John H Armstrong

Being the Family of God

Last week the Roman Catholic Church celebrated ecumenism and Christian unity. I listened to a number of Catholics reflect on this vital theme on Catholic radio as I drove to speak last Sunday, January 25th. I then read a number of things on the Vatican Website as well. I reflected on how unlikely, or humanly impossible, this all would have been before Vatican II. There can never be too much emphasis placed upon how fundamentally Vatican II changed this whole context. In many ways it is now up to Protestants to respond in the right way. And that response is improving with every passing year.

One priest I heard last Sunday noted that we are in the same family. He served a small parish in Kentucky, in and among a predominantly Southern Baptist context for decades. He observed that you can't be the family of God and remain isolated from one another. But how can this happen, given our real and serious differences that still remain? He said: 1. We can worship together. (Much of what we do can be done except for the Mass he correctly observed.) 2. We can find and form deep relationships. This has proven to be the very best way that I have found that I can be a part of the whole family of God. I cannot change the big picture but I can make a small contribution to the family in small and faithful ways. I have many deep relationships with Catholics who love Christ as much or more than I do. This includes both priests and laity.

Ecumenism, said this same priest, is nothing more than "learning to connect the dots." What can I do, or not do, to advance Christian unity? The longer I am working at connecting the dots the more I am learning that surprises me. We have come a long way since my childhood in the 1950s. We still have a way to go but at least we are not trying to be the family and understand that we cannot afford the old animosity that once gripped almost all of us.

The Illinois Senate Gets It Right, Now What?

The Illinois Senate did the obvious yesterday in unanimously voting to remove Governor Rod Blagojevich, our 40th governor. His impeachment and quick conviction was almost unprecedented in modern political history. There was no party partisanship in the matter and no one to defend the governor but himself. His helpless effort to go to the people of the nation via television, earlier this week, was truly one of the most pitiful and amazing acts of hubris in recent political history. He will now face a court trial that will send him to prison, thus making him the fourth Illinois governor to go to prison in my lifetime. No wonder this state has a bad reputation politically!

Like many of you I asked myself again and again: "Does this man believe what he is saying?" My honest guess is that he is so out of touch with reality that there is a sense in which he does. President Clinton believed his lies until he was forced to admit them. This man doesn't even have that ability.

We've seen corruption in Illinois before. We've seen defiance too. But shameless might be the best word that comes to mind when one considers former-governor Blagojevich.

Tonight my mind goes to the man's family and his loved ones. (His wife is no innocent bystander in the whole matter at all.) But the man has children and friends, or I think he has friends but maybe he bought the ones he had. How should we pray for him? I pray that the love of God will discipline him in a way that will drive him to repentance, faith and hope. He was baptized into the Orthodox Church, then joined the Methodist Church with his wife. I doubt the church will be of much help to him but we should pray that it is. This sad man will stand as a symbol of shameless corruption for decades. What a glorious story it would be if he repented and asked for God's mercy and that of the court as well. "With God all things are possible." Think of what a blessing the convicted ex-governor would be if he threw himself on the grace of God in humility and brokenness.

A Bold Decision Regarding the Mac

My cell phone contract was up on Tuesday. (I had used T Mobile for two years and found out it did not give me the coverage and service I wanted.) I knew I wanted a new provider, and chose AT & T, so it was time to consider the two really superior Smart-phones that are on the market: The Blackberry Bold and the Apple iPhone. I have to tell you I have never put much time into making a rather simple decision like this. I generally seek a little advice, check a few phones at the store and buy one. This time I did about four hours of online research (alone) and then about two hours of conversations with sales people at three different retail stores.

First, both of these products are excellent phones. If you really like to have a load of applications, a truly neat screen and some very cool Internet stuff then the iPhone is what you want. If you want to manage data, use a great phone, and are just not into the Mac system then the Blackberry Bold is a superb option. (I had used a Blackberry for several years!)

Second, I asked four sales people what they personally used. The truth is that three of them used both phones, since they could use them as employees of AT & T, and one person used only the Bold after trying an iPhone and not liking the virtual typing function. All four sales people said, "It depends on what you want and how you will use it." Great help that was. I wasn't even sure much of the time I was doing my research. I was caught in a consumer maze and didn't know how to get out. (Man, I am glad I do not do this very often.)

