially called to “show hospitality to one another.” Christians were often poor—particularly traveling Christian teachers. And even if they were not in dire straits, Christians thrived and grew from good fellowship. Still today, hospitality is not only for those who really need it; it is also for any who could be

“THE SABBATH OFFERED THE EASIEST TIME OF THE WEEK TO CARRY OUT THIS CALLING, AND, WITH ALL ITS FAULTS, THE CHURCH OF MY YOUTH SAW A PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITY AND SEIZED IT.” 28

encouraged by it. This does not mean that the homes of pastors and elders need to serve as hotels for vacationing Christians. It does remind us, however, that God places a premium on leaders serving those who have no realistic opportunity of serving them or their church in return, and traveling strangers often fit that bill better than anyone else.

Paul sees hospitality as a key qualification for elders, and I am sure we can infer a few reasons for this. Suffice it to say that many people come to love Christ and his church because the people are so kind, not because the preachers are so helpful. In fact, my awareness of hospitality did not start with an interest in the pastoral ministry. I grew up in a Christian community where some of the traditional Reformed casuistry about what was permissible on the Sabbath was solved with a simple sandwich: worship at both ends of the Lord’s day with hospitality in between. The Sabbath-supper club, or dinner club, made almost intuitive sense, as three biblical authors and four books of Scripture urge Christians to show hospitality (Rom. 12; 1 Tim. 5; Heb. 13; 1 Pet. 4). The Sabbath offered the easiest time of the week to carry out this calling, and, with all its faults, the church of my youth saw a practical opportunity and seized it.

Cyril of Alexandria once wrote that “if you receive a brother, do not be distracted by too much serving, and do not attempt what is beyond your strength.

Unnecessary effort is always tedious, and such exertions will only embarrass your guests.” Hospitality is not entertainment. At the same time, we are not supposed to offer hospitality only when it is convenient!

That is why Cyril went on to say, “Do not let your guest become a cause for impoverishing yourself, but even in hard times be as generous as you can.”

To say that an elder is hospitable is not the same as saying that an elder is to “entertain,” at least not in the modern sense of that word. Today, entertainment suggests offering great food and displaying good dishes. It promises hosts who are fresh and attentive, a home that is presentable for guests.

Entertainment can be wonderful. But it is not to be confused with a service per se.

Hospitality can involve serving leftovers or hot dogs. It might involve bringing people into a house that has not been readied. Perhaps a caveat can be issued to explain that nothing fancy will be served.

The point is that hospitality extends itself because of the needs of others and not because it is convenient for ourselves. Christian hospitality sometimes

“HOSPITALITY EXTENDS ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE NEEDS OF OTHERS AND NOT BECAUSE IT IS CONVENIENT FOR OURSELVES. CHRISTIAN HOSPITALITY SOMETIMES NEEDS TO BE RADICAL; IT MAY OFTEN BE UNPLANNED AND EVEN WEARYING.…

IT IS A HOME THAT IS OPEN FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN CHRIST AND FOR THOSE WHO STILL NEED TO.” needs to be radical. It may often be unplanned and even wearying. It considers those who are traveling through town on a Sunday—strangers, the lonely, or the needy—and not simply old friends and exciting guests. It is a home that is open for those who trust in Christ and for those who still need to.

In an age of commuter churches, will someone really want to visit when we live a half hour from church? Surprisingly often, the answer is yes.

Christians are starved for “real” face time, much more so than good cooking. And it’s okay to start small. Early in our marriage my wife and I offered people straightened coat hangers, hot dogs, and the fireplace in our living room. Add a few pizza bagels and everyone was happy to cook what they wanted.

That is not to say that there was no cost. We had less time together, and sometimes we invited people to our home hoping the Lord would give us strength to go without some much-preferred rest. He often rewarded us with sufficient energy and renewed joy.

Offering hospitality has never been easy, perhaps especially to overnight guests and especially for the early church. You can just imagine Josephus Christian entering his kitchen and noting that the Apostle Paul had once again beaten him to the Galatia Daily Gazette or the Pontus Morning Post. The host’s daughter is pouting because the apostle accidentally took her favorite chair. His wife gives him a look that says, “It’s lovely to host

the missionaries, but when will they be going to Macedonia?”

Peter calls us to show hospitality without grumbling (1 Pet. 4:9). That’s disappointing, because Christians are skilled grumblers. We prefer the path of easy obedience, and we dislike the expense or the inconvenience of hospitality. Truth be told, we sometimes set up spouses or roommates for grumbling when we surprise a cook with visitors.

In my mind, it could help a little if we tried to anticipate hospitality in advance—stocking up with some easy meals in the freezer or expanding the grocery budget, if possible, in hopes of being able to love another Christian in a practical way.

Of course, thinking ahead about hospitality is just the sort of thing that our Father in heaven has done for us. He had a plan for welcoming us into his home from the beginning. And when it came time for Jesus Christ to leave his disciples on earth, what did he promise? That he would go and make a place for them. In extending hospitality, we are doing to others only what he has done for us. He has prepared a place for us, and his home is always open.

Craig Van Dixhoorn teaches church history and practical theology at Reformed Theological Seminary D.C. He has served as associate minister of Cambridge Presbyterian Church and Grace Presbyterian Church in Vienna, Virginia.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

29

BE my

GUEST

by MARY ELLEN GODFREY

30

IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST, how hosts and guests were to behave toward one another was carefully regulated by custom and tradition. Dinner guests knew what was expected of them, and hosts were bound by well-accepted and even formulaic guidelines on how to make their guests feel welcome. A mother a generation or two ago might hand her daughter a copy of Emily Post’s Book of Etiquette (now in its eighteenth edition) to show how to exercise good manners, make polite conversation, write a formal reply to a formal invitation, even learn the format for a thank you note.1 As late as the middle of the twentieth century, hostesses were taught to set a table quite properly, right down to the sterling silver shrimp forks and starched linen napkins.

Though not quite like the dinner parties described in Edith Wharton’s Age of Innocence, propriety still reigned. And lest we sniff at formality in the twenty-first century, perhaps we should note the current popularity of the PBS series Downton Abbey in which the father, the earl of Grantham, thinks “informal” attire is a black tie and a dinner jacket. We do not have to look far to see that social customs have changed in our century and that “informal” means something very different.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

31

So what are we to make of the cultural gulf between Emily Post and the drive to be more “real” and “authentic” in our social interaction? Today we often shun anything that smacks of the contrived or the traditional. Quite recently I was invited to a virtual shower where gifts were prescribed for the bride, whom we never saw. What are we to think about hospitality in the day when e-vites, text messages, and Twitter have replaced written invitations? Too often, Millennials think of etiquette that regulates hospitality as staid, stiff, and unnatural, out of sync with modern life. How then do we negotiate the reality of informality that sometimes slips into rude thoughtlessness in the name of freedom from convention? How do we encourage a new generation to practice and receive hospitality in the twenty-first century?

DEF IN I NG H O SPI TAL IT Y This is a challenging task that must begin with considering the basic and foundational principles behind hospitality and etiquette, no matter what the cultural norms of a given age or society. Particularly for Christians, hospitality begins with a realization that we have received grace. Gratitude for Christ’s love and mercy should impel us to be gracious to neighbors, fellow believers, and others we encounter. Peter reminds Christians, “Above all, love each other deeply” (1 Pet. 4: 8).2 Proper etiquette is preeminently one expression of mutual love and regard that says, “I care about you and want you to enjoy our fellowship together.” Paul in his Epistles regularly includes hospitality as one of the Christian virtues that should characterize those who have received the grace of Christ. In Romans 12:13 Paul urges, “Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.” The origin of hospitality is grace.

The outworking of grace is love. The result is looking to the interests of others ahead of our own (Phil.

2: 3). This consciousness of grace and love motivates true hospitality. The calling is to show hospitality as gracious hosts and guests so that the love of Christ may show through us.

Mindful of Oscar Wilde’s comment, “The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on,” I will dare to give some practical advice that grows out of my experience with hospitality, both given and received. Primarily, it is important to show

32

“PARTICULARLY FOR CHRISTIANS, HOSPITALITY BEGINS WITH A REALIZATION THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED GRACE. GRATITUDE FOR CHRIST’S LOVE AND MERCY SHOULD IMPEL US TO BE GRACIOUS TO NEIGHBORS, FELLOW BELIEVERS, AND OTHERS WE ENCOUNTER.” consideration as host and as guest. The best social occasions involve guests and hosts outdoing one another in showing consideration. Hosts make the guests comfortable and guests offer to pitch in to help. As a host I have enjoyed having people in my home, getting to know them, and having interesting conversation. Hospitality has always included food and drink around a table or even in a circle of TV trays. While hospitality usually, but not always, involves food and drink, the most important element of hospitality is lively conversation.

FAC E -TO - FACE , NOT S C R E E N-TO - S CRE E N Conversation is central to genuine hospitality and personal, face-to-face communication in our social media age is a special gift and skill to be cultivated.

