Exploring Catechisms: Heidelberg

As much as I enjoyed the catechisms of Luther and Westminster, the Heidelberg catechism is simply in a class by itself. Nothing else is remotely close to as good as it is. Heidelberg is a Reformed catechism, but it was intended in part to keep its sponsor from being executed by the Lutherans, so it is consciously ecumenical (Nothing against the Lutherans. Killing people over theological differences is just what you did in the 16th century). Reformed distinctives are present, but often not front-and-center. Election, which you would expect to be prominent in a Reformed catechism, is mentioned only twice in passing (qq 52, 54) – and even then the wording is drawn directly from the Bible. You’re unlikely to be offended by it if you aren’t offended by Paul.

This fidelity to the Bible is the defining characteristic of Heidelberg. The Scripture references are copious, and in strong contrast to Westminster it chooses plain Biblical language over abstract theological categories. Whereas Westminster speaks very specifically of the federal headship of Adam, Heidelberg says simply that our sin nature comes from “the fall and disobedience of our first parents”. Westminster describes the Trinity precisely, but Heidelberg simply affirms “these three distinct persons are the one, true, eternal God”.

This simplicity and clarity are its best features. Not only do they provide a theological grounding in the thought and language of the Bible itself, but the wording and concepts are easier for children to follow. It makes me wonder how much of an improvement systematic theology really is.

There is a warmth and joy throughout the catechism that speaks to a child and reminds me, as I read, that I must become like a child to inherit the kingdom of God. Its first question sets the tone for the whole catechism, and is even better than Westminster’s:

Q1 What is your only comfort in life and in death?

That I am not my own,
but belong—
body and soul,
in life and in death—
to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven:
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.

Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.

You can just feel the warmth, joy, and delightfully evangelical spirit. That spirit is further on display in Q60 (“How are you right with God?”) and others.

I was surprised to hear hear echoes of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism in the catechism. Joy and comfort are the ever-present and motivating themes throughout, and it made me realize that Piper did not just hit upon a cool idea but is standing in a long Reformed tradition.

Following Colossians 1 and 2, the primacy of Jesus is evident throughout. He is the totality of God’s revelation to us. We know God the Father as the Father of Jesus (Q26), and the Spirit as the Spirit of Jesus (Q1). Our redemption is not just one of the things that God chose to do but the thing that He does, the only context in which we know Him and the lens through which we must understand everything about Him.

Heidelberg’s definition of faith is the best in any of the catechisms I read, and the only one to describe it rightly as a kind of knowledge:

Q21 What is true faith?

True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation.

I cannot think of a better way to ground young children in theology than exposing them to the Heidelberg catechism. It is written to them, but rather than feeling watered down the gospel message actually feels concentrated and purified. Which makes sense when you think about it - the gospel is for children and a simple explanation in the simple language of the Bible is more powerful, more true, than a precise theological definition. And as I read it I feel like a child.

Lukan Repetition

I’ve noticed, as I’ve been studying Luke, that he tends to repeat similar stories and themes more than once. This is quite a change from Mark, who carries on at such a good clip that he sometimes seems to barely have time to say things once – immediately! at once! and then! immediately!

Luke, on the other hand, appears to be taking his time. He wants you to understand this man Jesus, who he was and what he taught. To that end he picks his themes and dwells on them, using the repetition for emphasis. In Luke’s gospel I also feel that I catch a glimpse of Jesus the itinerant preacher, who makes a point in more than one way and grabs on to favorite pictures to teach more than one principle and never says the same thing twice in quite the same way.

Here are the repetitions I have noticed, with minimal commentary:

• The disciples argue over who is the greatest (9:46-48, 22:24-27)
• Jesus heals on the Sabbath (6:6-11, 13:10-12, 14:1-6)
  Each time, Jesus gives an argument from the law about why this is permitted.
• Jesus sends out the disciples (9:1-6,10 – the twelve, 10:1-12,17-20 – the seventy two)
• Jesus laments over Jerusalem (13:33-35, 19:41-44)
• Jesus is invited to dine at a Pharisee’s house (7:36, 11:37, 14:1)
• Jesus dines at a tax collector's house (5:29 - Levi, 19:5 - Zacchaeus)
• Jesus heals a leper (5:12-13, 17:11-18)
• Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed (8:17, 12:2-3)
• Acknowledging Jesus before men (9:26, 12:8-9)
  These two passages complement each other nicely, with the first focused on the negative (if you are ashamed of Jesus, he will be ashamed of you) and the other on the positive (if you acknowledge Jesus before men, He will acknowledge you).
• He who is faithful in little is faithful in much (16:10-12, 19:17ff)
  In this case Luke presents a teaching of Jesus once as a saying and once as a parable.
• To the one who has, more will be given (8:18, 19:26)
  This is parallel to the previous point, and helps to explain it. He who is faithful will be given more, and he who is unfaithful will have what he has taken from him.
• The Pharisee's outrage at Jesus forgiving sins (5:20-21, 7:48-49)
• Jesus raises a young child from the dead (7:11-17, 8:50-56)
• Jesus praying alone with sleepy disciples (9:28-32, 22:39-46)
• Jesus teaches that this generation is worse than, and will be judged by, pagan nations (10:13-15, 11:30-32)
  
• Take up your cross and follow me (9:23, 14:27)
• Jesus tells a parable about persistence in prayer (11:5-9, 18:8)
• Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted (14:11, 18:14)
• Jesus tells a parable about a dead rich man (12:16-20, 16:19-31)
  This one is more similar in main characters than in teaching. Jesus uses a similar idea to illustrate two different teachings, much as he uses a mustard seed for two different analogies (13:19, 17:6).

Eating Bread in the Kingdom of God

Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God

Luke 14:15b

At my church this sentence is said every week before communion is distributed. I’ve been studying Luke recently, though, and this last Sunday I recognized the context. The comment is made to Jesus by a dinner guest. Jesus responds with a story that explains just who it is that will eat in the Kingdom: the parable of the great banquet.

Hearing that one sentence at church brought all of this flooding back. The great man’s bountiful generosity – “bring in the poor, the blind, the lame, the crippled” – and the incredible openness of the offer: “master, there is still room”.

Any time that conflict arises in the church, it’s hard to observe carefully and avoid the conclusion that we are all broken. Theology, pride, conviction, and general sinfulness are so intermixed that it is hardly possible to separate them.

But we broken ones are exactly the people whom Christ invites to His table. And watching us file up to the front for the Lord’s body and blood on that Sunday reminded me that we are a part of Christ’s church not because He has been formed in us, but because we know He has not. So I limped up to the altar rail, one cripple among many, to eat bread in the kingdom of God.

Expanse: Theology and an Old Earth

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. —Psalm 19:1

While I was in college I began to be convinced by the scientific arguments for an old earth (something on the order of 5 billion years, and 14 billion or so for the universe). This was further cemented in grad school. It didn't line up with how I prefer to interpret the Bible, but I thought the Biblical evidence for a young earth less conclusive than the scientific evidence for an old earth (some remarks on that below). One thing that I never had, though, was a theological justification for why that should be so. It was an inconvenient belief, one that I did not know how to fit properly into the rest of my theology.

That changed when I compared the antiquity of the universe with what we are learning about God from the other sciences. As astronomy looks out it discovers unfathomable distances that testify to the magnitude of a God who fills it all. As Biology looks deep into the cell it discovers engineering far better than ours: ever-richer complexity, large interwoven networks of protein interactions, several overlapping layers of data storage in DNA, efficient energy transmission in photosynthesis (by way of quantum tunneling!). As Physics looks deeper, into the nature of reality, it finds an underlying order which bears witness to its Orderer. Below even that, we can see Divine whimsy in the chaos which this order is balanced precariously on top of. One could hardly think of a more counter-intuitive foundation than quantum physics, perhaps the richest paradox in the sciences. And when astronomy looks back on the incredible age of the universe, it tells us something about the Ancient of Days, old beyond human reckoning and seated on his throne.

In other words, the sciences are converging on Psalm 19:1. God is showing off! Everywhere we turn we see an expanse so massive that it displays a reckless disregard for our ability to understand. The heavens declare the glory of God, indeed. They have been singing it in ways that were not discovered for 14 billion years, and in ways that will never be discovered.

And that is why I think God took His time in creation. He poured Himself into it. It cannot hold his infinitude, of course, but it can give us a glimpse. And that tiny glimpse is enough to drown us a thousand times over. The great age which we find in astronomy and geology testifies to a God who is not slow as some count slowness. He is patient, eternal, and waiting for us.