Third, I read various reviews and watched comparisons of the two online and in person. One minute I was sure I would buy the Bold and the next minute the iPhone. After a day or two of this I said, "I am going to buy this one and get on with it." On the way to the store I called several friends. Again, I got two very different responses.

My Mac friends swear by their phones and their computers. In fact, they are often like recent red-hot converts. They are almost all evangelists for their Macs. A few think I am crazy for not getting all Mac computers and the iPhone. Rarely do I meet a person who uses Mac who is not in love with their system. Is this techno-idolatry or what?

Well, I broke down and made the decision, knowing I could pay a small restocking fee and get the other phone within 30 days if I changed my mind. I got the Blackberry Bold. Just to bother a few of my Mac friends I told them the deciding factor for me was this: "President Obama uses a Blackberry. I wanted to follow my president!" (I knew that would get a rise from a few of my more conservative friends and it did, to my pleasure.)

Now, I may yet change my mind, fickle as I am about this decision. I like the Bold but I tried to use it to work with this blog spot today and had some minor frustrations. I think I can sort this out. In terms of support and easy loading of my previous Blackberry files it was all a breeze. The feel and the keyboard are great. (I still like to feel keys strike under my finger tips, something the iPhone does not do with its virtual keyboard.)

OK, who wants to bet on what I will now do? Will I keep the Bold or still want an iPhone?

One thing for sure, this choice is not one of life and death consequence, though you could fool me the way some people fall in love with these phones. I do wonder about how much we are taken in by all these options and the newest this and that. The bells and whistles offered in these Smartphones make for some convenience and make millions of us consumers.

If you have tried both of the phones I would love to hear your response as to which one you picked and why. If you are a Luddite, and think the whole business is a waste of time, feel free to tell me that as well.

The Wrestler

David Aronofsky's much heralded movie, The Wrestler, is a true gem. Understand though, the point of the film is not about wrestling, not at all. Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) is a washed-up professional wrestler whose personal life is now truly in the tank. He is searching for some way to find love and to be loved. His girl friend is a stripper played by Marisa Tomei, who has her own issues and trials in dealing with her child as a single parent. Then there is Randy's homosexual daughter, a child he never loved and now wants to connect with in his dark moments. There is a stark sense in which what you see in The Wrestler is human life in the hard track, life in the give-and-take of America, life where faith is missing and hope is all but gone. The ending of the movie is appropriately chilling and powerful. (I will not give it away.)

The realism of this movie is what makes it so compelling. One critic says the portrayal of addiction and the connection of charisma to a life lived long ago make this film work. I agree. This is one of the truly great human portrayals of the year. Rotten Tomatoes (the various critics) gives it a 98% positive review, an unheard of rating. The movie is rated R for good reason. I do not recommend underage viewing. Many of you, if you like happy and positive movies, would not like The Wrestler. If, on the other hand, you want to see one of the best films of 2008 and experience something of the pain of human loss see The Wrestler. It is a superb film as great film-making goes and should win a truck load of awards in a few months at the Academy.

The Problem of Systematic Theology, Part Two

Serious academic theology has a rightful place in the church. Make no mistake about this fact. Ministers need to be trained to be good students of the Word and of theology. This is mandated by a number of statements we find in the Pastoral Epistles. But this biblical requirement has been met, or supposedly met, by a form of training that has become deeply flawed in many ways.

I am not advocating that we destroy our seminaries. Nor am I advocating that we oppose them or close them. Many have an excellent and well-deserved respect. What I am advocating is a serious renewal in the way we equip ministers and how ministers then serve the church.

Systematic theology has become an end in itself for too many schools and ministers. Because Christians believe God is the ultimate author of the Scripture, which is of course true, they then deduce that humans can build a systematic theological framework that is a reflection of God's mind, i.e., God's truth. It is this that I believe cannot be done. There is no perfect system of theology and never will be. But evangelicals, and Calvinists in particular, have often thought that they could at least come very close. Consider this statement from one of the twentieth century's truly great evangelical minds:

The ideal procedure [of Christian theology] would be to arrange all the truths of Christianity logically by summarizing and systematizing the texts and teaching of Scripture and supplying an exposition of the logical content and implications of the Bible on its own premises. . . . The fact that no theologian has succeeded as yet in fully arranging the truth of revelation in the form of axioms and theorems is no reason to abandon this objective. . . . The fact is that whatever violates the law of contradiction cannot be considered revelation. . . .  Were the doctrines of the Trinity, of divine election and human responsibility, of the two natures of Christ logically contradictory doctrines, no evangelical Christian could or should accept and believe them (Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority [Waco, Texas: Word, 1976], 1:239-240, 233, 241).

