Nielsen’s Nook

Kevin D. Johnson at Reformed Catholicism has made another post that has grabbed my attention. Given the scope of Nielsen’s Nook (pastoral, ecumenical, irenic), there are a number of reasons I bring this lengthy post to your attention here. I summarize the article here:

Johnson had been a supporter of the Federal Vision (FV) in its initial articulations from 2002. Today he wonders whether FV is as consistent with Reformed theology as once claimed. In the last year of pastoring a church, and I take it - existentially feeling the weight of responsibility for those in his care, he has begun to think differently about the matter. He asks the question:

Is Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

In his pastoral critique of FV he warns against of a tendency in which obedience to the commandments is emphasized in contradistinction to being a regenerate covenant member. Johnson sees this resulting in a sort of skewing of the work of preaching.

Second, a danger of raising clergy (teaching and ruling elders) to a place of authority which is contrary to historic Presbyterian polity and just as alarming is the resultant “negative treatment of women.”

Third, including himself explicitly here, Johnson states that:

… Federal Vision theology has often served to muddy the waters concerning the grace of Christ operative in the life of believers and in and among the Church.

Fourth, Johnson argues that to the degree in which Presbyterian and Reformed churches leave their Reformed traditions for Episcopalian/Anglican or Roman Catholic communions, FV demonstrates itself pastorally impotent to “properly combat nominalism in Reformed circles.”

Fifth, while Johnson argues elsewhere that the two sacraments of the Reformed churches are undervalued, he sees FV as swinging “the pendulum” too far. The result is that the sacraments become the emphasis and begin to eclipse the Lord Jesus who is signified in them. He gives a anecdotal illustration here of children in worship services in paedocommunion congregations who are allowed to sleep undisturbed through the entire liturgy except when the bread and wine are received. He makes a fine point when he says:

it is high time that gospel-centered, Christ proclaiming preaching took center stage again in these environments. The sacraments mean nothing without the accompanying Scripture being proclaimed in our services and I see more change in a congregation when the Word is properly proclaimed then I ever have through devotion to the sacraments.

He concludes by calling FV proponents to not hide behind misunderstanding, but to acknowledge the significant pastoral problems involved in adopting FV theology. While Johnson does not use this terminology, he seems to be arguing for the engagement of a semper reformanda disposition, a spirit of prayerful scriptural self-correction. Seeking to combat the nominalism that is present in Reformed churches (in those who propound FV, in those who oppose FV, and in those who don’t care) is a good thing; however, the answer does not seem to be without but has been with us since the beginning:

Heartfelt Holy Spirit inspired regeneration of the hearts of men who rely exclusively on Christ, the preaching and presentation of Christ in our churches, a centering on the grace of the gospel of Christ–these are the things that will fix nominalism in our churches and it is what will keep us away from implementing solutions which really can be a departure from the gospel if we’re not careful. We should be thankful for the heritage we have in those that have gone before us and look back once again at the classic formulations of our faith–’the faith once for all delivered to the saints’.

---

Read Kevin D. Johnson’s post, “Problems with Federal Vision Theology and Practice” for yourself at Reformed Catholicism. When I posted this there were 114 comments on the post. I had not read them all but the ones I did read were stimulating.

Yesterday, Kevin Johnson at ReformedCatholicism.com has started a thoughtful discussion on the centrality of preaching in the worship of the church. Or better stated of all the outward means that the Holy Spirit uses to nourish Christ’s sheep, the preaching of the Word is central. The comments are worth reading too as the discussion unfolds.

Kevin Johnson has a post over at Reformed Catholicism, Regarding Preaching, that sparked my mind to something that is increasingly a burden for me and my family.

My own confessional standards (i.e., the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) ask this question:

What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?

In some of the evangelical churches I have been in the answer to Question 85 of the Shorter Catechism would be something like this:

To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us that we sit through as many sermons as possible, order many sermons on tape, present the gospel as if it were merely a series of propositions to believe, and really hope that you do not have too many doctrinal errors in your thinking.

What I am trying to get at in this little parody is that I see many churches who claim the Westminster Standards as their own who at least in practice seem to proclaim the above spoof as their answer to question 85. What we actually find in the Shorter Catechism is much different:

To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, (Acts 20:21) with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption. (Prov. 2:1–5, Prov. 8:33–36, Isa. 55:3)

In the answer to Question 85, I have emphasized that in addition to the things we would expect in evangelical churches (i.e., faith in Jesus and repentance), we are charged with a third, sadly neglected item, being the diligent use of ALL the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.

Question 88 explains that these outward means are the word of God, sacraments and prayer, all of which are made effectual to salvation. The word is said to be made effectual by the reading and especially the preaching of it. Then the catechism turns to the way that the two sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist are made effectual.

I will leave you to explore the catechism questions 85-94 or so to ponder how the sacraments are made effectual. What I want to explore here is, how is that in confessing that they are effectual we seem to be largely living in a time where the Supper is approached as a burden, something we do because we have to as Christians (to get God off our backs?). If we really believed that the Gospel was something more than rational propositions about good people, bad people, the One, platonic heaven and hell, then might we not run the visible proclamations of Christ’s life-giving death from our churches?

As I have said in another post, the paradigm today regarding the Supper is largely, “How often must we have it to not be in error?” Christ gives himself in the Supper and that would seem to lend itself to a better paradigmatic question, “How often can we have the Supper?” The Westminster Standards lends itself to a three faceted worship of Christ proclaimed in the preaching of the word, in the administration of the sacraments and in the prayers of his people. May a balanced liturgical diet be returned to the Reformed churches of Christ.