John H Armstrong

Three Elements of Faith and Practice We Must Recover to Have a Robust "Ancient-Future" Faith

Yesterday I argued that an inordinate desire for the new, coupled with a growing abandonment of the historically received faith, is now having hugely negative consequences in many Protestant mainline churches. We must again be reminded that, "She who marries the spirit of the age becomes a widow in the next generation." What is called for is a reformation, a return to the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” This is not a call to modern fundamentalism but a call to a robust, confessional faith that shares in the recovery of three elements of our faith and practice. But how shall we go about this recovery? I answer that in order to reform the church in our time we need to recover at least three core commitments.

First, we need a return to the Holy Scriptures as authoritative in all matters of faith and practice. Many people and churches must be re-introduced to the Jesus of the New Testament as well as the high doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon. We must go back, back to a more robust, confessional understanding of Christ and our faith.

I have become thoroughly convinced, through firsthand experience in various types of churches, that most of the problems we now face result from a sad and appalling ignorance of the Bible. Church leaders are able to promote non-biblical teachings and practices because the people did not know the Bible.

The careful study of the Bible must never be taken for granted, even in the most conservative churches. Many conservative churches do not read the Scriptures in public worship. And multitudes of pastors do not know how to properly preach the Scriptures. Liturgical churches have a huge advantage if they follow the church calendar. (This doesn’t stop them from running headlong into error, however.) The calendar leads a church to worship God in real time through the life of Jesus, from birth to Ascension, each year. Such churches, however, must also follow a solid plan for daily Bible reading that takes their members through the Bible each year. But too few encourage or practice it faithfully. Services in all churches, liturgical or otherwise, should be composed of rich, textured biblical prayers and expressions. We refuse to turn what happens in front of a congregation into a performance on the stage, however we practice our common worship. Even the most biblically evangelical churches need to take care about these matters lest they assume too much about their people and their real knowledge of Scripture.

The second core commitment that is needed more than ever is a return to prayer, especially corporate and congregational prayer. We cannot merely assume prayer in private and not make it a major public concern. Prayer is essential to the Christian life and it is the life and breath of a living, healthy Christian church. I am amazed at how much conservative churches talk about prayer but how little actually goes on in their services and meetings.

Further, we must understand that the church's life of corporate prayer is centered in the Lord's Supper. It is a sign of health that more and more churches are celebrating the Lord’s Supper more and more often with more and more healthy emphasis upon its importance for faith. The life of prayer is continued in private devotion and family gatherings. These practices should incorporate the praying of the Psalms, consistent and even consecutive Bible reading and the use of written prayers from the whole church. The ancient practice of daily hours of prayer are perpetuated in some traditions and are being recovered in some contexts where they have either never been present or they are being recovered. And services of morning and evening prayer should also be taught and practiced. Most Christians I meet do not have daily communion with Christ because they do not really pray. We must encourage, and teach, a life of prayer if we want to reform the church biblically.

Third, we need to recover a proper emphasis upon tradition. Some Christians are accused of being stuck in the past, especially by progressive and more liberal Christians. I believe the much greater danger is an uncritical acceptance of new teachings and practices that undermine the historic faith itself. We need what my friend, the late Robert Webber, called “ancient-future faith.” It is right to lean into the future and to prepare for what the Spirit will do. But the Spirit does not lead us to abandon the historic faith in the process. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8). One has said, “The faith of the past is the wave of the future.” I believe those Christians, and churches, that know the past and have a fresh anticipation of what the future holds, because of the great and abundant promises of God, will be most ready to live faithfully in the next generation. The prophet Jeremiah, "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16).

I am discouraged when I look around at the destruction being brought upon the church by radically progressive measures regarding same-sex practice. But I am encouraged when I look at the church throughout the world. And I am encouraged by the growing number of younger Christians who see the need for a truly “ancient-future” faith perspective. May their number grow and may the conversation now begun hoist our sails so we might catch the wind of God that is clearly blowing throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. Christendom may be in its death throes but the church of Jesus Christ across the globe is anything but dead or dying.