Appendix: The Age of the Earth in Science and Genesis

This post is not about whether creation is old or not, it is about why an old creation is consistent with (and perhaps expected by) God's character. But I know there are lots of people (probably most of my 7 readers :-) who are still back at whether, which is a prior question to why. Briefly, this is why I think it makes sense to believe in an old creation:

1. About the accuracy of radiometric dating: yes, those methods are based on assumptions and any of them could be incorrect. However, the rocks which are used to help date the earth were tested by several different radiometric methods, and all of them gave roughly the same answer (you can find this out in 5 minutes by googling "age of the earth"). If radiometric dating methods are unreliable, wouldn't you expect them to give wildly different age predictions?
2. A shameless appeal to authority: J.P. Moreland gives an able defense of an old earth, and points out that some exceptional Hebrew scholars think the days of Genesis 1 aren't literal for textual reasons.
3. Some thoughts on the Genesis account from an old-earth perspective (take with a grain of salt, I am not an expert): Genesis does not record the creation of the earth. "In the beginning" it is formless and void, apparently covered by water. Interestingly, this corresponds more or less to the scientific account of the early earth being, well, covered by water. So even a literal reading does not provide an absolute beginning date for its creation (how long was the earth "formless and void"?). Also, the order of creation corresponds very roughly to the order in which we find animals in the fossil record - plants (including photosynthesizing bacteria?), fish (birds don't seem to fit?), land animals and finally man.
4. On the length of days in the Genesis account: the presence of evening and morning in the 3 days before the sun and moon were created argue against a literal reading, I think. The events of day 6 in Genesis 2 would be hard to fit into a 24 hour period (God creates land animals, man. Adam names all the animals, feels lonely, God creates Eve before sunset). This account (2:4-24) does not even mention the "days" of chapter 1, but it does use "day" in another sense: "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (2:4). Also, there is good reason to think that the seventh day was not 24 hours. It is never closed out by the "evening and morning" formula of the other days (2:1-3), and Hebrews 3:18-4:10 make a convincing case that the seventh day is eternal: there remains a "Sabbath rest" for the people of God, in which we enter in to His rest. Verses 4:4,10 make it clear that God's rest in this passage refers specifically to His 7th-day rest from creating.

I've glossed over some of the serious theological problems caused by an old earth. The best and most honest attempt to resolve these issues that I know of is this book by Bill Dembski[1]. I obviously don't think the problems are worse than those confronting a young-earth view. However, given the theological difficulties and my preference for interpreting Scripture straightforwardly, I respect those who hold to a 7-day creation. Sometimes God requires us to trust Him in pitch darkness when all of our reason cries out against it[2]. This kind of complete submission to the Word is a virtue, and it could be that I am wrong and the age of the earth is one of those areas where God requires it of us.

---

[1] Disclaimer: I've read a paper on which the book was based, not yet the book itself
[2] The faith of the thief on the cross is one of the most vivid examples of this.

Religious Affections, etc.

The Christian Audio free audiobook last month was Jonathan Edwards' The Religious Affections, and I've been listening through it slowly. The experience has sparked some thoughts (as good books always do):

Audiobooks are good for you

Listening to a long, careful and cohesive argument (as The Religious Affections is) or even a classic novel (with more complex sentence structure than modern fiction) sharpens your brain. It requires you to focus on what you are hearing in a way that stretches you, in a refreshing way. I often worry that modern movies and television are conditioning us to have ever shorter attention spans. This is a good way to fight back.

As a bonus, I wonder if it might also help in prayer. In The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard notes that when our thoughts wander during prayer, they are only doing what they usually do. Consciously gathering your thoughts and focusing them while listening to something that requires concentration might train them in a way that helps you concentrate during prayer. So far this is just a conjecture, though. No results to report yet.

Read The Religious Affection

The Religious Affections is a penetrating analysis of religious experience by one of the brightest and best theologians ever born on this continent. It was written in the fallout of the second great awakening, and Edwards is trying to come to grips with what he experienced during that time: many extremely fervent religious experiences which withered and died, leaving no lasting devotion.

Its description of the relationship between emotion and the Christian life is very helpful and should be required reading, I think, for worship leaders. It is incredibly important for them in particular to think about what differentiates true religious affection from mere emotion, which can flare up quickly and die just as quickly, and which has no religious significance. Several practical suggestions could be gleaned from the book on how to focus a worship service with this in mind.

