Books: Spectacular Sins

John Piper's Spectacular Sins is, please forgive me, spectacular. Not so much a book as a 128-page Christ-exalting sermon from the warm, tender, and tough heart of a loving pastor. It is by no means exhaustive or expansive. Instead Piper focuses on six of the most vile and well-known sins from the narrative of Scripture; the rebellion of Satan, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the building of Babel, the sale of Joseph by his brothers, Israel asking for a king, and Judas Iscariot trading the most precious Treasure for thirty pieces of nothing.

This entire book is excellently God-honoring, but the last chapter, "Judas Iscariot, the Suicide of Satan, and the Salvation of the World," is worth ten times the price of the entire book. One thing that really popped out at me in the final chapter was when Dr. Piper compares Judas to anyone who goes after God merely for his gifts. He writes,

Judas was a lover of money, and he covered it with a phony, external relationship with Jesus. And then he sold him for thirty pieces of silver. How many of his ilk are still around today! Don't be one. And don't be duped by one.

This is a much-needed exposition of what the health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel" really is; a convenient use of Jesus to get things, not God himself. Lest we be Pharisaical judges, we must remember that as sinners we are naturally idol worshipers, and without grace will want the gifts but not the Giver. We must oppose prosperity teaching intently and aggressively, but also lovingly and meekly, praying for those who preach and believe it.

This book is short. One could easily get through it in one or two sittings, but the chapters are small and divided into subsections to aid in a more spread-out, devotional reading. However you choose read it, you will be challenged and edified and comforted and enthralled with the majesty of God in his triumph and sovereignty over all sin, and with the radiance of this majesty in Jesus. Everyone not only should read this book; everyone needs this book (or at least its message)!

Thomas Cranmer: Reformer, Coward, Martyr

This day marks the anniversary of the death of Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a hugely important figure in the development of Anglicanism, and I believe he should also share the gratitude of any who ventures to call themselves Protestant; especially if one is an English-speaking Protestant.

Thomas Cranmer came from a rather humble beginning. He was born in Nottinghamshire in 1489 and at the age of 14 he started attending Jesus College, Cambridge. In 1510 he was ordained a priest. Cambridge become the focal point in England of discussion about the Reformation and in 1520 Cranmer joined a group that would meet to discuss Luther's ideas.

It was an accident (or act of Providence) that set Cranmer on the course of becoming the genius behind the English Reformation. He happened to meet the King in a neighborhood he was visiting and spoke with Henry about his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, a devout Spanish woman who had "failed" to produce a male heir for King Henry. (She did, however, have a daughter; the future Queen Mary who would be known to the Protestants as "Bloody Mary.") Henry was impressed with Cranmer's reasoning on how he could best divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. Cranmer was quickly appointed as an ambassador and charged with writing a treatise arguing in favor of the divorce.

In 1533 Cranmer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical position in England. Interestingly enough, the Pope actually signed off on the appointment thinking it would placate Henry after the Vatican had refused to annul the King's marriage to Catherine. This backfired. Immediately the new Archbishop declared Henry's marriage to the Queen null and void, and on top of that, validated the King's secret marriage to Anne Boleyn that had already taken place.

Over and over, as King Henry VIII changed wives only slightly less often than codpieces, Archbishop Cranmer would back the King's wishes and grant yet another annulment. In all this he was a coward, refusing to hold Henry accountable to sacred Scripture and its views on divorce and remarriage.

Where Thomas Cranmer's better colors shine however is in the reforms he undertook under Henry's son, King Edward VI. The monarch was a boy when his father died, and so much of the power was in the hands of decidedly pro-Reformation advisers, including the Archbishop. Cranmer was therefore able to take the Church of England in a staunchly Protestant direction during Edward's reign. Until....

Edward died six years after taking the throne and despite a nine-day rule by Lady Jane Grey, the Catholic Mary (daughter of Catherine) entered London and assumed the throne. She made short work of weeding out the Protestants and taking England back into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. Cranmer was among the victims.

