Christ, the Scope of Scripture in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy

Seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy had a “whole-Bible” hermeneutic which was manifested, among other places, in their understanding of the scopus of Scripture.[1] Though scopus could refer to the immediate pericope, it also had a wider, redemptive-historical focus. Scopus, in this latter sense, referred to the center or target of the entirety of canonical revelation; it is that to which the entire Bible points. For the Reformers and for the seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox, Christ was the scopus of Scripture.

The First Helvetic Confession of 1536 gave early Reformed expression to this concept in Article V, entitled the Scope of Scripture.[2] The first sentence of that article reads as follows:

The position of this entire canonical scripture [or of the entire actual canonical scripture] is this, that God is kindhearted [or shows kindness] to the race of men, and that he has proclaimed [or demonstrated] this kindness [or goodwill] through Christ his Son.[3]

William Ames, for instance, says, “The Old and New Testaments are reducible to these two primary heads. The Old promises Christ to come and the New testifies that he has come.”[4]

Kelly M. Kapic says of John Owen:

For Owen, all Scripture points to Christ, for “the revelation of the person of Christ and his office, is the foundation whereon all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the church are built and whereinto they are resolved” (Works, 1:314-15). Owen attempts to avoid allowing the original context and meaning of any Old Testament passage to be lost; yet, he also maintains that a Christian exegete must ultimately find the passage’s Christological meaning.[5]

Isaac Ambrose gives eloquent expression to the concept of Christ as scopus of Scripture in later Reformed thought:

Keep still Jesus Christ in your eye, in the perusal of the Scriptures, as the end, scope and substance thereof: what are the whole Scriptures, but as it were the spiritual swaddling clothes of the holy child Jesus? 1. Christ is the truth and substance of all the types and shadows. 2. Christ is the substance and matter of the Covenant of Grace, and all administrations thereof; under the Old Testament Christ is veiled, under the New Covenant revealed. 3. Christ is the centre and meeting place of all the promises; for in him the promises of God are yea and Amen. 4. Christ is the thing signified, sealed and exhibited in the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament. 5. Scripture genealogies use to lead us on to the true line of Christ. 6. Scripture chronologies are to discover to us the times and seasons of Christ. 7. Scripture-laws are our schoolmasters to bring us to Christ, the moral by correcting, the ceremonial by directing. 8. Scripture-gospel is Christ’s light, whereby we hear and follow him; Christ’s cords of love, whereby we are drawn into sweet union and communion with him; yea it is the very power of God unto salvation unto all them that believe in Christ Jesus; and therefore think of Christ as the very substance, marrow, soul and scope of the whole Scriptures.[6]

Muller, commenting on scopus in seventeenth-century Reformed thought, says:

Christ…is the fundamentum and scopus of Scripture inasmuch as he is the redemptive center on which the entire principium cognoscendi or cognitive foundation rests and in whom it find [sic] its unity.[7]

…the theologies of the Reformers and of their orthodox successors consistently place Christ at the center of their discussions of redemption, consistently understand Christ as the center and fulfill­ment of divine revelation, and equally consistently understand the causality of salvation as grounded in the divine purpose. Christ, as Mediator, must be subordinate to the divine purpose, even as Christ, considered as God, is the one who with the Father and the Spirit decrees salvation before the foundation of the world: Causal theocentricity guarantees redemptive Christocentricity. Neither the doctrine of God nor the doctrine of Christ, however, serves as the basis of a neatly deduced system: The loci themselves arise out of the interpretation of Scripture.[8]

James M. Renihan, commenting on the confessional theology of the Reformed orthodox, says:

It is necessary to insist that there is a further step to identify in this process, which is to say that in agreement with Athanasius, the English Reformed confessors understood their statement to imply that Christ is the scope of all Scripture. This is evident in at least two ways. First, the Reformed authors, following the text of Holy Writ, argue that Christ is the incarnation of the glory of God. If the scope of Scripture is to give all glory to God, and all glory comes to God through Him, then by definition this statement must have reference to the person of Jesus Christ. Secondly, they recognized the intimate relationship present between the two testaments and their constituent books. The Old, whether considered as a whole or in its parts, is an anticipation of the work of God in Christ. From the protevangelium through the historical revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the history of Israel, everything looked forward to his coming. Likewise, the New is the full revelation of the promises progressively revealed in the Old. This unity finds it fullness in Jesus Christ and his work. In every place, the Bible points to Christ-he is the target-the scope of Scripture.[9]

According to Reformed orthodoxy, then, Christ is the scopus (target) toward which the whole of Scripture tends. This view of the scopus of Scripture was closely related to their view of the relation between the testaments. The relationship between the testaments was seen in terms of a promise/fulfillment, figure/reality, type/anti-type motif.[10] Hence, “the New Testament may be understood as the interpreter of the Old.”[11] Revelation was progressive, self-interpreting, and consummated in the coming of Christ.

Here we must be careful not to infuse later, neo-orthodox concepts of Christocentricity into the historical data. The Christocentricity of the Reformed and Reformed orthodox was redemptive-historical and not principial, as Muller points out.[12] In other words, it came as a result of Scripture functioning as the principium cognoscendi (principle of knowing) or cognitive foundation of our knowledge of God. Scripture, and not Christ the Mediator, is a fundamental principle or foundation of theology in Reformed orthodoxy.[13] They started with Scripture and concluded Christocentricity in terms of the historia salutis. Their Christocentricity is revelational and connected to redemption. As Muller says, such “Christocentrism consistently places Christ at the historical and at the soteriological center of the work of redemption.”[14] But we must still be careful with the term Christocentricity. Christology must not be viewed as the central dogma of the Reformed orthodox. As Muller says:

Such doctrines as God, predestination, Christ, and covenant provide not alternative but coordinate foci – and the presence of each and every one of these topics in theology rests not on a rational, deductive process but on their presence as loci in the exegetical or interpretive tradition of the church.[15]

The method of Reformed orthodoxy, then, started with the text of Scripture and its exegesis, went to the synthesizing of Scripture in terms of interpreting difficult passages in light of clearer ones and identifying its (i.e., Scripture’s) unifying theme or themes based on its various levels of meaning[16], and then (and only then) categorizing the exegetical and canonical-theological findings in the long-practiced loci method of dogmatics.

Richard Barcellos

The Midwest Center for Theological Studies

---

[1] For a helpful historically and theologically aware introduction to this concept see Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, II:206-23. Cf. also Martin I. Klauber, “Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Scripture in Post-Reformation Reformed Thought,” Premise, Volume II, Number 9 (October 19, 1995): 8ff. and James M. Renihan, “Theology on Target: The Scope of the Whole,” RBTR, II:2 (July 2005): 36-53.

[2] Cf. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, Reprinted 1996), 212.

[3] This English translation of the original Latin was provided by Amy Chifici, M.A. Cf. Schaff, Creeds, III, 212-13, for the German and Latin originals.

[4] Ames, Marrow of Theology, 202 (XXXVIII:5).

[5] Kelly M. Kapic, “Owen, John (1616-1683)” in Donald K. McKim, editor, Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, 797-98.

[6] Isaac Ambrose, Works (1701), 201, as quoted in Packer, A Quest for Godliness, 103.

[7] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:156.

[8] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:155.

[9] Renihan, “Theology on Target: The Scope of the Whole,” 43-44. Renihan makes these comments after quoting John Owen, who, according to Renihan, was, in effect, exegeting “the scope of the whole” terminology as found in the Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration, and Second London Confession.

[10] Muller, PRRD, II:492.

[11] Muller, PRRD, II:492.

[12] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:157.

[13] Muller, Dictionary, 245-46.

[14] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:157.

[15] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:157.

[16] Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” 27-38, for a discussion of levels of meaning and also Muller, PRRD, II:469-82.