What I question here is Dr. Henry's idea that "axioms and theorems" can, or ever could, produce a "systematizing" of the sort that Henry believes in. His strong confidence in human reason is not warranted. And his conclusion is the very basis upon which much of the problem I write about rests.

When systematic theology becomes normative, in the sense seen in Dr. Henry's quotes above, the result will be that theology becomes polemics. We are always setting theology over against errors. Please do not misunderstand me. The church has always had to correct errors and good theology is vital in doing this. But a constant polemic is not healthy nor does it produce godliness in the church.

This approach to theology will get out of hand in no time. It will perpetually ask: "What does the whole Bible say about this topic (fill in the blank)?" It then turns to philosophical reflections upon all the texts that are assembled and the truths that are stated as God's absolute truth in perfect humanly devised propositions.

The danger is that once we know the truth about everything the Bible teaches about a given subject, say the doctrine of election as one illustration, then we can make war against all those who oppose this truth. We do not kill each other, as we once did, but we will kill the reputations and good name of each other. We are always sowing the seeds of our own destruction by becoming "heresy-hunters" par excellence. If you do not cross your "t" and dot your "i" correctly then you are my enemy since you are God's enemy. This is the same spirit that brought about the bloody wars of religion in the past. Is there any wonder that a growing number of younger Christians want little to do with this approach to theology? (The danger is they want nothing to do with any theology and the results of this are catastrophic and dangerous.)

One of the things I have learned from being around my Catholic brothers on seminary campuses is that they train priests very differently, at least in several important respects. While they do teach theology in this same vein, or at least have done so for centuries, they teach theology with a much more careful eye on the church itself. Every professor is an active priest serving a parish ministry. The idea of a "detached" academic who trains priests is thus foreign, generally speaking. Further more, there is an order and a family-feeling about the whole arrangement, with much more careful attention given to sacramental life and normative practices of the seminary community. (Only a few Protestant schools seem to understand this and thus these are schools I highly recommend to students who seek my counsel on the matter.)

I wish I could give you a word of hope about the conservative Calvinistic resurgence in regard to this problem. I cannot, at least in general. I see little that indicates serious change in the near future. The change is coming from elsewhere and until an older generation (mine) dies off I doubt most such schools will change at all. The lone exception, among conservative Reformed seminaries, is one that I had the joy of serving as a board member a few years ago: Biblical Theological Seminary. Biblical, begun as a typically conservative Reformed seminary, has made an intentional shift toward a new approach that permeates their entire identity. The story is unfolding and is worth praying for and watching very carefully. Check it out.

I also regard Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama (chapel at right), very highly for many of the same reasons. Dr. Timothy George has helped to form a community (the school is not large in number of students, by design) that is academically rigorous while it is also diverse and ecumenical. What it lacks in some of the areas I write about here it makes up for by the kind of faculty that it has gathered around Dr. George's incredible leadership. It stands out as a truly great example of what I think we need much more of in the coming decades.

Finally, Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, also offers a different solution, one that I appreciate for some of the same reasons. What James Houston envisioned years ago has actually worked well and the result is a school that many of my friends believe rises above some of the problems that I have written about. I have a growing appreciation for this school.

There is no perfect place to train for ministry. The problem of systematic theology is a universal one because this is a human problem. But we should continue to seek reformation in education as well as in practical ways in every local church. And we should teach our people that systematic theology is a good thing but never a perfect system for solving all that makes the church vital and healthy. Used in the wrong way it can actually make the church sick. Some of you have experienced this and know what I mean first-hand.

Obama's Approval Ratings?