The Divisions That Now Threaten Churches in the West

The division that has risen within Christianity in modern times, at least in certain ways, now overshadows the older divisions of the Great Schism (1054) and the Protestant Reformation. The most obvious debate that threatens to divide the church in the West, and one that will likely continue for generations to follow, is the approval of same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to the ministry. Related issues of gender, morality and doctrine have troubled the church for at least three decades but recent decisions in some churches seem to have finally created the perfect storm. Underlying this issue is the deeper and broader conflict over the nature of the Christian revelation and how to read the Scriptures faithfully.

Has God fully and finally revealed himself to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ and is this revelation timeless, unchanging and binding upon all people at all times? Traditional, confessional Christianity is convinced that these moral issues are not unclear in Scripture or in the traditions of the faith. They believe they are clearly related to the authority of the Holy Scripture and common sense moral fidelity. On the other hand, those who believe that the revelation contained in the Bible, and received by the church, is so influenced by ancient culture that it is deeply flawed argue that traditional moral practice must be reinterpreted and changed for a modern generation. This is a new version of an older tension, the tension brought about by a radically progressive Christianity that employs a hermeneutical framework that challenges the authority of Scripture itself.

Some Protestant churches have now abandoned both the ancient and catholic faith as well as the emphasis on the Bible that came out of the Reformation. Instead, many believe and teach that each person, in effect, can have their own truth because human conscience trumps biblical and traditional consensus. The result is that some of these progressive churches increasingly bear less and less resemblance to the faith and practice of the apostles, the creeds and the church down through two thousand years of history. While it is true that Christians in the nineteenth century argued about slavery, and the role of biblical authority, and about the role of women in the church in the twentieth century, this twenty-first century debate is not in the same category of debate. One obvious reason is that there is considerable biblical basis for the church to have had the first two discussions, and thus to come to different conclusions, than with the sexual morality debate. You do not have to read the arguments of same-sex proponents for long to realize how terribly weak the appeal to Scripture (with or without an appeal to tradition since there is none to support the changes) really is. There is not one text that positively favors the modern approach, only an argument based on a radical re-reading of Jesus and how to do canonical exegesis.

I share the view of numerous voices being raised in our time that these churches that have abandoned faithfulness to teaching of the Scriptures on moral conduct have purposely abandoned tradition with the idea that this was necessary to attract people to the faith in the modern world. Talk of sin was plainly muted in the 1960s. The sexual revolution influence much more than culture as the church embraced one revolutionary idea after another. What has been rightly called therapeutic moral deism replaced a robust doctrine of sin and grace. As a result much that has all the trappings of Christianity has now become nothing more than a consumer product, albeit a religious one.

An inordinate desire for the new, coupled with a growing abandonment of the historically received faith, is now having hugely negative consequences in many Protestant mainline churches. We must again be reminded that, "She who marries the spirit of the age becomes a widow in the next generation." What is called for is a reformation, a return to the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” This is not a call to modern fundamentalism but a call to a robust, confessional faith that shares in the recovery of three elements of our faith and practice.

Tomorrow: Three Elements of Faith and Practice We Must Recover to Have a Robust "Ancient-Future" Faith

Mary's Virginity and Jesus' Siblings

The church claims that it was there from the beginning and that it was not forgetful about many important matters. I agree with this premise.The problem comes when modern churches and Christians claim more than what was there in the beginning. Because certain ideas were present does not mean they were universally embraced by all ancient Christians and teachers. Such is the case regarding Mary and the holy family.

Earliest tradition suggests that Mary remained a virgin because of the prophecy of Ezekiel 44:2. The prophet said, "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered in by it. Therefore, it shall be shut." Some evangelicals will balk at this reading of the Old Testament but again the early Protestant Reformers read the text in this way.