Judging to be Judged

I hate it when people are judgmental. Of course, that’s just my judgment of judgmental people. Actually, I only hate it when you judge me negatively. When you judge me favorably and applaud me… well, I like that. In fact, if I’m not being judged, my life really has no significance. We constantly judge others and are constantly being judged by others. The pre-schooler who scribbles with crayons yet desperately wants his Mom to tell him it’s a work rivaling Claude Monet (scribbles – must be an impressionistic piece). The teen whose postmodern clash of fashion styles just “has” to be cool. The young man who gets that pay raise and job promotion. The retired couple with the inserts in their passports, showing you all their immigration stamps and recounting all places they’ve visited since they retired. What characterizes our entire life? We want to be judged. We want people to say nice things about us at our funeral. Judgment is the matrix of our existence. We judge everything and everyone and find life meaningful only when we are judged as having significance. Why?

This creation is made to be judged. As God created, He paused seven times to judge the world: and God saw that it was good. We judge and live to be judged because we are made in the image of God, our Creator and Judge. Man’s Fall into death was due to misjudgment: having listened to Satan’s lies, Adam misjudged God and His Word and incurred the sentence of death. God salvaged creation and instituted saving religion for men which focused on the coming Deliverer. History was given significance in that God continued to judge: the Flood, the Exodus, and especially the cross of Christ are divine judgments that give mankind meaning. Although Jesus was judged by men and condemned as a criminal, God judged Him to be innocent and to have fulfilled all prophecy necessary to deliver His people from Final Judgment and eternal wrath. His historical bodily resurrection is the legal vindication of His identity and His message: He is the divine Messiah come to establish the Kingdom of God. He, in resurrected splendor, has been judged worthy as the triumphant Lamb of God and now exercises universal sovereignty as the enthroned Lord of Glory. When He returns at the end of the age, He will come to judge the living and the dead, to deliver His people and to restore this fallen creation for His eternal glory.

You will be judged – by Jesus. He will weigh and measure the moral worth of your every thought, feeling, word and deed. You will give an account to Him of your entire life. On Judgment Day, your deeds will be the evidence of your faith, verifying whether or not you truly believed in Christ with living faith. His judgment is what will give your life its true and ultimate significance. In view of the certainty of judgment, the gospel is announced as good news. Every sinner who repents and believes in Jesus is already judged in union with Jesus. Every sinner who comes to Final Judgment apart from Jesus, will be judged and required to pay the penalty of an eternal destruction away from the presence of our Lord. As sinners, there are only two places where the judgment of God against us in our sin is satisfied: the cross or hell. As sinners we must go to one of those two places: either to the cross or to hell.

How do you judge this Jesus? How do you judge this gospel? Jesus says, Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me (Luke 7:23). Blessed are those who do not misjudge Jesus, but judge Him we must. We, as image bearers, judge everything and everyone. Be careful. Jesus says in John 7:24, Do not judge according to appearances but judge according to a righteous judgment. Can you look at Jesus and see Him being judged for our sin? rising again for our justification? exalted as our High Priest and King? coming again as our Judge and Deliverer? How do you judge Jesus? The most important question you can ever answer is asked by Jesus: But who do you say that I am? (Matthew 16:15) Who is He? Explain Him. Do you judge Him according to Scripture? Are you being taught by the Holy Spirit to judge with righteous judgment? Or are you scandalized, offended, and stumbling over Him, misjudging Him according to appearances and viewing Him by the measurements of this fallen, demonically-deceived world?

As you judge Jesus, remember: you are judging to be judged. God, in Christ, judges you. Judge Him to be your Savior and receive God’s judgment on your sins in His death on the cross.  Judge Him to be your Lord and receive God’s judgment of your eternal acceptance in His resurrection. Judge wisely, for The Judge is standing right at the door!

Alan Dunn

Grace Covenant Baptist Church

Parachurch-So what’s the problem?

Let me say at the outset that the point of this article is not to slam parachurch ministries.  It is to call the church to a proper ecclesiology.

Now, as mentioned in our previous blog, the ‘parachurch’ was defined as an organization, independent of the church, coming alongside the church for the purpose of assisting the church in accomplishing its mission.  We can further define it as any autonomous organization that carries out the functions that have been uniquely ordained to the church.