A host’s responsibility is to facilitate conversation and to be sure that everyone is involved, especially if guests come from a variety of backgrounds. I have found it important to think about where to seat your guests and how I can help guide the conversation with questions. People enjoy talking about

themselves and their experiences rather than being lectured by one or two people all night. Authentic conversation is not always as easy as it sounds, because good conversation not only involves talking but also requires listening. Christians should be good listeners because we are used to listening to the word of God. Listening carefully, with attention to how and why a guest is talking about a particular subject, requires skill and discipline, which isn’t easy to cultivate in our individualistic time.

Perhaps you have heard warnings against discussing controversial subjects around the dinner table.

Etiquette guru Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners) is often asked why we should avoid controversial topics: “What are we supposed to talk about—the weather?” People often intend this question “as an indictment of etiquette as being either so draconian as to repress all but the blandest conversation, or so wimpy as to be unable to tolerate discussion on any but the least controversial subjects.”3 Miss Manners writes that civil conversation requires keeping passions in check to involve a reasonable and civil interchange, characterized with a measure of goodwill. This is one way for guests to explore controversial topics by genuinely listening to and thinking about other points of view and perhaps drawing new conclusions that they have never considered before.

Guests and hosts have a responsibility not to dominate conversation and to be intentionally attentive to others. A pet peeve of mine today is when a guest will sit in the corner on her cell phone playing games, checking ballgame scores, or texting a friend. As a gracious guest, be attentive, unplug, and enter into the conversation going on. Put the smartphone down and leave Angry Birds at home. Miss Manners says that the true purpose of a dinner party

is conversation. Enjoy making acquaintances into friends. Get to know others and build genuine relationships through conversation around a good meal.

T IME I S OF T HE E SSE NCE In addition to fostering and managing conversation, hospitality requires mutual consideration and demands, making clear the terms of an invitation.

Hosts should consider the needs of their guests. Give an adequate time for people to respond to invitations so they can arrange their schedules accordingly, plan for babysitters if they have children, arrange transportation if necessary. It often helps to give families with young children an option on time in case they need to arrange their child’s schedule accordingly to be home in time for the babysitter to make curfew or to put the children to sleep. As a host, be flexible. Let your guests know if children are included in the invitation or if it is an adults-only occasion.

Guests should be aware that unless specifically MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

33

invited, children are not included (nursing babies excepted). As a host I sometimes include children, and when I do, I put up the breakables, bring out the toys, secure the hazards under the kitchen sink, and make the children comfortable so their parents may enjoy the fellowship and conversation of the occasion. When only adults are included, conversation can be more meaningful and uninterrupted. Think about inviting a diverse group to encourage fellowship among people of different ages, backgrounds, and experiences.

Respecting the terms of an invitation means that guests need to respond promptly to the invitations in the prescribed manner—by prepaid reply card, a click of the mouse, a phone call, text, or e-mail. It is frustrating for hosts not to know how many people they are preparing to have in their home. “RSVP” is often ignored and guests fail to reply. Perhaps people today don’t understand the meaning of “RSVP”— répondez s’il vous plaît, respond if you please.

Need I say, respond politely? Once I invited to Thanksgiving dinner a young man who had no friends or family in the area. He told me he would consider it if nothing better came along—he was not joking.

He did come to dinner, and I repressed saying most of the things that ran through my thoughts! Failing to reply promptly and decisively is thoughtless, and I am sure that more than one parent has wound up paying for wedding reception dinners for people who did not reply or who were simply no-shows.

Respecting an invitation means demonstrating an awareness of time constraints. Notice the posted times for an open house. Be on time for dinner so hot food can be served to everyone at the appointed hour. Do not be one of those guests who overstay their welcome. If no times were specified on the invitation, be alert to signs that your host is ready to end the evening. Check for signs of fatigue on the part of your hosts or signals, such as their standing up and moving dishes to the kitchen. Once, a friend could not impress upon his guests that it was time to leave.

He finally stood up and said with a big smile, “Please continue enjoying your conversation, and when you have finished, turn off the lights, and put the door on the latch. I am going to bed.” I have also been a guest where I needed to leave and found no opportunity. For parents, it is always possible to plead that the babysitter’s time to go home is approaching. If no children are involved, simply plead that you have an early start in the morning and should be getting home.

34

TABLE TALK by Sarah Searle

S

ome of life’s most important discussions take place over a shared meal and table.

King Arthur famously gathered his knights

around a table, and Thomas Jefferson hashed out some of his nascent country’s most critical compromises not in a stateroom, but around his dining room table. Recent studies have shown that even the most humble of these fixtures—the household kitchen table—can make us happier, healthier, and even smarter, if we just gather there.

What is it about sitting down to a table? As we draw our chairs close, something happens: we talk.

Maybe it’s the leveling of gazes or the unifying purpose of eating and drinking. Maybe it’s the expanse of shared, common space. Maybe it’s the mere fact that you can’t escape: unlike cocktail party chit-chat, conversation can’t end at a dinner table when you spot a friend across the room. Sitting down to a table is a commitment, whether for a ten-minute bowl of cereal or a long-lingering supper.

Discussion around the communal table takes many forms. Table talk can be witty and stimulating, but more often than not it is much more low-key; it is always, though, about sharing and shared experience. For some, the dinner table might be the only place they can talk about their day, or hear about their partner’s or kid’s day. For others, it’s the weekend brunch that allows time for the slow catching up that weekdays may not allow. The recounting of daily life over the table allows us to focus our attention.

I’ll never forget entering the house of dear friends, bursting with news and being urged to wait until dinner to tell the story—not because they were unexcited to hear the details, but because they wanted to be able to relish them, fully attentive to me.

In French, the call to eat the evening meal is not “Dinner!” but instead “À table!”—a distinction that should not be lost on us. When invited to eat or drink, we’re not simply being summoned. The call to the table is so much more.

THE ABOVE IS EXCERPTED AND REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM SARAH SEARLE FROM KINFOLK MAGAZINE: A GUIDE FOR SMALL GATHERINGS 4:127 AT WWW.KINFOLK.COM/TABLE-TALK. SARAH BLOGS AT CASAYELLOW.COM.

“MY CHINA AND FLATWARE MAY BE FROM THE GOODWILL, BUT I SHOULD NOT BE EMBARRASSED TO PUT IT OUT ON THE TABLE WITH CARE, WITH A FEW FLOWERS FROM MY YARD AND A CENTERPIECE BOWL OF FRUIT.” GRACI O U S, NOT O ST E NTAT IO U S Concern for your guests should show in a variety of ways. As a host I try to put out the best that I have.

My china and flatware may be from the Goodwill, but I should not be embarrassed to put it out on the table with care, with a few flowers from my yard and a centerpiece bowl of fruit. This does not mean that informal entertaining is precluded. Barbeques and paper plates can also foster good conversation. The important thing is to put guests at ease. My hope is that guests will appreciate my efforts, eat happily, and not complain about simple food. When my husband first started as a professor, we lived near the seminary. Students would frequently drop by, often around dinner time. I never hesitated to put out the best I had even if it was only soup and toasted cheese sandwiches. My guests were there for fellowship and conversation, and the meal was secondary, but it was the best I had to offer at the time.

I have always appreciated the concern expressed when my host calls to run the menu by me to be sure I do not have a peanut allergy, am not lactose intolerant, or a vegetarian. This saves embarrassing or worrying me as a guest and saves the host the frustration of preparing a meal that may go uneaten.

It is also the guest’s responsibility to let the hosts know of severe allergies or dietary issues if they haven’t asked in advance. Some issues are the guest’s responsibility. Ultimately, it is my responsibility as a diabetic to manage my own blood sugar and not to expect the host to manage my diet for me. I believe it is my responsibility to select food items and portions of what is served that are healthy for me.

T HE T HA NK YOU NOT E Finally, it is important as a guest to express gratitude to your host. Thankfulness should be a mark of Christian hospitality as much as consideration, conversation, and concern for one another. As a guest, it is thoughtful for you to take a hospitality gift—candy, flowers, or a pound of coffee. Afterward, a thank you phone call, e-mail, or text are possibilities, but I still think there is no substitute for a handwritten note, which is your personal, thoughtful response for a time of conversation, food, and fellowship. Giving thanks helps you to remember what you owe to your host, and as a Christian it helps you practice gratitude.

In a time when so much interaction takes place on social media and from a distance, showing and enjoying hospitality is a great gift that enables people to connect with one another through faceto-face conversation. We are personally enriched by those who invite us into their homes, and those who come into our homes for food and conversation, opening up our view on the world in a personal way that virtual interaction does not.

Mary Ellen Godfrey has been a lecturer at Westminster Seminary California, is an educational writer, and a contributor to Modern Reformation. She lives in Escondido with her husband.

1 Today a mother could point her son or daughter to a Q and A blog hosted by the Emily Post Institute at www.etiquettedaily.com for a modernized version of etiquette.