Joseph has generally been considered as older than Mary. This is suggested by the fact that he had apparently died by the time of the crucifixion. He is in the infant story and then disappears sometime after Jesus was twelve years old. James was very likely an older brother, not a younger one. The time-line of his conversion suggests that he came late to believe in Jesus. Some have argued that younger siblings , including those five mentioned in Mark, would have attached themselves to an older brother of such charisma as Jesus. This would likely have happened from childhood on. Just think about the episode in the temple and you see the implications here. Only James remains in the record of the early church. Tradition says he was the author of the New Testament letter by this name.

It is hard for me to imagine that Jesus had younger brothers and sisters. If Mary and Joseph had other children (naturally) then the church would have very likely kept a record of them in some way. It makes sense given the Jewish culture and the role of family. Considerable scholarly discussion has taken place around this question but the most natural understanding would be that they never had children together.

Catholic teaching says the womb that brought the one who is very God of very God into the world would never have been used for any lesser purpose. This is why the idea that Jesus had step-siblings, or cousins, has gained acceptance. Some scholars, mostly Protestant, have suggested that Jesus very likely did have real blood brothers and sisters.

I do not think this issue is crucial to faith but if I had to draw a conclusion then I see, like Luther and Calvin, no good reason to reject the tradition of the church about Mary. One thing I am sure of---evangelicals desperately need to develop a much higher view of Mary. We can begin by stopping the reaction to tradition just because we do not agree with some of the added dogmas that came later in the development of Christian doctrine.

The Church and Mary the Mother of God

The Scripture tells us that the shepherds came to adore the infant Jesus in the stable. Luke further tells us that Mary "kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart" This description has formed the church's thought down through the centuries. Mary is loved but in no church is she co-equal with Jesus. Some evangelicals insist Roman Catholicism teaches Mary is a co-redeemer but this is not the case, not if the dogma of the church is read carefully.

Roman Catholic teaching about Mary includes four dogmas, several of which became dogmas of the church in the last few hundred years. These dogmas are: Mary's Immaculate Conception, which kept her from original sin; Mary's sinlessness; Mary's perpetual virginity; and the Assumption (her body went directly to heaven after her death). Only the dogma of perpetual virginity is taught by the Orthodox. Many Orthodox theologians and Christians also believe in the Assumption but they do not consider it necessary to make this a dogma of the church. And the Orthodox have a different understanding of Mary and sin. They teach that she was the most sinless natural person ever but this is again not a dogma. The Orthodox are willing to say that she probably did display the human foibles of the fall, such as impatience and anger.

Protestants generally reject almost all of these teachings. Most regard Mary as a good mother to Jesus and think little else about her. By default this position gives her little, if any, serious respect, much less devotion.

All of this can be seen in the debate about Jesus' brothers. One Bible trivia game asks: "How many natural brothers and sisters did Jesus have?" The answer takes the reader to Mark 6:3 and says he had at least six natural siblings. But both the Catholic and Orthodox Church have held since antiquity that Mary had no other children with Jesus. Martin Luther and John Calvin, interestingly enough, believed the same based on reading the Bible. How can this be?

In the ancient church Joseph was always understood as "the betrothed" in order to emphasize that he undertook to protect Mary and Jesus but Joseph and Mary never consummated their relationship. An ordinary interpretation of the Scripture's references to James as Jesus' brother says that Joseph, as an older man, had several children from a previous marriage. The other siblings mentioned in Mark may have been members of Joseph's family, perhaps cousins. Or they all could have been offspring from a previous marriage.

Before you reject all of this as strange consider that Jesus referred to the apostle John, from the cross, as Mary's new son, which meant he was being charged with taking care of Mary. John was possibly Jesus' second cousin. It was not unusual in the culture for close relatives to be referred to in this way.

Tomorrow: Jesus siblings. How should we think about them?