So what is the problem?  Why shouldn’t we just ‘live and let live’?

First, they are unnecessary to the church.

This aspect of the issue was addressed in our previous blog posted on this sight entitled:  “Parachurch-does the end justify the means” (June 24, 08).

Second, they operate with no biblical warrant.

In essence these are autonomous organizations that are accountable to no church.  They operate outside of the God-ordained structure for Christ’s church.

The structure God has established is very simple and clear:  Christ as the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22).  He has established 2 offices in His church:  Elders and deacons.  He has authorized elders to oversee His church, to feed and protect the flock that Christ has entrusted to their care.

Is Christ the Head of the parachurch?  Are they subject to His authority? Eph. 5:23,24 speaks of the submission of the church to Christ as a given.  It is a non-negotiable.  The church is also described as the bride of Christ (see Jn. 3:29; Eph. 5:25-32; Rev. 19:7; 21:2).  Christ has one bride and He has no mistress!

These ministries are clearly extra-biblical and operate with no biblical warrant.  God’s plan for the ages is the declaration of Jesus Christ (locally and globally) by His church, and the building up of His body by means of His church (Eph. 4:11ff).

Third, these ministries are usurping the God-ordained role of the church.

The main issue seems to revolve around parachurch ministries that engage in teaching the Word of God.  These ministries by their very name and makeup are ‘outside’ the church (i.e. out from under the umbrella of the ordained structure God has established). Are they subject to the same rules and do they have the same goal/purpose as His church?

The church has been given the task of preaching and teaching the word, proclaiming the gospel (via the primary means of preaching) and administering the ordinances (e.g. Acts 6:4; 1 Tim. 4:6-16; 2 Tim. 4:2; Mt. 28:18ff; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; etc.)

The Apostle Paul declares that the church is “the pillar and ground/foundation/support of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15).  The truth, the gospel has been deposited in the church and that truth is to be guarded by the eldership (1 Cor. 9:17; 1 Tim. 1:11; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14).  Are these statements true of ‘parachurch ministries’? Are they the ‘pillar and support’ of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

The church has not only been tasked with these responsibilities, it has been gifted to carry them out (Eph. 4:11ff).  Elders are entrusted with God’s work (Tit. 1:7).  They must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2).  Teach what?  Leadership principles?  Family debt counseling?  How to lose weight and have a ‘bod for God’?  Titus 1:9 makes clear:  “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it .” (NIV)  The teaching of God’s truth is to be done not only by them, but also under their supervision.

Do ‘parachurch ministries’ administer the ordinances?  They should not, and most probably do not.  Yet they have taken on the role of teaching the word of God and they do so autonomously, under no elder oversight or accountability.

What happens when one of these parachurch ministries teaches error?  Teaches heretical doctrines?  Are they subject to church discipline?  If so, which church?  Who can disqualify them from teaching? Who determines that these teachers are qualified to teach in the first place?

It seems that these organizations have intentionally built a bypass around the church.  Rather than work within the church and its ordained authority structure, they have opted to work outside it.

Fourth, the rise of parachurch ministries is uniquely North American

The whole concept of ‘parachurch ministry’ is very much a ‘new thing’.  They also are an indication of the spirit of the culture in which we live:  ‘Everyone does what is right in his own eyes’(Judg. 17:6; 21:25)

From the earliest centuries (and even today in many lands) most people did not read and bibles were not routinely carried under ones’ arm.  They did not have 9 bibles in their home.  If they were to know the truth they went to the depository of truth:  the Church of Jesus Christ.

I believe the rise of parachurch ministries can be traced to a few simple factors in our culture (probably others, but these are quite pronounced):

• 1. We are a rich, affluent society. We can afford them! And since (approx.) 5% of Christians tithe to the local church there are plenty of funds available for these ministries.
• 2. The proliferation of Bibles and religious books and their availability to the masses. (Not that this is a bad thing, but it is a consequence of it.) Anyone can be an ‘expert’ if they so choose.
• 3. The church losing its understanding of Whose it is, what it is, and what it’s God-ordained, biblically mandated mission is.
• 4. Combine these 3 factors with our fierce American individualism (‘I can do what I want when I want and how I want’) and a general attitude of resentment toward an authoritative voice (of any kind) and it is no wonder we are inundated with the parachurch.