2 All biblical quotations are from the English Standard Version.

3 Judith Martin, Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1982), 214.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

35

WELCOMING A PARIAH?

I

By ANONYMOUS

had seen the man before, but I could not remember where. Mr. Smith (not his real name) was middle-aged, pleasant enough, and looked like he had something important to tell me. We stepped aside to avoid the crowd coming out of the church sanctuary after our Sunday morning service. He introduced himself and reminded me that he had visited our Friday night catechism class a while back. Then I remembered him. He hesitated a bit—now looking rather sheepish—and added, “I am a Megan’s Law offender.” I knew that Megan’s Law had something to do with a registry of criminal sex offenders (specifically, sexual crimes against children), but not much more.

36

Pastors are busy on Sunday, and most do not have time to conduct the kind of extensive interview this initial encounter indicated would be necessary.

Since I had another service to lead, I found an elder, told him about our visitor, and exhorted him to make sure that Mr. Smith was not left unattended. I really did not know how to respond beyond this, only that I knew this man was not to be left alone with so many church children running around the campus.

After meeting with Mr. Smith later, two things were crystal clear: (1) there was no doubt in my mind that Mr. Smith was a professing Reformed Christian, and (2) he had committed a series of criminal sexual acts upon an underage female family member. He

recounted how, when his crime was discovered, he was arrested at work, given a public defender, tried in a California court, and then found guilty of multiple counts of the same sexual offence. He then did his time in the California state prison system—ten years.

Mr. Smith lost his high-paying career. He lost his family (including his wife and biological children).

He would forever be identified as a sexual predator, whose life and movements would be circumscribed by the myriad of state, county, and local ordinances that regulate the daily conduct of such individuals—where they can live, where they can go, and with whom they can associate. Mr. Smith had served his time, and although now out of state prison (and on parole), he was still living with the consequences.

While incarcerated, Mr. Smith came to faith in Jesus Christ. The chaplain who led him to faith just happened to be one of the few Reformed and Presbyterian chaplains in the state prison system.

Mr. Smith spent several years learning his Bible, he read the standard Reformed theology texts, and he certainly knew the confession and catechism.

Once released from prison, he gravitated back to his hometown and began attending a local Pentecostal outreach, which had a ministry to Megan’s Law and other criminal offenders. Although Mr. Smith truly appreciated this church’s willingness to embrace him and his parole conditions, he explained to me, “I am Reformed. I cannot bring myself to participate in Pentecostal worship any more. Can I worship at your church?” Such a request demands serious consideration.

The elders of our congregation wrestled with his request. We say, and we advertise, that “sinners” are welcome here. Are they? Really? Are repentant sexoffenders welcome too? We do not let people like this loose in our neighborhoods, so why allow them in church? What about keeping our children safe?

We knew we needed to know more.

We talked to Mr. Smith’s prison chaplain and to his parole officer ( both gave us exemplary reports). We talked with several other Reformed and Presbyterian churches dealing with the same issue. We talked with attorneys and insurance carriers. We heard from worried parents, as well as from women who had been the victims of sexual abuse earlier in their lives, who explained how this man’s very presence in our church triggered years of repressed memories and fears. We held

“WE SAY, AND WE ADVERTISE, THAT ‘SINNERS’ ARE WELCOME HERE. ARE THEY? REALLY? ARE REPENTANT SEX-OFFENDERS WELCOME TOO?” congregational meetings, requiring Mr. Smith to be present, and take questions directly from concerned church members (with due discretion because of the graphic nature of his crimes). We walked through our church facilities, considering where best to seat Mr. Smith. We did everything we could think to do.

One thing was apparent as a result of our investigation: There was a huge tension between extending hospitality to this Christian brother and protecting our covenant children from a possible predator.

How do we welcome Mr. Smith into our midst as a brother in Christ, and yet still manage to protect our congregation from anything he might do? This dilemma required a clear and definitive resolution before Mr. Smith was allowed to set foot on church grounds again.

There was no question that Mr. Smith was a justified sinner, struggling with his own sins and lusts (his personal sanctification), and truly grieving over the life he lost and the damage he had caused to his victim. A Christian? Yes. Still struggling with lust toward children? No, he claimed. Only the Lord truly knew what was in his heart, but we could not naively take his word that such lust was not still there, nor could we let down our guard. If we were going to welcome this man into our church and to the Lord’s Table, then there must also be no question that our own covenant children must be (and must feel) protected from any possibility of harm to them from a Megan’s Law offender whom we invited into our midst.

To make a long story short, the arrangement we eventually hammered out enabled Mr. Smith to MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

37

worship with us and enjoy fellowship with those plan for your church regarding the protection of the who wished to do so. Mr. Smith was chaperoned church’s children from predators. Consider readat all times, he was greatly restricted in his moveing Voyle Glover’s Protecting Your Church Against ments on our campus, and he was not visible to Sexual Predators: Legal FAQs for Church Leaders those in the congregation who did not wish to see (Kregel, 2005). This will save everyone much grief. him. The church produced a Megan’s Law policy, I believe the kind of crime Mr. Smith committed which is posted on our church website, and has been is absolutely reprehensible. But I had no idea his recommended by at least one church insurance very presence would produce such a negative reacbroker as an approach churches tion, because as Christians we are may wish to consider. supposed to welcome repentant I have advanced far in my thinksinners. We have all heard draing about these issues since the matic testimonies and conversion day Mr. Smith first approached stories. We welcome repentant me asking to worship with us. thieves, adulterers, drunk drivers, Extending hospitality to a pariah recovering alcoholics, and drug (duly noting the potential danger addicts every Sunday. But what that goes with doing so) requires a Mr. Smith had done was so much plan of action to be in place before a different. As one of our church situation such as this arises. When members put it, “If Mr. Smith had VOYLE GLOVER first approached, I had no idea killed someone and repented, no what to do, and although I correctly one would mind having him here. insisted that Mr. Smith be chaperBut his crimes were such that you oned, I allowed him access to the never know if he’s leering at your entire campus—something which, children.” There is something in retrospect, I should not have about this crime that offends us done. Churches should formulate on a deep emotional level, even a plan well in advance before a if we understand how someone Protecting Your Megan’s Law offender shows up could be forgiven for doing such a Church Against unannounced, because they will. thing. The victim is damaged at a Sexual Predators: Megan’s Law offenders are profound psychological level, while Legal FAQs for everywhere. I suggest taking a look the perpetrator is branded a sexual Church Leaders through your local Megan’s Law deviant for life.

(Kregel, 2005) registry and you may be surprised No doubt, the shed blood and to find them nearby your home perfect righteousness of Jesus and church. Sex offenders usually Christ, imputed to us through JUSTIN AND look quite normal (yes, there are a faith, reckons us as sinless as the LINDSEY HOLCOMB few creepy stereotyped individuSavior. Mr. Smith professed this, als out there), and many of them and his conduct was exemplary are professing Christians. With while with us. I believe his remorse the growing number of arrests was genuine, and that he had made (due to improved reporting) and great progress in the Christian life. the public awareness of who these But he was still a Megan’s Law people are, it is only a matter of offender, who could not make eye time before you encounter this contact with children, speak to Rid of My Disgrace: issue in your church. Far better them, or be alone with them. The Hope and Healing to prepare in advance than to be requirements of his parole made for Victims of caught flat-footed as I was. If you it hard to hide who he was and Sexual Assault are a pastor, be ready. Have steps what he had done. He wanted to (Crossway, 2011) in mind, should you be approached. be with us every Lord’s Day for Elders, make sure you formulate a all the right reasons, and indeed

FOR FURTHER READING

38

should have been with us, so long as the church and the offender were placed in a position where any additional offences would be as impossible as it was humanly possible to make them.

A church can recognize a profession of faith as genuine, and yet still acknowledge the difficulties a sexual offender faces in his own process of sanctification. Studies indicate that the greater the taboo associated with the sexual offence (biologically related, same sex, prepubescent), the greater the likelihood of reoffending. Those farther from taboo tend to reoffend far less often (unrelated, opposite sex, post-puberty). Each Megan’s Law offender has his own proclivities, temptations, and struggles, just like the rest of us. Scripture indicates that the Christian sexual offender’s best weapon in dealing with such temptation is the regular preaching of law and gospel, signed and sealed through the sacraments. These folks desperately need the fellowship and accountability of a local church. They need the prayers of God’s people, and they need Christian friends who will accept them where they are. At the same time, the church must protect itself from such people. And that is the rub, isn’t it?

While my focus in this article is upon preparing for someone like Mr. Smith to announce themselves publicly, churches should be well aware that there are very likely victims of sexual abuse (as well as other forms of abuse) already present within the congregation. Many of these folks suffer in silence, while in other cases, their pastors, elders, and brothers and sisters in Christ know of their circumstances and are doing their best to help. Churches must be able to deal with these victims as well, and a book such as Rid of My Disgrace: Hope and Healing for Victims of Sexual Assault by Justin and Lindsey Holcomb (Crossway, 2011) offers valuable insight into this difficult element of life for many.