In 1556, after a three year trial, Thomas Cranmer was convicted of treason and sentenced to burn at the stake. He was humiliatingly defrocked in a ceremony stripping him of his episcopal and priestly vestments. In an effort to save his life, he signed a recantation of his Reformed views and submitted himself to the Pope as supreme head of the church. Mary decided to burn him anyway.

Supposed to read his recantation in church the day of his execution, Cranmer instead shouted out, "All such bills which I have written or signed with my own hand [are] untrue." He continued, "As for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine. As for the sacrament..."

Dragged off before he could finish his speech. When the fire was lit, he put out his right hand directly into the flame and declared, "This hand has offended."

Though Thomas Cranmer died as a martyr, when Elizabeth came to the throne two years later her reforms of the Anglican Church were really Cranmer's, with a few compromises. His forty-two points of doctrine were reduced and became The Thrity-Nine Articles of Religion, still the foundational doctrinal statement for Anglicans worldwide. His Book of Common Prayer is still the liturgical guide used in Anglican worship services, and parts of it have seeped into other Protestant churches' worship. For example, the traditional wedding ceremony that most English speakers are used to is either taken directly or slightly modified from Cranmer's Common Prayer.

All Protestants in the English speaking world should thank God for Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. He was by no means perfect, but without him there would have been no Reformation in England; and without that those giants of biblical theology we call the Puritans would never have been able to edify the English church as they did. May Cranmer's memory serve to magnify God's faithfulness to His church.

It's Easy to Diss a Dead Dude

Here's an article I started writing back in January when I was in Seattle and decided to post anyway despite being late:

Passing judgment on historical persons is risky business; especially if that person lived 500 years ago on a different continent and with another language than the "judge."

The New York times has just run an article by Molly Worthen on Mars Hill Church's preaching pastor, Mark Driscoll. I was expecting some negative comments and critique of his views; we must remember that Calvinism and complementarianism are not very popular, especially in cities like Seattle and New York. But what I was not prepared for was a full scale attack on Driscoll rooted in a "historical" condemnation of John Calvin. You can find the article here.

I am currently writing this post in the Magnolia district of Seattle, and will be attending Mars Hill for an evening service. Nevertheless, my critique of this article will focus on the various aspects of Calvin and his thought that were mentioned, true and feigned.

Since the early 19th century, most evangelicals have preferred a theology that stresses the believer's free decision to accept God's grace. To be born again is a choice God wants you to make; if you so choose, Jesus will be your personal friend.

This is unfortunately true historically, but hardly an argument against Calvinism unless you only want to appeal to what makes Christians feel warm and fuzzy instead of pleading the teaching of Sacred Scripture. Many, many American Christians do indeed believe that they chose to be born again but they would be hard pressed to find the Bible on their side; let alone reason. Did we have a hand in our natural birth? Should we assume that when Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Unless you are born again," that He is commanding us to be the midwife at our own spiritual birth? (John 3:3) Certainly not!

A close reading of the passage dispels this perspective. This is especially highlighted earlier in John's Gospel; Chapter 1 states, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Notice that those "who did receive him" were born, past tense! John then further clarifies that the birth is not by the will of the flesh or man.

And here's the the seemingly everlasting condemnation of Calvin:

John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake...

This is like saying that the President of the United States is elected by popular vote on Election Day; sort of close, but not really true. According to the historical record there was only one heretic ever burned at the stake in Geneva, and Calvin's involvement in it is very nuanced.

Michael Servetus was a Spanish physician and theologian who developed a theology in the wake of the Reformation that denied the Trinity; according to Servetus Jesus wasn't God incarnate. He had corresponded with Calvin, and the Reformers in Geneva had already publicly denounced him as a heretic.

Servetus was then spotted at one of Calvin's sermons and arrested. John Calvin participated in his prosecution and did agree that Michael Servetus should die for his heretical beliefs; however, Calvin did not want him to be burned at the stake and tried unsuccessfully to get the sentenced commuted to beheading. I'm not trying to clear Calvin of all his culpability in the matter, but compared to burning alive beheading is an obviously more humane form of execution. In addition, the night before the sentence was to be carried out Calvin spent the night with Servetus in prison ministering to him by calling Servetus to repent.

