Looking for something to do on Oct. 31?

As far as I know this isn't a joke.

Berkhof on dogma (part 1)

I've been reading the prolegomenon to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, which I obtained at this bargain price from Christianbook.com. Though it's almost 80 years old I'd say this hefty volume is still the English-language Reformed dogmatics to have on your bookshelf. It's worth having just for the section on dogma—a bracing tonic against the negative connotation we moderns associate with that word. Here are some snippets.

Systematic Theology or Dogmatics deals with the dogmata, the accepted doctrines of the Church. . . . The word 'dogma' is derived from the Greek verb dokein. In classical Greek the expression dokein moi meant not only, it seems to me, or, I am of the opinion, but also, I have come to the conclusion, I am certain, it is my conviction. And it is especially this idea of certainty that finds expression in the word 'dogma'. (p. 18)

It may be said that religious dogmas have three characteristics, namely: their subject-matter is derived from Scripture; they are the fruit of the reflection of the Church on the truth, as it is revealed in the Bible; and they are officially adopted by some competent ecclesiastical body. (p. 21)

The present age is an undogmatic age. There is a manifest aversion, not only to dogmas, but even to doctrines, and to a systematic presentation of doctrinal truth. During the last half a century very few dogmatical works made their appearance, while the market was flooded with works on the History of Religions, the Philosophy of Religion, and the Psychology of Religion. The assertion is often heard that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, and that it makes very little difference what we believe, if we but share the life of Christ. There is an insistent cry, especially in our own country, for a Christianity without dogmas. Dogmatical preaching is not in favor and is therefore avoided in many circles. Many conservative Christians clamour for purely experiential preaching, while others of a more liberal type greatly prefer ethical or social preaching. (p. 26)

Sound familiar? Change a few descriptors and Berkhof could have been writing in 2009 instead of 1932. He goes on to lay much of the blame for the opposition to dogmas at the feet of Kantian philosophical tendencies and Ritschlian theology (one need not be familiar with Kant or Ritschl to be influenced by their ideas). Further, any effort to dispense with dogma is itself a kind of dogma.

Every Church has its dogmas. Even the Churches that are constantly decrying dogmas have them in effect. When they say that they want a Christianity without dogma, they are by that very statement declaring a dogma. They all have certain definite convictions in religious matters, and also ascribe to them a certain authority, though they do not always formulate them officially and acknowledge them candidly. . . . A Church without dogmas would be a silent Church, and this is a contradiction in terms. A silent witness would be no witness at all, and would never convince anyone. (p. 31)

All quotes from Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932 & 1996)

To be continued . . .

Leaving Canterbury for Rome

I'm not an expert in Anglo-Catholic affairs, but this news seems quite amazing. The wreckage of the Anglican Communion brought about by theological liberalism is sad to see. Cranmer must be rolling in his grave.


UPDATE: More reaction here from my friend Jason Miller.

Swine flu vs. the Eucharist

Russell Moore wonders if concerns about hygiene are leading us toward cleanliness -- but away from Christ.

@ The Gospel Coalition blog

It's cool to see a Southern Baptist saying these things!

Imagining God

J.I. Packer known best as the author of Knowing God draws out the second commandment's prohibition against imagining God.

How should we form thoughts of God? Not only can we not imagine him adequately, since he is at every point greater than we can grasp; we dare not trust anything our imagination suggests about him, for the built-in habit of fallen minds is to scale God down. Sin began as a response to the temptation, "You will be like God" (Genesis 3:5), and the effect of our wanting to be on God's level is that we bring him down to ours. This is unrealistic, not to say irreverent, but it is what we all do when imagination is in the saddle.

Hence the second commandment, "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything." This forbids, not worshipping many gods (the first commandment covered that), but imagining the true God as like yourself or something lower. God's real attack is on mental images, of which metal images are more truly the consequence than the cause. When Israelites worshipped God under the form of a golden bull-calf, they were using their imagination to conceive him in terms of power without purity; this was their basic sin. And if imagination leads our thoughts about God, we too shall go astray. No statement starting, "This is how I like to think of God" should ever be trusted. An imagined God will always be more or less imaginary and unreal.