The Ancestors of God

The genealogy of Jesus has always fascinated biblical scholars. It has also influenced the church very deeply since the time of the apostles. We have two genealogies in Scripture. Matthew stresses the royal lineage of Jesus whereas Luke stresses his blood relationship with the whole human race.

The divine liturgy of the fourth century (John Chrysostom) refers to the parents of Mary as Joachim and Anna. They are actually called "the ancestors of God." This language creates some deep anxiety for many evangelicals. It should not. Let me explain.

The eternal God has no human forebears. No orthodox church ever taught otherwise. What the church has actually taught is that in the incarnation the human Jesus also has a divine nature. He is "very God of very God." The third ecumenical council (431 A.D.) affirmed this doctrine of the two natures in one person, Jesus of Nazareth. The conclusion of this council was that Mary should be called Theotokos, or "mother of God" (the God-bearer). To describe Mary in this way meant that Christians wanted to underscore the fact that Jesus had a fully divine nature along with his fully human nature. If Mary is God's mother then her parents are his grandparents or ancestors, though they are all fully and only human. Mother of God was not about Mary being divinity but rather about Jesus being truly God in human flesh.

As noted above the ancestors of Jesus are mentioned in Matthew and Luke and among them are princes and kings as well as ordinary people who played important redemptive roles in Israel's history. Some of these people were not even ethnically Jewish (Rahab and Ruth).

The earliest record of the church reveals that Christians treasured the witness of Mary. When Luke says "she kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart" this formed a deep and growing impression of Mary in their minds. Early icons of Mary have her holding the baby but the babe has the face of a man. In one icon Mary has her hand raised pointing to Jesus who is Lord of all. These early Christians were not mistaken about Mary. They knew she was only human but they plainly believed that she was an honored and highly esteemed person, indeed esteemed by God himself.

From this understanding various dogmas about Mary began to develop. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not agree on these dogmas. Both esteem her far more than the majority of Protestants. Tomorrow we shall look at these differences more closely.

The Day of Pentecost

Today is Pentecost Sunday in churches all across the globe. Much as Easter is celebrated on one day, though each Sunday is truly Easter Sunday, so it is with Pentecost. Every Sunday we remember that the Holy Spirit is with us, and in us, and that we have the Comforter, the "spirit of Jesus" living in our soul, personally and collectively as believers.

The term Pentecost comes from the Greek name for the Jewish Feast of Weeks at the close of the grain harvest fifty days after Passover and Unleavened Bread. In the early church Pentecost at first designated the whole period of fifty days from Easter; only later did it refer particularly to the fiftieth day, which became a feast in its own right.

The fifty days that celebrated the resurrection in the ancient church were "the first fruits of the end, one great Sunday" (Athanasius) and "the most joyful season" (Tertullian). Augustine said the "Alleluia" was a hopeful sign of the time when "we shall become a perpetual praise." Favorite liturgical texts for the day include readings in John, Acts and Revelation.

By the fourth century the fiftieth day was regarded as the seal of the period, with the Ascension of Christ and the Descent of the Holy Spirit as its twin themes.

In the liturgy I shared this day the following words were part of our call to worship:

In the beginning, O God, there was only you, our ending and our beginning. The Breath of our Life, our Guide and Inspiration, the Fire that fills our soul; consuming us, driving us and renewing us, calling us, commissioning us and empowering us, leading us ever onward to paths we could never imagine, ways we never sought, lives filled and lived in the joy of divine transcendence even in the face of evil: suffering pain and death.

When the Spirit's renewing power and gifting was first experienced in the early twentieth century, in an unusual way, this feast day became associated with this new outpouring of the Spirit, thus the label "Pentecostal." I am thrilled to use the term in this manner so long as it does not become a new denominational label with which to divide the church again.

Ecumenically, the Eastern Orthodox see themselves as bringing a pneumatological ecclesiology, typified in the event of Pentecost, thus they see their view as correcting the Western emphasis upon institutionalism. Understanding this insight would be a great help to those of us in Western churches, especially Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant.