One more thing for which churches must be prepared is the numerical losses it will face for even attempting to allow a Megan’s Law offender into public worship. Statistics show that a church that welcomes a registered sex offender can lose up to 20 percent of its members. A few leave for purely judgmental, self-righteous reasons. Others are worried about the safety of their children and feel it best to finder a safer environment. It’s hard to blame them, although that response is naive, as the most dangerous sexual predator is the one who hasn’t been

“A CHURCH CAN RECOGNIZE A PROFESSION OF FAITH AS GENUINE, AND YET STILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE DIFFICULTIES A SEXUAL OFFENDER FACES IN HIS OWN PROCESS OF SANCTIFICATION.” caught yet. There are still others who, as victims of sexual abuse themselves, find that even being in the presence of a pariah triggers all kinds of emotions and involuntary responses such as panic attacks.

These responses remind us of how much serious damage is done when sexual abuse occurs, and that extending hospitality to a pariah has consequences for the church that accepts them, consequences that go well beyond the original crime. Although a Megan’s Law offender stands forgiven before Christ, they very much remain a societal outcast from whom our children must be protected.

Every church will need to wrestle with this challenging conundrum and consider how to welcome a forgiven pariah into its midst, to treat them as a Christian brother or sister while doing everything humanly possible to protect the church’s youth from any possibility of harm. This is a terribly difficult thing to do. There is a price to be paid. But it can be done and it should be.

As a brief postscript, Mr. Smith has since moved out of state, has begun a new life, and attends a solid Reformed/Presbyterian church. We are thankful to have had such a Christian in our midst, and we praise God that none of the church’s precious youth were ever in any danger. May God grant us wisdom and grace when the next Megan’s Law offender shows up on a Sunday morning. It is a matter of when, not if.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

39

SPIRIT-FORMED

COMMUNITIES

by KELLY M. KAPIC illustrated by ANDREA MONGIA

40

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

41

W

hat are the signs of the Spirit’s presence?

Christians commonly ask questions like this, yet far too often the conversation immediately turns to debates about experiences of ecstasy. While these discussions are legitimate, it is surprising how often we miss one of the main indications of the Spirit’s presence in the New Testament.

To recognize the Holy Spirit’s work, look for the hallmark signs of sacrificial love and hospitality among God’s people. Tongues, prophetic utterances, mind-bending miracles all occurred and were formidable, but they always pointed beyond themselves toward God’s redemptive presence and healing power. Public manifestations of the Spirit were consistently meant to draw believers together even as God drew them to himself.

We often fail to fully appreciate this prevalent New Testament dynamic because we are not living amid the intense mistrust, distance, and even hostility that existed between the people of Israel and those from other nations. Yet only here do we discover a central movement of God’s work in this world. In bringing Jew and Gentile together, the Spirit’s activity of community formation loomed large as central to kingdom identity. Expansive love and embrace of the “other” became hallmark signs of Christian existence. Having received the Spirit who brings divine welcome, believers were then called to overcome prejudices, division, and distrust, learning about the vastness of God’s family. A pivotal scene in the history of redemption shapes our vision here.

B ROUG HT TO G ET H E R

BY TH E SPI R I T Peter and Cornelius—two different angelic visitations, two different men, and two different

42

challenges. One represents the promises of God to his people, while the other represents those who have stood on the outside looking in. Each would be called to the other, and the result would serve to indicate God’s kingdom, bringing peace where there was division. Let us rehearse the story, for in this narrative we find the backbone of the New Testament’s vision for the Spirit’s post-Pentecost work in the church.

Like incense rising into the heavens, so God received the prayers and almsgiving of Cornelius “as a memorial” (Acts 10:4). Drawing near, the Lord spoke to this Gentile centurion, directing him to call for Simon Peter to visit his home. A Jew in his Gentile home? He knew this would be forbidden, yet wasn’t it God who spoke to him? Even though many in the Jewish nation respected Cornelius as a proselyte (a Gentile convert seeking to follow Yahweh), he remained an outsider. Questions lingered. What really was his relationship to the promises of God? And how was he related to God’s people?

About thirty miles away in Joppa, Peter, falling into a trance-like state, received a vision. A huge

sheet covering the earth, flat and populated with all “kinds of animals and reptiles and birds,” descended before him. A voice urged him, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat” (Acts 10:13). A faithful Jew, Peter would have none of it, for he had maintained the purity laws his whole life. He would not claim something as “clean” when in fact he knew that the law said it was unclean. Again the voice spoke, now declaring, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (10:15). Given how hard this message would be to receive, it was repeated three times before the sheet was taken back up into heaven.

The Lord had spoken to a Jew and a Gentile, calling each to the other. Why? Cornelius had prepared his household for the expected visitor, uncertain yet hopeful. At the sight of Peter, the centurion leader immediately humbled himself and bowed, as if to worship Peter. Without hesitation, the apostle lifted him up, assuring him that praising a mere man could not be the meaning of the message. Yet something historic was clearly happening. Breaking through the darkness, the kingdom of God was dawning, bringing its light and warmth in ethnic reconciliation.

Here, in this Gentile’s home, the fresh work of God’s restoration occurred as the Spirit reunited divided peoples. “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,” Peter concluded—the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile must come down (Acts 10:34).

Unable to resist, Peter then reviewed the narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus, concluding with his resurrection. What happened next caught everyone off guard: “The Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44)—not just on a particular king or prophet, nor on the Jews in general, but on all who received the word, including Gentiles. To make sure we don’t miss the significance, Luke reiterates the point, observing that Peter was “amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles” (Acts 11:45). They spoke in tongues, they praised God, and Peter quickly connected the final dots, announcing, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:48).

Let us not miss the movement of redemption here. By his anointing in the Spirit and demonstrations of divine power, Jesus was recognized as the Messiah (10:38). After his ministry (v. 38), crucifixion (v. 39), and then resurrection (v. 40), the risen Jesus communed with his people (v. 41). Yet now,

“LISTING SOME CLASSIC VIRTUES, PAUL MENTIONS HUMILITY, GENTLENESS, PATIENCE, AND LOVE....YET THESE VIRTUES ARE NOT GIVEN MERELY TO CREATE INDIVIDUALIZED MORAL IMPROVEMENT.…THEY ARE DIRECTED TOWARD OUR LIFE TOGETHER.” the ascended Christ was not physically present, so his Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, serving as the sign of his continuing holy presence and redemptive love. Reminiscent of the waters of creation (Gen. 1:2), now the Spirit moved over the chaotic lands of the earth, restoring communion not only between the Creator and his creatures, but also communion between humans.

Peter discovered that the Spirit’s life-giving presence and power resided not simply with the Jews, but also with the Gentiles. Thus they should be one, united in their love for God and desire to serve him.

The sign of God’s people would no longer be circumcision but the presence of the Spirit.

Controversy arose at the news of Gentiles receiving the word of God. Consequently, Peter went up to Jerusalem and personally faced his critics. Peter, recounting recent events, wanted to make sure this Jewish audience didn’t miss the point: “The Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

43

(Acts 11:15). What mattered most was the Spirit’s presence, trumping other identity markers. “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17).

NO LO NG E R ST R A NG E RS How do you respond to this narrative? Our individualistic impulses can hurt us here. While we are familiar with this story, and honestly believe the gospel is for Jew and Gentile alike, we somehow lay aside the far-reaching implications. Most evangelicals today are tempted to concentrate on

family. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). A warm welcome is extended to all of God’s people, no matter if they were circumcised or uncircumcised, male or female, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile.

While in our day some dismiss this call to Christian community as merely “political,” this doesn’t seem to reflect the hearts of Peter and Paul.

Take, for instance, Paul’s description of the mystery of Christ revealed: “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6). What was a mystery to Paul should remain awe inspiring to us today. Central to the gospel was the formation of a Spirit-built community that would cut across social, racial, and historical differences.

WA L K THI S WAY

harmonizing their inner psychology, rather than recognizing the biblical priority of Spirit-built community. As people from every tongue and tribe come together to worship before the risen king, God’s Spirit gives believers a taste of the heavenly harmony that is to come.

The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians echoes similar themes of the Spirit’s concern to create a community of renewed people. Highlighting how the “dividing wall” between Jew and Gentile was shattered by Christ’s death, he likewise promised that all have “access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2:14–18). Rather than endless self-reflection, Paul pointed to how the Spirit’s presence changes our relationships, giving us a new identity and a new

44

Paul concludes that those who have received the Spirit should “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which [they] have been called” (Eph. 4:1). Listing some classic virtues, Paul mentions humility, gentleness, patience, and love (Eph. 4:2; cf., Gal. 5 and the fruits of the Spirit). Yet these virtues are not given merely to create individualized moral improvement, since he lays them all out with a distinctly ecclesial orientation. They are directed toward our life together. Eager to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), we must learn to love by “bearing with one another,” and so on. Later in his letter (4:30), when Paul warned about grieving the Spirit, he had in mind behavior that disrupts and destroys the community of God. Again, his focus on the Spirit was not simply aimed at our internal worlds, but also our communal harmony as believers.