Calvin sinned. That is not in dispute; he should have denounced the whole business of the state thinking it had the right to kill someone for their aberrant theology. But the truth about the events around Servetus' execution disperses the lie that John Calvin was some egotistical sadist who ruled Geneva with an iron fist. That picture is simply untrue.

We must remember that though we may be in Christ, the truth that our indwelling sin makes us a product of our time is still painfully true. I pray that our posterity judges us with more charity than we have shown our brother John Calvin.

Porpoise-Driven Life

Preach the hated Jesus

"If our conception of Jesus is such that He can be admired and applauded by the non-Christian, we have a wrong view of Him. The effect of Jesus Christ upon His contemporaries was that many threw stones at Him. They hate Him; and finally, choosing a murderer instead of Him, they put Him to death. This is the effect Jesus Christ always has upon the world. But you see there are other ideas about Him. There are worldly people who tell us they admire Jesus Christ, but that is because they have never seen Him. If they saw Him, they would hate Him as His contemporaries did. He does not change; man does not change. So let us be careful that our ideas about Christ are such that natural man cannot admire or applaud."

-D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, p. 117

"God Saves Sinners" by Dr. J.I. Packer

“The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology [the doctrine of salvation] in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners.

“God – the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing.

“Saves – does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies.

“Sinners – men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners – and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.”

J.I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1959) 4-5.

The Long Defeat

"...and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat." -Galadriel to Frodo in The Lord of the Rings

I was prompted to write this post by an article I read (found here). As a fan of JRR Tolkien myself, I have often pondered the concept of "the long defeat" and its place in the Christian worldview. Tolkien himself made such a connection in one of his letters.

"Actually, I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory."

This concept of The Long Defeat is intricately intertwined with the idea of eucatastrophe. Tolkien claimed that just as we have the word "catastrophe" in English we should also have it's opposite, "eucatastrophe." As the first word means a sudden change from good to bad, the second one signifies a sudden change from bad to good. For Tolkien this was the essence of the Gospel. "The Incarnation is the eucatastrophe of human history, and the Resurrection is the eucatastrophe is of the Incarnation," he once stated.

This is crucial. The Incarnation is a eucatastrophe (sudden change for good) because God has been born into a history marred by sin and suffering. But in response humanity as a whole (and Israel in particular) rejected their Creator; as the Apostle John said, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him."

This led to the catastrophe of the crucifixion. We humans took our Lord and nailed him on a cross because of our rebellious natures. This could have been the end. The Father could have said, "That's it. Your finished," and delivered to us the damnation that our sin deserved. Instead, Jesus said, "It is finished." God then turned the catastrophe of the Cross into the Eucatastrophe for us by raising him from the dead and thus signalling the Father's acceptance of Jesus' atonement for all those who believe. Both the catastrophe of the Cross and the victory of the Resurrection show us that God's grace triumphs over our worst; indeed, even our evil is made to serve his accomplishment of salvation. Eucatastrophe!

How does "the long defeat" factor into this? For Tolkien (and for all Christians) the final victory has been achieved, but not yet inaugurated. Jesus also ascended to heaven, and has yet to establish his earthly reign until the Eschaton (the Second Coming). Save for the present reign of Christ through his church, this world has been left free to "storing up wrath for [itself] on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (Romans 2:5)

So as Christians pilgrims in this present age we are fighting a long defeat. There is no hope for history. Only when Christ invades history and takes his rightful place on David's throne with his enemies under his feet as a footstool will the final Eucatastrophe have taken place. Let us hope for the future as we look to the past. Let us rejoice in the "samples or glimpses of final victory." Let us look to the Resurrection and wait for the Eschaton with patient endurance in preaching the gospel of eucatastrophe to all tribes, languages, and peoples. Let us fight the long defeat.