The parachurch movement undermines and distracts the church.  It is setting the agenda for many churches in our land.  And because the church (by and large) does not recognize what it is nor what it is to be about, the parachurch movement has swept in and usurped her task.  Rather than these brothers and sisters working within the God-ordained structure of the church and benefiting an always needy church, they set up organizations that compete with Christ’s church for financing, talent, and audience.

Amos 3:3 says, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (NIV).  Ultimately the rise of the parachurch movement is a declaration by the church of the impotence of the church.  It is also a declaration by the body of Christ that it has lost confidence in itself to be the church that Christ established. A.W. Tozer said it well:

“The highest expression of the will of God in this age is the church which He purchased with His own blood.  To be scripturally valid any religious activity must be part of the church.  Let it be clearly stated that there can be no service acceptable to God in this age that does not center in and spring out of the church.  Bible schools, tract societies, Christian business men’s committees, seminaries and the many independent groups working at one or another phase of religion need to check themselves reverently and courageously, for they have no true spiritual significance outside of or apart from the church.”  (God Tells the Man Who Cares, Christian Publications, 1992; p. 24)

Again, the point here is not to slam parachurch ministries.  It is to call the church to a proper ecclesiology.  The rise of the parachurch phenomenon is merely a symptom of a weak church that has lost its identity and its God-given mission.  Once her identity and mission are regained the ‘parachurch’ will be a thing of the past.

Darrell Fletcher, Elder

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church

Warrenton, VA

Baptism and the Local Church

The Ethiopian Eunuch is often cited as an example of someone who was not baptized into a local church.  His baptism is then made the precedent for overturning everything else that the New Testament teaches about the coincidence of baptism and church membership.  Several important objections must be made against this use of the passage.  First, if the Ethiopian Eunuch indeed was not baptized into a local church, it was only because no such church existed in Ethiopia.  This was clearly an exceptional circumstance that must not be made into a normative principle of the church or applied to situations where a local church does exist.  Second, it is not, in fact, clear that the Ethiopian Eunuch was not baptized into a local church.  This assumption on the part of interpreters is nowhere stated in the passage.  It is possible and even probable given the teaching of the rest of the New Testament that he was baptized into the membership of the church in Jerusalem or that he was the first member of the church in Ethiopia.  One thing is for sure this is no instance of happy-go-lucky evangelism where believers are made and then left to fend for themselves.  We cannot attribute such a practice to Philip or the church in Jerusalem.

The only alternative to saying that Christians are baptized into the visible and local church is to say that they are baptized into the invisible and universal church.  This is to misconceive the relation between the universal and local church.

At bottom a failure to see the connection between baptism and church membership is rooted in a failure to see that the local church is the only appointed, visible expression of the universal church.  It is rooted in a misconception of the relation between the universal and local church.  In 1 Timothy 3:15 it is plainly the universal church that is described in the language “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”  Just as clearly when Timothy is instructed as to how he ought to conduct himself in that church in the ordering of its public meetings and the setting apart of its officers (1 Tim. 2:1-3:15) and in his own ministry (1 Tim. 4:1ff.), the local church at Ephesus is viewed as the visible expression of that church.  It is impossible, then, to argue that baptism joins one (visibly) to the universal church without seeing that at one and the same time this must make one a member of the local church where one is baptized.  So to argue is to misconceive the relation between what we call the universal and local church.

Sam Waldron

Professor of Systematic Theology at Midwest Center for Theological Studies

Dry-eyed Polemics. (Considerations from Philippians 3)

But Paul realizes that many professed believers have yet much to learn about gaining Christ and attaining to the resurrection from the dead. With such disparity in our respective points of understanding and maturity, we’ll inevitably encounter believers whose perspectives differ from ours. Some we will recognize as “younger” than us in the faith. Others, if we are indeed mature enough to have even a modicum of humility, we’ll recognize are “older” than us, more godly, wiser and Christlike.