Mere Christianity and the Reality of Hell

Not long after his rather dramatic conversion to Christ, in 1929, the late C. S. Lewis wrote to a friend: “When all is said (and truly said) about the divisions of Christendom, there remains, by God’s mercy, an enormous common ground.” My bedrock conviction, and that of ACT 3, is that Lewis was right, profoundly right. This enormous common ground should be discussed, reconsidered and taught. Christians need to know that "core orthodoxy" is a reality and that holding to it really matters a great deal. It is here, as Lewis argued so often, that we find the central truth of Christianity, the truth that unites all who know Christ as Lord.

Walter Hooper notes, in his preface to Christian Reflections (Eerdmans, 1967): “From that time (i.e. 1929) on Lewis thought that the best service he could do for his unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times—that ‘enormous common ground’ which he usually referred to as ‘mere’ Christianity.”

Lewis held views that many of us disagree with heartily. His understanding of the nature of divine inspiration troubles some. His conclusion on certain issues that come from reading the biblical text still troubles some evangelicals. (He was not a theologian, but a professor of English literature who became an evangelist and Christian apologist.) But Lewis was always a thoroughgoing supernaturalist in a time when many in the Church of England were expressing great doubt. He believed in the basic Christian doctrines of creation, fall, the incarnation and the four last things (death, judgment, heaven and hell).

Walter Hooper says the thing that singularly set Lewis apart from many others was his total confidence in the immortality of all mankind. Lewis really believed that there was a heaven and a hell. This was an important ingredient in his understanding of “mere” Christianity. (By “mere” Christianity Hooper says he believed in “pure” Christianity and in another place Lewis referred to his views as those that were a part of “deep church.”)

Lewis spoke of hell enough that some accused him of being preoccupied with it. Such is not the case. Hooper says, “For him the real problem was: so much mercy, yet still there is hell. Regardless of what we all wish Christianity were, he knew this terrible doctrine has the support of Scripture (especially of our Lord’s own words) as well as that of reason: ‘If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it.’”

Mere Christianity is not some kind of “weak kneed” orthodoxy for those who want to deny the essential elements of Christianity. It is “true” and “deep” and is established by faith in basic teachings of the Scripture. And it can bring Christians together in powerfully important ways.

Ash Wednesday: The Beginning of Lent

Many evangelicals believe that Lent, and thus Ash Wednesday, are Roman Catholic celebrations. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this instance the "evangelical sub-culture" has misinformed multitudes of people to embrace a reactionary response against church tradition.

I was pleased to see in the news today that several non-liturgical congregations in my suburban Chicago area were actually holding Ash Wednesday services. So far as I can tell this is further evidence that liturgical celebration is spreading into places where it was once taboo. This, I believe, is a very good thing.

Lent is the season of forty days that comes before Easter. It is generally considered a "fast" time though various traditions deal with the "fasting" part of this celebration quite differently. Originally embraced by some Protestants the Reformed only began to embrace such seasons in the 20th century. Now others are following this pattern as Baptists, and other non-liturgical churches, consider the value of placing more emphasis upon ordinary time and the rhythmical cycles put before us by the church calendar. There is undeniable value in such patterns and practices but many good people still react because they do not find a "proof-text" to defend this. (This "proof-texting" is common to all anti-liturgical traditions and tends to make a hodge-podge of the Bible's bigger, fuller message.)

Today is the first day of Lent in the West, commonly called Ash Wednesday. The ashes are placed upon a person's forehead in the sign of the cross. The statement made is: "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return." The purpose is to call us to remember that we came from the dust and we will return to it, being mortal creatures. We are thus welcomed to a "Lenten Journey" on this Ash Wednesday.