In a culture where we want "instant" everything even I was amazed to read today that there is already a poll out on President Obama's approval rating. "You have to be kidding me," you respond. No, I am dead serious. John F. Kennedy had the highest rating after his first three days in office, at 72%. Obama is tied with Dwight Eisenhower's rating, who enjoyed 68% approval after his first few days in office. Thus Obama has the second highest approval rating since World War II, about the time all this tracking of opinion began.

How can anyone have a "serious" opinion about the president's job approval by now? How can any thinking person even bother respond to such a question/survey. If they surveyed me I would tell them to leave me alone. I am dead serious. This is about the most insane stuff I have read since last Tuesday and the inauguration.

It is this same endless taking of the pulse that harms the church. A pastor can't be on the job for a few weeks without the so-called "honeymoon" being over and done these days. Woe be the pastor who seeks to lead a flock by "approval." Vance Havner was right when he said a true pastor needed a tender heart and the hide of a rhinoceros.

The Problem of Systematic Theology, Part One

Serious theology is generally done by academicians. This is good and bad. I thank God for humble, well-trained, competent academics who use their gifts in service of Christ's kingdom and the church. But there are immense problems with this approach. And make no mistake about it this is not how it always was done. In fact, this is not how it is still done in many places and parts of the world today.

Academic institutions train pastors and leaders to be junior academics, or at least something like an academic. Academics love debate and theological warfare. They can savage those who disagree with them. The smallest details become "hobby horses." But people who are not trained in formal academic ways do the same, following the spirit of the academic but without the training. (They adopt this by reading books and by listening to academics and by becoming "wanna be" academics.) As a rule academics guard turf and ideas. They write and teach about their ideas and this perpetuates this problem since some read their books.

The academy is also radically separated from the church. This is an even bigger problem. And now, in the 21st century, they are also separated from the "real" world in so many cases. This leads them toward gnosticism. Such places then become centers for ideas, not where you actually learn how to live life in faithfulness to Christ. Even subjects such as preaching and pastoral ministry are taught as theory, at least to a large degree. The very title: "Practical Theology" is often invoked in hopes of making the student "practical," which rarely happens.

One student of this subject has suggested that Calvinistic churches are worse than most since they exist as "virtual extensions of the academy." I agree. I am often asked what is wrong with this recovery movement of conservative Calvinism in our time? I answer, as a confessional Calvinist, "It has been a recovery of some of the ideas of Calvinism, and in this recovery, the Calvinism that we now have is only a part of the whole picture and in this it is a part that has a wrong emphasis to boot." Real Calvinism aims first at the glory of God, not at abstract ideas about systematic theological dispute. Have you ever seen the symbol of Calvin and the Reformed side of the Reformation? It is a human hand offering one's heart up to God! That symbol makes my point.

Academic Calvinism, or academic Lutheranism, or academic (fill in the blank), all follow a very Greek discipline and approach. When this approach is studiously followed the intent is to show what is wrong with other systems. Thus Calvinism is almost always set off against Arminianism, etc. Calvinists show what is wrong with the other systems and thus come to believe that they alone have done the really good theology. Lutherans and dispensationalists do the same, as do many other academic approaches.

This is not to decry academic study, not in the least. In fact, I think the church tends to be way anti-intellectual today and needs better trained leaders, not poorly trained ones who have not submitted their minds to rigorous thought. But the modern system has created serious problems and most people do not see them.

1. We are not loyal to the Canon but rather to men and their ideas.
2. We are not loyal to the church and the Holy Spirit, but to creeds and standards.
3. We are not loyal to renewal and fresh insight into the truth of God revealed but rather to preservation of the ways we know and feel sure about.

All of this calls for a better grasp of historical theology and exegesis, don't get me wrong, but these practices need the church if they are to be conducted properly. They need the give and take of faithful listening and loving, which can only be found in the spirit of true fellowship.

Because of these problems our churches often look no different than lecture halls. (Many even feel like lecture halls based on my travels around the country speaking in various churches.) The heart and soul of the Sunday meeting has become a long lecture-sermon, often written out and delivered as a written paper that strives for precision and explanation. Candles? Frequent celebration of the Lord's death at the Communion table? Vestments and collars? Rituals of any sort? Of course not these hinder the preaching. We must reject all of this so we can preserve the sermon in its right place, the place given to it by the academic training and influence our pastors have received in our seminaries.