To those of us who may be relatively more mature and who occasionally encounter others of a less developed faith, Paul enjoins: Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. (v15,16) How thankful I am to have known more mature Christians who did not dismiss my misguided yet developing grasp of Scripture and my immature even incorrect practical applications of the Word as I’ve grown in Christ. Many things I once believed about doctrine and the Christian life, I no longer hold. I benefited from more mature brethren (some who are chronologically younger than me) who kept living by the standard to which they had matured while allowing me to be further taught by God in areas of my relative immaturity. I’m humbled to realize, having been a believer for several decades and a pastor for more than a quarter century, that I yet have not already obtained it or have become perfect – so I press on towards the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

By God’s grace, I am sufficiently discerning enough, by and large, to identify many of those despised evil working dogs who threaten God’s people with false teaching. I pray for maturation in discernment as Satan’s lies come repackaged in new deceptive and enticing garb. I’m thankful that I can learn from others more discerning than I. Like Paul, I too despise false teachers. Paul describes them: they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. It is easy for my ire to rise even as I type their Scriptural profile, but as I sense my righteous indignation surge, my conscience gives my anger a speeding ticket, for I have raced past a Pauline standard which he attained and in which I am, sadly, yet quite immature. I raced past the words, for many walk, of whom I often told you and now tell you even weeping. Paul could not consider false teachers and those deceived by them, without weeping for them. He sees them on the threshold of the impending return of our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ who is about to execute judgment and transform the body of our humble state into the body of His glory by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Paul could not engage in dry-eyed polemics. The dogs and false circumcision who so abused him, discredited his ministry and threatened the church were indeed enemies of the cross of Christ. But Christ had taught Paul to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27,28). Here is a standard attained by Paul which measures me as being yet quite immature. I’m still waiting to grow up in my knowledge of Christ to where I can genuinely, consistently weep for the enemies of the cross.

How’s that for a polemic? What response would we get were those who despise Christ to see us weeping for them as we perceive them standing on the brink of Judgment, under the wrath of God? Are they wrong? Yes. Are they a threat from which the church needs protection? Yes. Can we engage them in polemics without weeping for them? Sadly… Yes. So, I press on…

Alan Dunn, Pastor

Grace Covenant Baptist Church

Flemington, NJ

Three Hymns for the Red, White, and Blue: Thinking About Patriotic Worship Services

The 4th of July is near, and it’s time for cookouts, barbecue, fireworks, and – so it seems – patriotic worship services.  At least in my neck of the woods, these are often called “God and country” services.  A typical patriotic service might include a presentation of the American flag, singing of patriotic hymns, and a message centered around the Christian roots of the United States and a call to return to them.  Are these services God-honoring?  Are they wise?  These questions strike close to home for me.  My sons have been asked more than once to present the flag with their Boy Scout troop during the patriotic service at a local Baptist church.  I’ve been in services like this myself while visiting family over the 4th of July.  As an elder in a local church, I must provide guidance for our own flock as well.  This whole issue calls for wisdom and charity.

The first question we should be asking is what God wants.  God has gone to great lengths to tell us how he wants to be worshiped. Therefore, He may not be worshiped in ways that we invent. Isn’t that the problem with idolatry – attempting to worship the true God under a form that he hasn’t revealed?  Worshiping according to his revelation focuses our energies on those activities we know that God has called us to.  Think what confidence this gives us in approaching God when we know he has called us to do the very thing we’re doing!