Thus as the church we must be careful of our natural inclinations to homogeneity. We tend to extend ourselves only to those who look like us, or who are socially and economically from similar backgrounds. But the gospel and the power of the Spirit break down these barriers, calling Jew and

“IN BRINGING JEW AND GENTILE TOGETHER, THE SPIRIT’S ACTIVITY OF COMMUNITY FORMATION LOOMED LARGE AS CENTRAL TO KINGDOM IDENTITY.” Gentile, male and female, slave and free, together.

Such “impartiality” has been one of the most powerful testimonies of the Spirit’s presence in the church through the ages.

OUR UN I TY R E F L E CTS THE UN I TY O F G O D Notice, however, that unity is what is given rather than created. The goal here is not to create unity but to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4: 3). The unity is of the Spirit, not something we achieve; instead, we preserve and protect it. Our unity comes not from ourselves but from God, from his Spirit who unites us to Christ and thus to one another. In Jude we read that those who cause divisions are “worldly people, devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19). But we who have the Spirit should be zealous about maintaining unity.

“We are one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4). Here Paul makes a further surprising connection between our doctrine of God and our doctrine of the church. Jesus likewise prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that his people would be one even as he and the Father are one (John 17: 21). New Testament scholar Andrew Lincoln aptly summarizes the point: “When the Church fails to maintain and express unity, it radically undermines the credibility of its belief in the one God” (Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, World

Biblical Commentary [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990], 241). Mocking fellow believers or distancing ourselves from them because of some social, economic, or racial differences is not only a great offense to our heavenly Father, but it also perverts how the watching world will think of our God. We can say we believe whatever we want, but unless we make the unity of the people of God a top priority, we undermine our lofty theological claims and the witness of the Spirit of Christ among us.

U NI T Y A MI D DI VE RS I T Y One final observation is critical. Although unity is emphasized throughout what we have discussed, Paul also highlights in Ephesians 4:7-16 the importance of diversity. Unity should not be achieved at the expense of legitimate differences. The Triune God is One, yet the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Spirit the Father or the Son. Unity should never be understood as sameness but rather harmonious particularity. While there are real differences between God as he is in himself and our human relations, Paul does seem to invoke an analogy here.

Though Jeff and Jay are two of my best friends, our friendship grows not because we become more like each other but because we learn to glory in our various gifts, callings, and differences. Our goal should not be to make the other our clone. Rather, we are called to enjoy the other as they by the Spirit seek to respond to the Savior in their particularity, and in so doing seek to bring a fuller sense of unity and completion to the whole.

Unity is about harmonious particularity that cultivates solidarity in the midst of our ongoing distinctness. Let us, moved by the Spirit, come together to unite our hearts in worship and our purposes in service to the king and his kingdom. When we do this, there is a very public manifestation of the Spirit for all to see.

Kelly M. Kapic is professor of theological studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. He is the author or editor of ten books, including God So Loved, He Gave (Zondervan), Communion with God (Baker Academic), and A Little Book for New Theologians (IVP Academic).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

45

Theology On Tap.

LISTEN ONLINE TO OUR NEW SERIES ON DIVINE HOSPITALITY. As Scripture unfolds, we see that God graciously invites people to a great feast, of “rich food, and of well aged wine” (Isa. 25:6). In this series we trace this feasting theme from Genesis to Revelation, and how it’s applicable to the mission of the church and to our own lives. How can we become more hospitable to our neighbors as we reach out and minister to them?

VISIT W H ITEH O R SEINN.O RG/HOSP I TAL I T Y.

book reviews 48

51

54 MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

47

BOOK REVIEWS

Life Together

BY DIETRICH BONHOEFFER Harper One, 2009 128 pages (paperback), $14.99

N

owadays, “Christian community” is a highly elastic term. It can refer to anything from a homeschool co-op to members of a dating website. Rather than recognizing Christian community as a gift from heaven created by word and sacrament, we tend to view it as a voluntary association created by like-minded individuals who share enthusiasm for a particular issue or practice. Valuing a u t o n o my, p e rs o n a l choice, and the practical, we look for fellowship through our consumer preferences, cultural practices, and political convictions. No longer is the local church considered the primary agent of Christian community. In fact, today the local church is rivaled, if not overshadowed,

by Internet ministries, parachurch organizations, and a variety of Christian movements, each offering its own version of fellowship. It has become more convenient than ever for believers to be spiritual drifters, living their lives detached from an ordinary congregation gathered together under the word.

This is what makes Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s 1938 work Life Together so timely for Christians living in 2014. Although this book’s historical setting is much different from ours, its message helps us recover a biblical understanding of Christian community. Bonhoeffer wrote Life Together

48

while teaching and living at an underground seminary for the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany. At a time when his countrymen were uniting under Fascism and hate, Bonhoeffer wrote of believers’ unity under the word. He begins his little book (only five chapters in length) by quoting Psalm 133:1, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” Against the bleak backdrop of the Third Reich, when very little appeared good and pleasant, Bonhoeffer expounds on the goodness and pleasure of true Christian fellowship.

LI FE I N CHRI ST In the first chapter, he argues that “Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ.…We belong to one another only through and in Jesus Christ” (21).

Our union with Christ includes union with Christ’s body. The New Te s t a m e nt d o e s n o t individualrecognize an individual istic form of Christianity that allows a believer to remain outside of the local church, for the local church is the primary and essential place where Christian community is experienced and made visible. It is the place where Christ’s people are assembled to worship him and receive his word. Because only the gospel can assure us that in Christ we are not counted guilty but righteous before God, we need others to proclaim the gospel to us. We cannot do this on our own.

If somebody asks [the Christian], Where is your salvation, your righteousness? He can

never point to himself. He points to the Word of God in Jesus Christ, which assures him salvation and righteousness.…But God has put this Word into the mouth of men in order that it may be communicated to other men. (22) The public means of grace at the local church, therefore, is indispensable to the spiritual life of the believer. “The Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him.…He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure” (23).

Apart from the proclamation of Christ, there is no Christian community. “A Christian comes to others only through Jesus Christ.…Without Christ there is discord between God and man and between man and man” (23). Christ not only reconciles us to God, but also to our brother. “Now Christians can live with one another in peace; they can love and serve one another; they can become one. But they can continue to do so only by way of Jesus Christ” (23–24). Christian community is not something we can conjure up by uniting around our common interests or shared experience. Instead, it is a divine reality, created by Christ and his gospel.

“Not what a man is in himself as a Christian, his spirituality and piety, constitutes the basis of our community. What determines our brotherhood is what that man is by reason of Christ. Our community with one another consists solely in what Christ has done for us” (25).

Because the Christian community is a divine reality and not a human ideal, we must accept the fact that the church is messy in this life and put to death any utopian dreams of a perfect church.

Bonhoeffer pulls no punches when explaining how one’s idealistic dreaming is detrimental to the communion of saints: He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial. God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious....

He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together.

“BECAUSE THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY IS A DIVINE REALITY AND NOT A HUMAN IDEAL, WE MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH IS MESSY IN THIS LIFE AND PUT TO DEATH ANY UTOPIAN DREAMS OF A PERFECT CHURCH.” When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself. (27–28) It is God, not our dreams and ideals, who has bound us together in fellowship and made us a family in Christ. We come to the church, therefore, not as demanders, but as thankful recipients.

L IFE ON SU NDAY In the second chapter, Bonhoeffer focuses more narrowly on the day Christians spend together.

On the Lord’s Day, the Christian community comes together “for common praise of their God, common hearing of the Word, and common prayer. Morning MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

49

BOOK REVIEWS

“OUR SPEECH AND CONDUCT IS THE MINISTRY THAT EVERY MEMBER HAS TOWARD THE REST OF THE BODY. EACH MEMBER MUST STRIVE TO HAVE A TRUTHFUL TONGUE, A HUMBLE HEART, A LISTENING EAR, A HELPING HAND, AND A BEARING SHOULDER.” does not belong to the individual, it belongs to the Church of the triune God, to the Christian family, to the brotherhood” (41–42). Worship in the local church is a family gathering. Together, we offer our prayers, sing hymns, and sing the Psalms, which are the vicarious prayers of Christ for his church. “This prayer belongs, not to the individual member, but to the whole Body of Christ. Only in the whole Christ does the whole Psalter become a reality, a whole which the individual can never fully comprehend and call his own” (46). The Psalms not only teach us what we should pray, but also how to pray as a fellowship. We sing and pray the same words at the same time.

The Lord’s Day is also the time for the Christian community to receive the word of God together.