Also, it is helping me formulate a better understanding of the nature of religious experiences. Recently I encountered a few examples of strong experiences which I would have thought could come only from God, but which communicated messages I don't think God would communicate. Edwards' book gives me a better feeling for the nature of religious experience and how to discern true from false ones.

Modern Neuroscience isn't all that Revolutionary

This one caught my attention mostly because of my ongoing interest in the sciences and Christianity's place within them. It seems like every other week someone is publishing a paper which supposedly provides a causal explanation of some facet or other of religious belief: stick somebody in an FMRI machine, tell them to think about God, jot down the areas of the brain that light up the most, and presto! You've reduced religion to brain chemistry and explained it in completely naturalistic terms.

Ok, so that was uncharitable. But it is certainly true that neuroscience in general is accumulating proof of correlations between certain brain states and certain beliefs, thoughts, or personality characteristics, and reasoning from that data to the conclusion that the brain states in question provide a physical explanation of the mental events they're correlated with. I'm pretty convinced that this assumption is uncritically inherited from the current academic climate, not deduced from the data.

But what does all this have to do with The Religious Affections? Oh, yes. It turns out that the correlation between brain states and mental states, which modern neuroscience usually portrays as breaking news which finally disproves the existence of the soul, have been believed by Christians for hundreds of years.

Edwards spends a lot of time discussing mental phenomena, as his subject is religious experience. And in different places throughout the book he makes plain that he envisions a deep, 2-way connection between the soul and the body. He says that he is doubtful whether there is any thought however small which does not affect the body in some way. He argues that the devil cannot read our minds, but can introduce thoughts into us by placing impressions in our brains. He says that certain physical sicknesses can weaken our reason by weakening the control the soul has over the brain. And, while I'm on the subject, C.S. Lewis mentions in The Discarded Image that the medievals believed different areas of the brain were associated with different cognitive functions.

So the idea that belief in a soul is threatened by modern neuroscience is groundless. On the contrary, we've been predicting these sort of results for hundreds of years.

Update: I've run across another ancient Christian reference to physical brain changes affecting our mental state: Evagrios the solitary, a 4th-century monk:

... this illusion results from the passion of self-esteem and from the demon's touch on a certain area of the brain.
....
[the intellect] then mistakes for a divine manifestation the appearance produced in it by the demon, who cunningly manipulates the brain and converts the light surrounding the intellect into a form, as we have described. [emphases mine]

On Prayer, texts 73 & 74, Philokalia vol. I

The Historicity of Jesus

Recently, I ran across the God who wasn't there, a "documentary" claiming to prove that Jesus never existed.

This idea is way outside the mainstream of historical scholarship. Even most of the liberal, Jesus-seminar types take for granted that Jesus was a historical figure. In fact, the point is so established that I'm tempted to think there's no reason to spend any time defending it.

However, there are still apparently people who question it, and it couldn't hurt to compile the evidence for possible future use.

As far as I know, the historical sources which support Jesus' existence are the four Gospels, Paul's letters (I Corinthians in particular), the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Roman historian Tacitus. Let's examine them one at a time:

1) Tacitus
In The Annals of Imperial Rome (early second century), Tacitus gives Christians a passing mention, commenting that they are a Jewish sect who follow a teacher that Pontias Pilate crucified. Tacitus considers Christianity harmful to Rome and he gives them a slightly sympathetic treatment only because he hated Nero even more, and nobody deserves to be burned alive just for sport. It is unlikely that Tacitus was relying solely on Christian accounts about a specific execution in a specific place at a specific time. If there was no other reason to think it was true, he would not have reported it uncritically and mater-of-factly, as he does.

2) Josephus
The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his work Antiquities of the Jews (late first century). Although there is some debate over the authenticity of one of the passages, it is clear that Josephus viewed Jesus as a historical figure.

3) The Apostle Paul
Paul's letters represent the earliest extant references to Jesus, at least according to mainstream contemporary dating. Paul clearly believed that Jesus was a real, historical figure. He refers for instance to "the man Christ Jesus", and "all the fullness of deity dwelling in bodily form". I Cor. 15:3-7 is poetic in structure, and it is generally agreed that Paul is quoting an early creed of sorts, attesting that Christian belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus dates to the earliest times. Since I Corinthians was written in the mid to late 50's, this dates this early creed to less than 20 years from the time of Jesus' death.