Most importantly, in worship we focus on God.  “My glory I will not give to another.”  (Isaiah 48:11) We do not honor God when we seek to honor anything else alongside him.  The name “God and country” itself raises a concern.  It seems to put country on the same level as God.  Of course, we should give thanks to God for all kinds of things, including his blessings on our country.  And I think this is what most churches intend to do.  But the form and content of these services often seems to communicate that country has been elevated more than is intended.  A quick look at “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” will show that it is a very nice hymn to express patriotic feelings toward our country.  However, it is only incidentally about God.  It may be a perfectly fine song to sing at an Independence Day rally.  But it has no more place in a worship service than a love song that thanks God at the end for providing the lover.  Patriotism and worship are two different things; we don’t want to confuse them in our hearts or our lips.

We know that God has called us to preaching, singing, prayer and thanksgiving, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  But as we search the Scriptures, we find no other ceremonies instituted for the gathered new covenant community.  If not, then extra-biblical ceremonies like a flag presentation or reciting the pledge of allegiance have no place in gathered worship.  God has not said that he is pleased by such things.

Patriotic services create another problem.  The body of Christ is a united body – neither Jew nor Greek nor barbarian nor Cythian (Col. 3:11).  We are told that heavenly worship is conducted by those “ransomed people…from every tribe and language and people and nation.” (Rev. 5:9) Why would we focus an entire worship service on a theme that only a very small part of the body of Christ in a very specific time in history could appreciate?  Could those who are not U.S. citizens enter into such worship, particularly those who may have different political views or whose ancestors have suffered at the hands of ungodly policies in our nation’s history?  These themes raise great difficulties for enacting the unity in life and worship to which we are called as God’s people.

In some respects, patriotic services reflect solid biblical instincts.  We are to pray and give thanks for kings and authorities, “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (1 Tim. 2:1-2) There is a place-an important one-for praying for and giving thanks for our government that allows us such freedoms.  Praise God for these blessings!  We ought to be lifting up our country, our political leaders, and our soldiers for both prayer and thanksgiving on a regular basis.  But these blessings are lower than the blessing of God himself.  The glory of Christ is the gospel of Christ, and this ought to be our focus:

Your mercy, my God, is the theme of my song,
The joy of my heart, and the boast of my tongue.

Why are we tempted to put our country on a pedestal where only God belongs?  I believe there are at least two reasons.  The first is probably natural; the second is theological.  Naturally, we want to believe that God accepts and blesses our country and our family.  But this natural desire often causes us to forget that we live in a fallen world.  Every institution and every individual is corrupted by sin.  Only the grace of God can redeem us.  While God may and does work through nations and families, his redemptive work happens as each individual is born again and is transformed by the gospel.  We can find encouragement that God is and has been at work in our nation.  However, our standing with God doesn’t depend on this.  Our national citizenship does not make us any more or less acceptable to God.

Theologically, many evangelicals have bought into a doctrine one might call “Christian America.”  This view seems to hold that God has uniquely owned this country and is singularly at work here; furthermore, it is held as a matter of high principle that the Founding Fathers were largely influenced by Christian principles.  But note that these are historical questions, not theological ones.  Since the Bible says nothing about America in particular (unless you believe some of today’s prophecy “experts”), we can’t treat this question as though a biblical principle is at stake.  The growth of the kingdom is not tied to the recovery of an earlier Christianized culture in the United States.  The kingdom of God is primarily manifested in the church across all nations in the present age.  The church embraces the rule of Christ now (Col. 1:13); the church exercises the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19); the church is entrusted with the proclamation of the message of the kingdom and is the instrument of the kingdom (Luke 8:1).  The hope of the gospel is not tied to the fortunes – past or present – of America.

Is it a sin to have a patriotic worship service?  I suppose there are ways of handling such a service that would meet the biblical requirements of being God-centered and of focusing on prayer and thanksgiving.  At the same time, our hearts so easily turn good things into idols.  We can so easily elevate our country above its true significance.  And we so easily think small thoughts of God.  Putting God and country together in a worship service may very well feed on both these tendencies.  So let’s do our barbecue, our fireworks, and our patriotic songs with friends and family to celebrate the history and the place where God has put us.  But when we worship on the Lord’s Day, “together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus,” let us worship the one who will be exalted among all nations.

Stan Reeves, Elder

Grace Heritage Church

Auburn, AL