50

In the lectio continua reading and preaching of the Scriptures, We become a part of what once took place for our salvation. Forgetting and losing ourselves, we, too, pass through the Red Sea, through the desert, across the Jordan into the promised land. With Israel we fall into doubt and unbelief and through punishment and repentance experience again God’s help and faithfulness.…We are torn out of our own existence and set down in the midst of the holy history of God on earth. There God dealt with us, and there He still deals with us, our needs and our sins, in judgment and grace. (53) The history of salvation is a story to be heard together, as a community. It shows us that we are part of something much larger than our own private experiences, with which we are so preoccupied.

The fact that Jesus Christ died is more important than the fact that I shall die, and the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is the sole ground of my hope that I, too, shall be raised on the Last Day. Our salvation is “external to ourselves.” I find no salvation in my life history, but only in the history of Jesus Christ. (54) T HE L I FE OF T HE IND I VI DUAL Our life together, though, does not exclude personal devotion. This is the subject of the third chapter. The individual member of the Christian community should still cultivate the spiritual disciplines of meditation, prayer, and intercession.

Every believer can benefit from times of solitude and silence. “Silence is the simple stillness of the individual under the Word of God.…We are silent at the beginning of the day because God should have the first word, and we are silent before going to sleep because the last word also belongs to God” (79). There is great wisdom in Bonhoeffer’s

challenge, especially in our day of constant noise and interruption from our enslavement to technology. Training ourselves to set apart a regular time for solitude and silence without the distraction of smartphones and social media can do much good for our souls. But be warned: “If you scorn the fellowship of the brethren, you reject the call of Jesus Christ, and thus your solitude can only be hurtful to you” (77).

L IFE TO G ETHE R Fo r B o n h o e f f e r, l i f e together also requires us to learn how to tame our tongues and develop listening ears. In his fourth chapter, he describes the “one-anothering ” that takes place in the Christian community. Each member must strive to have a truthful tongue, a humble heart, a listening ear, a helping hand, and a bearing shoulder. These are the tangible ways in which we esteem others more highly than ourselves and show that we are a community of love.

Because the Christian community is a collection of sinners, the practice of mutual confession and forgiveness is a necessity. To withhold confession and forgiveness is to divide the body of Christ and drive the sinner further into sin.

The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of his sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation….[But] since the confession of sin is made in the presence of a Christian brother, the last stronghold of self-justification is abandoned. (112) Through the pain of confession, we experience the joy of reconciliation and peace with others. We might be together without confession and forgiveness, but we

cannot have life together without them.

Life Together is a healthy tonic for the ills that plague us in our culture of autonomy. Bonhoeffer shows us how the gospel creates a new and living community, where people very different in looks and background are being knit together in Christ.

To have Christian community, we do not need more movements, more conferences, and more celebrities.

We do not need the next big thing. What we need is to take up our place alongside the brothers and sisters whom God has chosen for us, whom we find in the impervery ordinary and imper fect place called the local church. There, Bonhoeffer reminds us, we find our life together: “Life together under the Word will remain sound and healthy only where it does not form itself into a movement, an order, a society, a collegium pietatis, underbut rather where it under stands itself as being a part of the one, holy, catholic, Christian church, where it shares actively and passively in the sufferings and (37). struggles and promise of the whole church” (37).

Michael Brown is pastor of Christ United Reformed Church in Santee, California.

Christian Political Witness EDITED BY GEORGE KALANTZIS AND GREGORY W. LEE IVP Academic, 2014 240 pages (paperback), $26.00

T

he church’s witness is necessarily political, but in its political witness the church must first and foremost be the church.

Faithfulness to the gospel mission trumps allegiance to any other political agenda. Such is the general MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

51

BOOK REVIEWS

“REFOCUSING THE CHURCH ON ITS MISSION IS MUCH NEEDED IN OUR TIME, AND FOR THAT REASON THESE ESSAYS ARE WORTH READING.” consensus among the contributors to Christian Political Witness. Beyond that, when it comes to practical Christian political involvement, the contributors are all over the map.

Several of the other contributors follow Hauerwas’s lead, viewing the church as a fundamentally political reality. Scot McKnight’s essay is well summarized in its Latin title: extra ecclesiam nullum regnum (there is no kingdom outside the church). He rejects the classic Christian belief that civil government is authorized by Christ, even going so far as to insist that Jesus did not affirm Caesar’s right to levy taxes but merely called Christians to tolerate it for pragmatic reasons.

Timothy G. Gombis emphasizes that the Apostle Paul’s gospel is inherently political, by which he means that the apostle’s mission was to shape communities under the cross that would witness to the coming kingdom of God in their teaching and practices. American evangelicals are discouraged by their loss of cultural power, Gombis observes, but “this might be a strategic moment for us to embrace our identity as God’s wandering people among the nations” (88).

George Kalantzis describes the early church’s witness to the nations as a “cooptation of power through passive resistance,” one epitomized in Paul’s declaration in Romans 8:36–27 that Christian martyrs are “more than conquerors through him who loved us” (106). Conforming to the life and witness of the cross, Christians rejected the Roman violent sacred world

52

wholesale, including the state’s use of coercive violence.

Refocusing the church on its mission is much needed in our time, and for that reason these essays are worth reading. Yet each of these authors, except perhaps Kalantzis, seems to reject any notion of Christ’s rule extra ecclesiam (outside the church), a principle Luther and Calvin articulated in terms of their twokingdom theology. In the end, Christ’s lordship seems to be placed only in contrast to the swordbearing civil government, with Christians left as bewildered as ever as to its positive practical implications for participatory citizenship in a liberal democracy.

In a somewhat different grain are the essays by Jana Marguerite Bennett, William T. Cavanaugh, and Daniel M. Bell Jr. Bennett rightly calls Christians to focus on a Savior and church that transcend the differentiation of life into various spheres or the dichotomy between public and private. But she flippantly dismisses liberal values of the individual, liberty, and limited government as the products of “an Enlightenment focus on individual choices and autonomy” (120) and a “concession to a modern Enlightenment-based culture” (126), underestimating the extent to which these values arise out of the Christian political theological tradition.

A similar critique can be brought against Cavanaugh and Bell. Cavanaugh offers a fascinating and challenging critique of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, arguing that it

reduces American democracy to a zero-sum marDo we really want to abandon mainstream just war ketplace of ideas and preferences, thus undermining theory, liberal democracy, and the free market in the genuine participation of all toward the telos of the name of establishing the kingdom of God? To a common good. Yet his argument presupposes an paraphrase one of my professors, “We should not unrealistically participatory model of democracy and make the (eschatologically) perfect the enemy of a Marxist critique of the corporation as the embodithe (temporally) good.” ment of class conflict. Bell seeks to Several authors take a more “recenter the Christian practice of realistic perspective. I think just war in the church rather than Jennifer M. McBride gets it right in the state” (166), claiming that when she argues that the relevant while “just war clearly is not a question of our time is, “How can distinctively Christian practice” the church remain faithful to that (163), Christians should underbasic Christian proclamation that stand it as a “distinctly Christian Jesus is Lord and also participate political witness” (166). He humbly in our pluralistic socicontrasts just war as Christian ety? How may the church offer discipleship, with its “thick cona non-triumphal witness to the ception of the common good,” lordship of Christ?” (181). Dietrich with just war as public policy Bonhoeffer observed that Jesus’ checklist, which he identifies mission was defined by solidarity with political liberalism and its with sinners. The church that is “thinnest of common goods” faithful, likewise, “will not wish to (169). The former holds strictly distinguish itself from others—to to constraints that are possible lift itself up as a model of moral JOHN DRURY only as the expression of the sort righteousness and thus exonerMusic at Midnight: of character and virtue fostered in ate itself from present complicity The Life & Poetry of the church and its worship. in sin—but rather will want to be George Herbert Each of these writers offers in solidarity with sinners through (University of Chicago suggestions that sound utopian confession and repentance” Press, 2014) at best. Bennett recommends that (192). Yet David Gushee’s chapChristians consider declining to ter, a survey of his theologically vote, refusing to go to war, and informed political opinions, raises deciding “to find ways to curtail more doubts than it provides participation in a global capitalanswers about the possibility of ist economy” (127). Cavanaugh unified Christian politics; it is hard proposes that to enact the love to see why Christians would feel of Christ is “to build businesses the need to follow Gushee on any and communities of true participarticular point. David Gitari offers JOHN PIPER pation and solidarity” (146). And thoughtful reflections based on Seeing Beauty and Bell declares that “just war as a his experiences as Archbishop of Saying Beautifully: Christian discipline is a matter Kenya, highlighting as examples of The Power of Poetic of worship” (174) that requires appropriate pastoral involvement Effort in the Work “supernatural politics” (171). his public opposition to governof George Herbert, But why not offer serious reflecment-sponsored assassinations George Whitefield, tion about the nature of Christian and election rigging. and C. S. Lewis participation in the society in The Reformed perspective (Crossway, 2014) which we actually live, amid the is represented well by Peter J. institutions that have, for us, been Leithart and Mark Noll. Leithart’s established by God (Rom. 13)? essay is refreshing in its refusal to

FOR FURTHER READING

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

53

BOOK REVIEWS

abandon classic Christian convictions about temporal government’s just use of the sword. Leithart defines violence as the “unjust and sinful use of force” (155), and he summarizes classic Christian political theology when he concludes that “Yahweh’s war against violence is the paradigm for human judgment. Rulers are to be deacons of God’s avenging wrath” (154). Yet the final victory of Yahweh over violence takes place only through the work of Christ.