4) The Gospels
Mark is generally considered the earliest of the gospels. The latest date scholars suggest for it is the early 70's, 40 years after Christ's execution. It is well established that Mark is acting as an editor, drawing on earlier material to create his gospel. According to tradition, Mark is compiling Peter's memoirs. I think this is unlikely on textual grounds, but at any rate he is drawing much of his material from pre-existing sources.

The trailer for the God who wasn't there quotes someone to the effect that Mark was making a symbolic point and probably didn't believe that Jesus was a historical figure. This is utter nonsense and, again, way outside the mainstream. In the last 30 or 40 years, there's been a renewal in Markan scholarship as people realized that Mark wasn't simply acting as a dumb editor, throwing previous sources together in a more or less haphazard way, but was extremely careful and thorough in the way he composes his material. He had a definite theological agenda in mind, and it shows. I suppose this is what the movie is referring to when it says Mark's point was "symbolic". But this in no way suggests that he didn't think Jesus was a historical figure, and it certainly doesn't mean that Mark's sources from less than four decades after Christ's death were composed as myth rather than history.

If you are making a theological point by re-telling an existing myth, you choose as your subject Zeus or Achilles or some other well-established figure. You do not choose a person who died 40 years ago, because a person who died 40 years ago is not a myth. In fact there are still people walking around who can testify to the fact that your story is a bunch of hooey because they were there at the time.

On the other synoptics: Matthew and Luke were written after Mark, and use his material as the basis for some of their material. However, there are several respects in which Matthew and Luke agree with each other on material not found in Mark. The standard way to resolve this is to posit a second source (call it 'Q'), which Matthew and Luke had access to, but Mark did not. This would be another relatively early source about the life of Jesus.

Furthermore, even when Matthew and Luke follow Mark's account, they occasionally differ from him on minor details. The most obvious way to interpret this is to assume that Matthew and Luke believed they had additional information about the event which was not available to Mark himself. This attention to detail powerfully suggests that they are writing history.

One last point: Matthew occasionally makes reference to contemporary facts which his readers are presumably aware of. In 27:8, he explains that the field Judas hung himself in is called the field of blood "to this day", and in 28:14-15 he explains the origin of the "disciples stole the body" explanation for the resurrection, which "has been spread among the Jews to this day". These are not the kind of specific, easily falsifiable historical facts that you put in your gospel if you are not writing a history.

I don't have any special comments about John's gospel, except to say that it is yet another (late first century) testimony to Jesus' existence.

So there are several independent sources (Paul, Mark, Q, Tacitus, Josephus) which confirm the historicity of Jesus, some of which contain material that dates to within a few decades of Jesus' death in the 30's. If this is not convincing historical evidence, than nothing is.

In order to affirm the non-existence of Jesus, it is necessary to assume that, around A.D. 40-50 (remember, by the late 50's Paul was converted and quoting an early creed), some disgruntled Jews got together and decided to invent a teacher who was supposedly crucified publicly in a specific place by a few specific people just 10 or 20 years prior, and these disgruntled Jews managed to not only survive but flourish in Jerusalem, the very city in which this mythical teacher was supposedly crucified, in which almost everyone over 30 could easily testify to the falsity of the story, and in which several of the historical figures who supposedly played a part would still have been alive. Over the next few decades, several stories and primary documents about this fabricated teacher emerged and were consolidated in the writings of Paul and the gospels that we have today. Despite the fact that the founders and (one must assume) a great deal of the early followers knew Jesus had never existed, they were willing to endure the early Jewish persecution and Nero's later (A.D. 60's) persecution, in some cases choosing to be burned alive and eaten by wild animals rather than renounce their faith in an imaginary savior.

Despite the alarming ease with which this story could have been shown to be false, the Christians also managed to hoodwink even non-Christian historians like Josephus and Tacitus into thinking that Jesus actually existed. This stretches the bounds of credibility.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I'll close with a quotation from St. Augustine's City of God:

It is incredible that Jesus Christ should have risen in the flesh and ascended with flesh into heaven; it is incredible that the world should have believed so incredible a thing; it is incredible that a very few men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, should have been able so effectually to persuade the world, and even its learned men, of so incredible a thing. Of these three incredibles, the parties with whom we are debating refuse to believe the first; they cannot refuse to believe the second, which they are unable to account for if they do no believe the third.