This is my third consecutive year of participating in Ash Wednesday and Lent. Each year there has been a different work that God has desired to do in my own soul as I have entered into this fast. Because we are all called to struggle against everything that takes us away from the love of God and neighbor repentance, fasting, works of mercy and holy love are all part of the discipline of Lent. These help us to wage spiritual warfare. On this day we recommit ourselves to this struggle and confess our sins, asking the Father to grant us strength to persevere in our Lenten discipline.

God tells his people to rend their hearts, not their garments (Joel 2:13). The gift of this day is one of personal reflection, a time of confession, a time to change and to face our certain death with hope. Today begins a journey of hope that leads to Calvary and Easter. From facade to faith, we sanctify a fast (Joel 2:15) thus seeking to address our voracious consumption by following a new path of self-denial and grace.

The smudge of ashes placed on my forehead in the sign of the cross reminded me that I will die. I belong to Christ and he is my only hope in life and in death. Such symbols of piety can be transformed into masks that hide the real me from the world behind a prideful religious facade. But the sign of the cross, made with ash, can also be a powerful reminder, in my own human flesh, of the grace of God. This is how I sought to receive it at the noon service I attended today.

The Passing of the Peace

One of the most basic traditions of holy worship practiced by Christians down through the ages is called "the passing of the peace." This tradition is rooted in the several passages in the New Testament that refer to giving one another a "holy kiss."

I remember the first time I read those texts and asked the adults of my church why we didn't practice these customs the answer I got was unsatisfactory. I was puzzled at how insistent we were about interpreting the Bible literally but we tended to pick those things out of the Bible that we liked and left the rest. Such was the case here.

Then I discovered the "passing of the peace." This practice usually precedes coming to the Lord's Table. Part of the reason for this is so that we will all come having sought reconciliation with each other. We will also have a proper way to greet each other in the context of congregational worship.

The greeting is simple:

Leader: The peace of the Lord be with you always.
People: And also with you.
Leader: Please share the peace with one another.

My wife always brings along the hand sanitizer to kill the germs but we gladly shake hands all around and happily pass the peace. I have found the practice to be one that fills my heart with joy.

The Season of Epiphany

We come today to the last Sunday in Epiphany. Next week begins Lent and the church's preparation for Easter. Most Christians, at least those who are Protestants, know very little about this celebration. This is actually a sad loss since whole segments of the church do not not use the church calendar. January 6 is the actual day of "The Epiphany of our Lord." Then the Sundays that follow are called: "The First Sunday after Epiphany," and "The Second Sunday after Epiphany," etc.

Two major themes dominate this season. The first is the coming of light into the world and the power of that light to draw us to God. That light is Jesus. The second major theme is revelation. The texts associated with Epiphany are chosen to reveal to us who Jesus is. There is an emphasis in these chosen texts on calling individuals and congregations to teaching and healing ministry.

Epiphany is one of the oldest celebrations in Christian history. Easter and Pentecost are based on Jewish celebrations going back several thousands years before Christ. Early Christians transformed a two-day festival of the Egyptians into a time to honor the new born Christ, thus the "Day of Holy Lights" now commemorates the manifestation of God in the birth and baptism of Jesus.

A friend of mine says that if you could create a symbol for this season it would be one of those big spotlights used for musicals, dramas, speeches or grand openings. During this season the church seeks to hold the spotlight intensely on Jesus. We thus pray to hear what he is saying to us all over again. We hear voices like those of John the Baptist, Samuel and Eli, Philip and Nathaniel, Simon and Andrew, etc.

I have come to appreciate Epiphany deeply. It is a blessed time to prepare us for the next great season to come: Lent. Then comes the greatest time of all, Holy Week and Easter Sunday. The flow and pattern of these seasons helps us to remember our Lord as we ought. I am reminded that the very words of institution used at the Lord's Supper tell us "to do this in remembrance of me." I am prone to forgetfulness thus frequent coming to the Table, and to the various seasons of the church, helps me immensely.