Noll gleans warnings about Christians’ use of Scripture in politics from a set of fast day sermons preached in the United States on the eve of the Civil War. Protestants rightly claim that the Bible is “the ultimate authority for Christian political witness as for every other Christian activity” (37), but these sermons demonstrate that they should be as mindful of the damage done by misuses of Scripture as they are of its authority.

Overwhelming confidence in Christians’ ability to interpret Scripture unerringly and to evaluate and interpret the hand of providence did not lead antebellum pastors to consensus. On the contrary, it simply made their disputes all the more violent.

Noll reminds us that Scripture cannot be simplistically applied across ages and circumstances, because biblical revelation is progressive revelation. It is not always easy to determine the precise political implications of “specific texts,” not to mention “the biblical story as a whole” (52).

Matthew J. Tuininga is a doctoral candidate in ethics and society at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He is licensed to exhort in the United Reformed Churches of North America.

Why Christ Came: 31 Meditations on the Incarnation

BY JOEL R. BEEKE AND WILLIAM BOEKESTEIN Reformation Heritage Books, 2013 160 pages (paperback), $10.00

B 54

y publishing their small booklet Why Christ Came: 31 Meditations on the Incarnation, Joel R. Beeke and William

“WE CAN KEEP THIS BOOKLET BY OUR SIDE FOR MUCH LONGER THAN THIRTY-ONE DAYS AS WE CONTINUE TO MEDITATE ON THE SHOCKING AND EARTHSHATTERING EVENT OF THE COMING OF EMMANUEL—THE INFINITE GOD WITH US IN FINITE HUMAN FLESH.” Boekestein have done a great service to the church.

The original intention, as stated in the preface, was to “help us more deeply celebrate [Christ’s] birth, allow us to see more clearly how it is connected with the rest of His Ministry, and help us understand its importance for our lives.”

There are several reasons why I heartily recommend this book. First of all, it’s well written and well organized. Some may think these qualities should come last after an evaluation of contents, but in the unplanned busyness of my days I found them refreshing and remarkably helpful. The book contains just over one hundred small pages packed with teachings, quotations, applications, and

anecdotes, and yet never cluttered or overwhelming. In fact, the book is a pleasure to read and can easily grab the attention of children when read aloud.

Thirty-one meditations is just the right number to take us through Advent. And yes, for inquisitive minds, there is a section of reference endnotes.

The preface itself is an example of clarity, as it lists simple reasons behind this work, suggests several uses and even ways to introduce the subject to others, whets our appetite for a serious study of this book and beyond, and ends with an useful list of other resources. My only gripe is the omission of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo from this list, something that Boekestein, upon my inquiry, called an “oversight.” “Cur Cur Deus Homo is a fundamental book on the incarnation and ought to have been mentioned,” he said. “On the other hand, the further reading suggestions we included could only include a small sample of the literature available on the subject.”

Another reason I recommend this book is that I am not aware of any other works like it. The titles listed in the preface are relevant and weighty, but this is the only brief overview of the reasons why Christ came to earth I have seen in print. A similar book on another important topic is John Piper’s Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. I also appreciate the substantial contents of each chapter. From the start, we know we are not reading a light pamphlet. In chapter 1, we learn that Jesus came to do the will of his Father. Immediately, we are brought to consider deep theological truths such as the Trinity, the Covenant of Redemption, and especially the two wills of Christ. Yet the tone is pastoral and never dry. In fact, this chapter sets the pace for the rest of the book in giving us clear and practical applications. For those who may be tempted to brush the doctrine of Christ’s two wills

aside as unimportant, the authors quote John Calvin’s explanation that it teaches us our need for a mediator and “stimulates us all to render prompt obedience to God.” I was impressed by the uniformity of style. This is a small detail, but it adds to the ease of reading. More importantly, I was inspired to see in both authors the same passion and pastoral care.

As a parent and Sunday school teacher, I believe this book can be useful in family devotions. The chapters are simple enough for children, at least from seven years of age, and the quotations, Bible stories, and anecdotes will keep them focused.

Finally, the book can be used as an excellent tool to help others understand Christianity. As the authors explain in the introduction, “Understanding why Jesus came to earth also has apoloapolo getic value.” Familiarity with these thirty-one answers to the question of why Christ came to earth will enrich our presentation of the gospel to our neighbors.

Fr o m t h e s t a r t , t h e authors remind us that “this little book cannot begin to exhaust the riches of the great mystery that God became man” (viii). On the other hand, it’s a good start, and the authors inspire us to deeper study by listing some additional reasons for Christ’s incarnation with relevant Bible passages. By utilizing all its resources, we can keep this booklet by our side for much longer than thirty-one days as we continue to meditate on the shocking and earthshattering event of the coming of Emmanuel—the infinite God with us in finite human flesh.

Simonetta Carr is the author of the series Christian Biographies for Young Readers (Reformation Heritage Books). She is a member and Sunday school teacher at Christ United Reformed Church in Santee, California.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

55

GEEK S QUAD

C R OW D E D H O U S E : A S H O RT H I S TO RY O F A R E FO R M AT I O N PA R S O N AG E

T

by BRIAN W. THOMAS

his sounds like the setup to a joke, but the punch line is true: What do you get when you combine an outlaw Bible professor, a runaway nun, and a dilapidated Augustinian monastery? The first Reformation parsonage. The Black Cloister, known today as Luther Haus, was built in 1504 with the support of the elector as a monastery to house forty monks in the village of Wittenberg. In 1511, Martin Luther arrived there to serve on the faculty of the newly established university and remained until his death in 1546.

As Luther’s efforts at reform began to build, so did the vacancy rates in monasteries and convents across Europe as monks and nuns motivated by evangelical teaching left their orders for other vocations and opportunities, including marriage.

By the time Luther returned to the Black Cloister from Wartburg in 1522, only one other monk remained. A treatise on The Estate of Marriage from that same year reflects Luther’s maturing thought on the vocation of marriage and the rearing of children, with his typical biting humor: Along comes the clever harlot, namely natural reason, looks at married life, turns up her

56

nose, and says: Why must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, change its bed, smell its odor, heal its rash, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that? It is better to remain single and live a quiet and carefree life. I will become a priest or a nun and tell my children to do the same. But what does the Christian faith say? The father opens his eyes, looks at these lowly, distasteful and despised things and knows that they are adorned with divine approval as with the most precious gold and silver. God, with his angels and creatures, will smile not because diapers are washed, but because it is done in faith.1

The very next year Luther found himself assisting in the clandestine rescue of twelve Cistercian nuns from the cloister at Nimbschen. One of these nuns, a fiercely independent and intelligent young woman, would become his wife—to the surprise of most. On June 13, 1525, Martin Luther and Katherine von Bora were married in a private ceremony at the Black Cloister, followed by a public ceremony two weeks later with friends and family in attendance.

Historian Roland Bainton remarks, “The Luther who got married in order to testify to his faith actually founded a home and did more than any other person to determine the tone of German domestic relations for the next four centuries.”2 On their wedding night, an unexpected knock on the door came late in the evening after guests had departed. It was Luther’s former colleague-turnedadversary, Andreas Karlstadt, seeking refuge from the Peasant’s War. Karlstadt was welcomed and remained for several weeks free of charge. When Johann Agricola arrived back in Wittenberg to teach, Luther invited him and his wife Elsa to stay with them until they settled in. The Agricola family had nine children and stayed for several months.

It would take Katherine a while to get used to such interruptions and inconveniences, but it would become the norm rather than the exception in their home.

THE M I STR E SS O F W IT T E NB E RG While Luther receives most of the historical attention, it was his bride who bore the brunt of turning the old monastery into a home. Nestingen remarks, “The fact that Katherine Von Bora is remembered by her family name, not simply as Mrs. Martin Luther, solidly indicates the standing that she achieved, not only with her husband, but in the Lutheran Reformation.”3 Katherine not only managed the home as a loving wife and mother to their six children, but she also became an entrepreneur who helped sustain and feed her ever-growing household. She managed a garden, orchard, pig farm, and fish pond and used the monastery’s license to brew beer and make wine. She used milk from the cows she bred to churn butter and make cheese. Whatever was not used to support their home was taken to the market

“LUTHER CONSIDERED THE HOME A KIRCHLEIN (‘LITTLE CHURCH’).” to sell or barter for other necessities. As her various industries grew, she hired additional staff that she personally supervised.

All of this was necessary, in part, because Luther’s university salary was meager (and he received little to no royalties on his published writings).