Growing in Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), pp. 243-244 [bold emphasis mine]

Packer goes on to remind us that the only trustworthy images of God are to be found in his revealed Word—the written Word of scripture and the incarnate Word of Jesus. Also, by accepting the presentation of God in scripture as a unity we'll avoid the error of imagining, in Packer's words, "a clash between the presentations of God in different parts of the Old Testament . . . and what we imagine Jesus to have been." (p. 244) I think a lot of contemporary Christian art, music and literature would do well to remember the second commandment when fashioning presentations of the triune God. Books like The Shack might be helpful in some respects, but they also risk introducing ideas about God based more on man's fallen imagination than God's self-disclosure.

That 70's show

Evangelizing like Paul

Good stuff from Mark Shea:

Many Catholics wonder if there is some sort of technique they need to master in order to bear witness to their faith. They fear that if they have not taken some sort of course in evangelization, or studied theology for a decade, or otherwise jumped through various hoops, they cannot evangelize. For such folk, the Holy Father has liberating news. In his announcement of the Year of Paul on June 28, 2007, Benedict XVI said that Paul’s success was not due to some "refined strategy" of salesmanship or philosophical wrangling. Instead, the Holy Father essentially said that Paul’s achievement was due to his extraordinary personal involvement springing from his total dedication to Christ, despite all obstacles.

In short, Paul really believed this stuff. He acted exactly like a man who really had met the Risen Christ on the Road to Damascus and was now perfectly convinced that Jesus had conquered death, forgiven his sins, and laid upon him the charge to tell the world. Because he really believed, he was willing to "pay personally for [his] faith in Christ, in every situation."

Benedict knows this because he’s read Paul, who bluntly states: “When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

Paul no more felt equal to the task of evangelism than you or I do. His secret was not a technique or a philosophy or theory. It was that Paul believed that if he trusted in the Spirit of Jesus to provide the power and the wisdom, the Spirit would come through.

Shea also writes: "Not a theological brainiac when somebody asks you what Catholics believe? You don’t have to be clever. Go find a catechism." Well, telling people what Catholics believe isn't quite the same thing as sharing the message of "Jesus Christ and him crucified" but I know what he means. We Presbyterians have been known to appreciate the value of a catechism!

How Professor Piper became Pastor John

@ Between Two Worlds

Warfield on Christian self-sacrifice

From a sermon on Philippians 2:5-8:

It is not to mere self-denial that Christ calls us, but specifically to self-sacrifice: not to unselfing ourselves, but to unselfishing ourselves. Self-denial for its own sake is in its very nature ascetic, monkish. It concentrates our whole attention on self—self-knowledge, self-control—and can therefore eventuate in nothing other than the very apotheosis of selfishness. . . . It is not to this that Christ's example calls us. He did not cultivate self, even His divine self: He took no account of self. He was not led by His divine impulse out of the world, driven back into the recesses of His own soul to brood morbidly over His own needs, until to gain His own seemed worth all sacrifice to Him. He was led by His love for others into the world, to forget Himself in the needs of others, to sacrifice self once for all upon the altar of sympathy. Self-sacrifice brought Christ into the world. And self-sacrifice will lead us, His followers, not away from but into the midst of men. Wherever men suffer, there will we be to comfort. Wherever men strive, there will we be to help. Wherever men fail, there will be we to uplift. Wherever men succeed, there will we be to rejoice. Self-sacrifice means not indifference to our times and our fellows: it means absorption in them. It means forgetfulness of self in others. It means entering into every man's hopes and fears, longings and despairs: it means manysidedness of spirit, multiform activity, multiplicity of sympathies. It means richness of development. It means not that we should live one life, but a thousand lives—binding ourselves to a thousand souls by the filaments of so loving a sympathy that their lives become ours. It means that all the experiences of men shall smite our souls and shall beat and batter these stubborn hearts of ours into fitness for their heavenly home. It is, after all, then, the path to the highest possible development, by which alone we can be made truly men.

B.B. Warfield, "Imitating the Incarnation" from The Saviour of the World: Sermons preached in the Chapel of Princeton Theological Seminary (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913)

Say what?!

That seems to be the consensus reaction from commentators on the right and the left (after making sure it wasn't a story from The Onion) to the news that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel peace prize after less than a year in office, e.g. Mark Halperin: "It isn't quite as inexplicable as Marisa Tomei's Best Supporting Actress Oscar, but it seems pretty close."

Reaction from Rod Dreher and Andrew Sullivan