Music then must be changed if we are to have any life at all and in order to be alive to the times. This is a serious problem too. We need the new music and we need to sing well but we often seek the "trends" in music and worship more than the glory of Christ-centered worship. If the sermon is a long lecture then the music is even more important since the people will express very little of their actual involvement in the worship unless they sing. But so much of the music is performed by bands and singers while people stand for twenty minutes and listen, still not really sharing in the actions of worship.

So, our churches have become academies, or praise gatherings, but not worship centers where the Word and the Spirit are both truly welcome.

Being Missional Is Not Limited to Church

We sometimes get the idea that being missional is only about a particular form or style of church life; e.g. emerging, etc. This is a mistake. Being missional is much more about adopting the attitude and message of the kingdom of Christ, both personally and in the life of a church congregation. This story of a Texas high school football team underscores my point beautifully. See if you don't agree. I loved it.

How Christians Can Make a Difference in Politics

Some readers might think that I believe all Christians should avoid politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I do oppose is the way the Christian Right has engaged the subject of politics since 1976. This was the year that began the turn of events that resulted in the last eight years of Republican leadership, which many came to assume represents the views of most white evangelical Christians. While my own political views are more conservative than those of President Obama I think the continual attacks upon him by the Christian Right are quite harmful to the mission of the church in America. We are driving a deeper wedge between "us" and "them" and the result is making mission much more difficult in so many places and contexts that I cannot begin to explain the damage this creates for those of us who believe the church's first, and primary, task is to make disciples of Jesus in the wider culture.In making real disciples we will, and we must, teach them to "obey everything he commanded" and this includes moral issues like abortion, etc.

The simple fact is there were many orthodox Christians in Washington this week who were celebrating the inauguration of President Obama. Some of those celebrating were my personal friends and close friends of ACT 3. We will continue to have civil and fruitful conversations about governance and we will continue to have these in the days ahead. I will sometime oppose the President's decisions and ideas. This is America and this challenge is right and good. But I refuse to call him names and suggest that he is committed to a path that will destroy America. One could argue this about almost every president in our history. (Some did. Consider the way Southern ministers saw Lincoln's inauguration in 1861.)

What I oppose is the strongly partisan form of political expression that sows division in the culture and seriously flawed thinking in the church. The church will never change the culture through national politics and partisan debate. In fact, the church would do far better to engage politics in local contexts where the church stands as one community in a missionally-ecumenical way. I do not think most Christians, at least most conservative white Christians, understand this point well at all. They often see my stance as a  form of moral compromise. They only have two categories: good and bad. Right and wrong. Black and white. Obama represents bad, evil and darkness. He is not pro-life in his political position so he is an evil man, building a culture of death. (Even the pope does not argue this tortured way even though he is the greatest proponent in the world of a culture of life!)

For many conservatives the whole ballgame ended in November. Unless we rid the nation of the new president, or oppose his every move, we fail. I simply do not think in such categories so I am seen, by some, as endorsing evil. This whole debate misses crucial points about the faith, the church and America. It is deeply rooted in a cultural form of Christianity that is itself captive to an ideology that most do not challenge. If you challenge it you are in trouble. I can speak to this with a great deal of firsthand experience.

One person who does understand how local churches can work together and Christians can engage in politics openly on the local level is my son Matthew, a pastor and church planter in a place where the church is uniting in mission for city change. He wrote a blog this week that says what I was thinking better than I can say it. You might want to check it out.

Praying for Revival in Our Cities

One of the numerous opportunities that I am afforded for missional impact and input is in prayer movements for revival and city transformation. Most of you already know that the first Thursday of May is the National Day of Prayer. This year a group of my friends are staging an important event in suburban Dallas two days before the National Day of Prayer, on May 5. I have taken a particular interest in this effort as a friend and supporter. God of the City is the project. There are many such events around the country and I urge you to support them in your own area and pray for revival in the churches of our land. The great need of the hour is not going to be met in Washington, D.C., but in your town and mine, in your church and mine, when the Holy Spirit is poured out in mercy and power upon large numbers of our people. Come Lord, refresh us from on high!

I have made a personal commitment to pray for this ministry and joined the wall. Each Monday, at 11:00 a.m., I add my prayers to the wall of intercessors. I encourage you to join in such fervent prayer with me. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?"