Additionally, he was generous to a fault, always giving away their property to others who had need.

While their marriage and home life were generally happy, they were not without difficulties. Like many couples to this day, their quarreling often concerned money or the lack thereof. In a letter to a friend, Luther states that he had intended to send a vase to him as a wedding present, but Katie had hid it from him. Katherine’s hard work earned several pet names from her husband: Katie, my rib, Selbander (better-half ), and Lord Kate, Mistress of the Pigsty. When she was too domineering for Luther, he offered a play on words for her name by calling her Kette, which means “chain” in German.

Luther’s periodic bouts with spiritual depression are well known. Katherine was forced to play the role of medieval psychotherapist at times by finding creative ways to draw her husband out. On one such occasion, she appeared before his study door wearing a black mourning dress.

“Who died?” asked Luther.

“God,” she answered.

“You foolish thing!” Luther replied. “God cannot die.”

“It is true,” she continued. “God must have died, or Doctor Luther would not be so sorrowful.”

Katherine became known throughout the region for her medicinal skills in treating common ailments.

This proved essential, because Luther suffered at times from gout, insomnia, hemorrhoids, MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

57

GEEK S QUAD

constipation, stones, dizziness, and ringing in the ears. Many came to the Black Cloister for treatment and recovery. Luther once addressed a letter to his wife, “Housewife, Katherine Luther, Doctress, and whatever else she may be at Wittenberg.”4 Their youngest son, Paul, who became a medical doctor, said his mother was half one.

THE H O M E A S CHR I STI A N CL AS S RO O M Luther considered the home a Kirchlein (“little church”). He took the lead on catechizing his family, and evenings at the cloister were filled with musical merriment, as Luther was a fairly accomplished musician and composer. What he may have lacked in technical skill was compensated by sheer passion. Neighbors and students often joined the household for their nighttime sing-a-longs. We get an additional glimpse of the great pride Luther took as a father in the letters he

58

sent to friends when calling on their presence for his children’s baptisms. For example, his daughter Magdalen was born May 4, 1529. The very next day, in a letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf, he wrote: Honorable, reverend sir: God, the Father of all grace, has graciously presented a baby daughter to me and my dear Katie. I am therefore asking your Honor for God’s sake to assume a Christian office, to be the spiritual father of the said little heathen, and to help her to the holy Christian faith through the heavenly, precious sacrament of baptism.5 Commenting on the fourth commandment in his Large Catechism, Luther emphasized the importance of parents taking the lead in their children’s catechesis and education: For if we wish to have excellent and apt persons both for civil and ecclesiastical government, we must spare no diligence, time, or cost in teaching and educating our THE HOME OF MARTIN LUTHER AT WITTENBERG (CHROMOLITHO) ENGLISH SCHOOL (19TH CENTURY)

children, that they may serve God and the world, and we must not think only how we may amass money and possessions for them.

For God can indeed without us support and make them rich, as He daily does. But for this purpose He has given us children, and issued this command that we should train and govern them according to His will, else He would have no need of father and mother.6 Sadly, of Luther’s six children, only four lived to adulthood. Elizabeth did not make it through her first year, while Magdalen died in 1542 at the age of fourteen, casting their parents into a period of profound grief.

“IT WAS LUTHER’S CAPACITY TO SEE THE FUNNY SIDE OF LIFE THAT HELPED SUPPORT THE MAN IN THE FACE OF THE ENORMOUS CHALLENGES IN REFORMING AN APPARENTLY UNREFORMABLE CHURCH.”

A TABL E FO R TA L KING In 1532, Frederick the Wise gifted the Black Cloister to the Luther family. By this time, the home had been dubbed “God’s Inn.” Beyond their own children, they took in several orphaned children from family and friends. University students also regularly boarded with them. Some were able to pay their rent, but many lived off of Luther’s generosity. It is estimated that at various times the cloister housed up to twenty-six people. It helped that the former monastery had plenty of small rooms.

For traveling visitors, the Black Cloister was viewed as a Saxon hotel, while relatives and neighbors dropped in regularly, often rather conveniently at mealtime. Many used such occasions to discuss church matters and theology with the Reformer.

Katherine was frequently too busy to engage in such conversations, but when she did, she could hold her own as Luther encouraged her personal reading of the Bible.

“The world is forever grateful to the students who had the foresight to take up pen,” Paul Maier writes, “as well as fork, to record the master’s words as he presided at the table.”7 Luther’s wry humor is known to anyone who has read his works, particularly the thousands of quips his students wrote down while dining with their beloved teacher. Eventually these quotations and stories were catalogued and published as Martin Luther’s Table Talk, revealing the Reformer’s vigor and humor, which to his credit withstands the passing of time. Maier believes it was Luther’s

capacity to see the funny side of life that helped support the man in the face of the enormous challenges in reforming an apparently unreformable church.

C O NCLU SI ON Hotel, hospital, orphanage, cafeteria, classroom, and Christian home—the Luthers’ overflowing house and lives were the result of God’s providence in bringing two extraordinary people together in holy matrimony under one unlikely roof at just the right time in history. James Nestingen concludes that Martin and Katherine Luther shared their family vocation, leaving a lasting witness to the power of the gospel even in the tumult of the household.8

Brian W. Thomas is a pastor in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and a regular contributor to Modern Reformation. His forthcoming book is titled What Has Geneva to Do with Wittenberg? A Biblical Defense of Doctrines That Divide.

1 Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955– 1986), 45:39–40.

2 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1950), 305.

3 James Nestingen, “Luther on Marriage, Vocation, and the Cross,” Word and World, vol. 23 (Winter 2003), 35.

4 Bainton, 298.

5 Luther’s Works 49:218–19.

6 “The Fourth Commandment,” Triglotta, 630.

7 Paul Maier, Off the Record with Martin Luther: Original Translations from the Weimar Edition of the Table Talks, edited by Charles Daudert (Kalamazoo, MI: Hansa-Hewlett, 2009), 3.

8 James Nestingen, Martin Luther: A Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2003), 67.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

59

B A C K PA G E

T H E P R AC T I C E O F TA B L E G R AC E S

by BROOKE VENTURA

I

t has been said that the practice of Before they ate, Faramir and his men turned prayers at mealtimes is what separates and faced west in a moment of silence. men from animals—instead of attackFaramir signed to Frodo and Sam that they ing our food and tearing into it as though it should do likewise. “So we always do,” he said, as they sat down, “we look towards could be taken away from us at any moment, Númenor that was, and beyond to humans make a point to acknowledge their Elvenhome that is, and to that which is Creator and Sustainer in gratitude for his beyond Elvenhome and will ever be. Have provision for their physical needs. When you no such custom at meat?” we come to any meal (whether with our families, our friends, or ourselves alone), we —J. R. R. TOL KIEN, T HE TW O TOWER S : B EING T H E come with the understanding that we eat as S ECOND PA RT O F T HE LO R D O F THE R I N GS dependent creatures, relying on the care of our Father for the rain and sun that bring forth the food, the safety to eat it unmolested, and the ability to be nourished and refreshed by it. For this reason, we reflect before we eat, glorifying God with both our praise of himself and our enjoyment of this day’s daily bread. Here are some examples.

BEFORE A MEAL

AFTER A MEAL

A P SAL M IS READ “ The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season. You open your hand, you satisfy the desire of every living thing.”

(Ps. 145:8–21, especially vv. 8–12, 15–16)

A PSA L M I S RE A D “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is

A P RAYER IS SAID “O Lord God, heavenly Father, bless

A PRAYE R I S SA I D “We gives thanks to thee, O God our Father, for all thy benefits, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee liveth and reigneth, forever and ever. Amen.” (Martin Luther)*

unto us these thy gifts, which of thy tender kindness thou hast bestowed upon us, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.” (Martin Luther)*

* Both Luther prayers are from Prayers of the Reformers, ed. Clyde Manschreck (Minneapolis: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 114.

60

good, for his steadfast love endures forever….He who gives food to all flesh, for his steadfast love endures forever.” (Ps. 136:1, 25)

Brooke Ventura is assistant editor of Modern Reformation.

Stop Stalking the Mailbox.

STAY CONNECTED BETWEEN ISSUES OF MR BY FOLLOWING THE WHI BLOG. On the White Horse Inn blog, Out of the Horse’s Mouth, you’ll find links to recent and archived episodes and related articles, plus additional discussions and comments. Join the conversation on today’s most relevant theological topics.

VISIT W H ITEH O R SEI NN.ORG/BL OG TODAY AND B O O KMAR K IT O N YOUR BROWSE R.

Find contentment and a sustainable faith in the hidden and humble places.

Available October 2014 $

15.99 / softcover ISBN 9780310517375 Also available in ebook and audio formats.

Your life was meant to be ordinary, ordinary not radical.

New from Michael Horton:

or di nar y •

•

•

Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World

Pre-order the book by October 2014— and get free resources and exclusive content.

Get the details at http://bit.ly/ordinarybook