This morning, I decided to run a few simple numbers looking at the number of per capita visitors to reformedforum.org for each U.S. state. I’ve looked at the numbers by state before, but it’s hard to know if the figures simply reflect the respective populations of those areas. The adjusted data, however, yield some interesting results. Here are the per capita rankings since January 1, 2011:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Mississippi
3. Massachusetts
4. Rhode Island
5. South Carolina
6. California
7. North Carolina
8. Washington
9. Kentucky
10. Alabama
11. Virginia
12. Tennessee
13. Georgia
14. New Jersey
15. New Mexico
16. Nebraska
17. Michigan
18. Illinois
19. Missouri
20. Maryland
21. Indiana
22. Texas
23. Maine
24. Florida
25. Oklahoma
26. Oregon
27. Iowa
28. Ohio
29. Delaware
30. Colorado
31. Kansas
32. Minnesota
33. Alaska
34. Wisconsin
35. Arizona
36. South Dakota
37. Montana
38. Louisiana
39. New York
40. Idaho
41. New Hampshire
42. Vermont
43. Arkansas
44. Wyoming
45. North Dakota
46. Nevada
47. Hawaii
48. West Virginia
49. Connecticut
50. Utah

* The District of Columbia is the number one region in the U.S., but I gather much of the web traffic is generated by people that do not actually live in D.C. Hence, the figure is not representative.

I have one small quibble, however. And that is the requirement of the evening service. He says its not biblically mandated. Well . . . yes, . . . and no.

It is true there is no Bible passage that that says “thou shall attend the evening service.” True enough. But there also is no Bible passage that says “thou shall attend the morning service” either. So, why does every one regard the first service as necessary, but the second service optional?

And here is where we get to why I believe the second service IS mandatory and biblically commanded (IF your church holds one). And I’d like to take the argument in two steps. First, the Bible does require the people of God to gather on the first day of the week to worship and observe the Sabbath. I won’t get into the particulars of the biblical nature of that argument, but simply direct you to the appropriate proof texts in documents like the Westminster Standards. Second, the Bible does not command when or for how long or how often we are to meet on the Lord’s Day. However, the Bible does tell us not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together (Heb 10:25). God has left it to the wisdom and liberty of the local elders to determine when, for how long, and how often the church is to gather for worship. Here they are to follow the general guidelines of Christian love and prudence. For instance, in our church we used to meet – years ago – in the AM and then again at 8 PM. That was because this used to be a farming community and cows had to me milked and animals fed. Today, however, that is no longer a factor. So, for various local considerations, we’ve moved the second service to 5. That’s OK, we can do that. The elders can change the times to whatever they believe is prudent within these general guidelines. But once those times are set, the people in obedience to their elders (Heb 13:17) are biblically required to come and not forsake the gathering.

So, that’s just a small quibble. Otherwise, everything else Kevin said was right!

I really ought to write a new preface for this book, which is old already. But the idea I find rather unattractive. For whatever I tried to do, I would always end up trying to justify it for what it was, and reinsert it, insofar as such a thing might be possible, in what is going on today. Perhaps that would be possible, perhaps not, I might do it with varying degrees of success, but it would not be an honest course of action. And above all, that wouldn’t be in keeping with what should be, regarding a book, the preserve of the person who wrote it.

[…]

So speaks the Preface, the first act in which the monarchy of the author is established, a declaration of tyranny: my intention should be your precept; you must bend your reading, your analyses, your criticisms to what I was trying to do, and take note of my modesty: when I speak of the limits of my enterprise, I mean to set a boundary for your freedom, and if I claim that I feel I was not up to the task, it is because I don’t want to leave you the privilege of substituting my book with the fantasy of a different one, close to it, but more beautiful than the book itself. I am the monarch of the things that I have said, and I keep an eminent sovereignty over them; that of my intention, and the meaning that I wished to give to them.

Michel Foucault, History of Madness, ed. Jean Khalfa, trans. Jean Khalfa and Jonathan Murphy (London: Routledge, 2009), xxxvii, xxxviii.

In order to provide for more interaction among our listeners, we have decided to test-run an interactive book club. Tentatively scheduled for Monday, February 6, 2012 at 8pm Eastern, Reformed Forum will host a discussion of John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied. The format of the club is still nascent, but we hope to live stream the discussion and provide a way for listeners to chat and call-in through Skype or Google+. The discussion will be recorded and released as an episode of Reformed Media Review so those who aren’t able to join live can still participate “asynchronously.”

If you don’t have one already, get a copy of the book, read it by Monday, 2/6, and stay posted for the details on the live stream. And remember: the first rule about book club is that you don’t talk about book club!

photo by infowidget

The idea of an antecedent being, who has antecedent thought and who therefore by His self-contained counsel determines whatsoever comes to pass, is abhorrent to both Barth and Brunner, and has been so at every stage of their thinking. There is no spot along the whole front of their theological opponents that is so constantly made the target of their most vigorous attack as the idea of a self-contained ontological trinity.

1. Is it a biblical model?
2. Is it a covenantal model?
3. Is it a redemptive-historical model?
4. Is it an eschatological model?
5. Is it a Christo-centric model?

The full lecture focuses on the neglected topic of sonship and adoption and is well worth listening to here.

(Edit: Nick Batzig has helpfully pointed out a text version here of the audio lecture I’ve linked to. Thanks, Nick!)

This is an important point that also underscores the importance of a proper ecclesiology. The doctrine of the church is often a forgotten subject in evangelicalism. It is often treated last, if treated in any depth at all, and many people think of ecclesiology as a series of arbitrary or pragmatic choices. But ecclesiology is not arbitrary. It must comply with our other doctrines, and other doctrines are in turn influenced by our ecclesiology. Just think of dispensationalism or Roman Catholicism. The ecclesiologies of both groups fit within an entire system and should not be extracted from it.

The doctrine of the church is found in Scripture and in the Reformed confessions. We ought to be mindful of God’s established structure for the governance and care of his people. And so in this post we will look at several introductory features of ecclesiology as found primarily in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Please take the time to look at the Scripture references accompanying the confession. You can find them in the PDF version of the OPC’s publication.

No Ordinary Group

19^th century Presbyterian theologian Stuart Robinson rightly emphasizes that Christ did not come to establish a group like other groups. Jesus wasn’t interested in forming a band of followers or a school like Socrates. Nor did he simply comprise a group, which he would atone for and then leave to manage on their own. Rather, he came “to found a community, to organize a government, and administer therein as a perpetual king.”[1] The church is no ordinary group, but the assembly of those whom God has called to himself. It is Christ’s body. Robinson defines it as follows:

[…] that elect body of men which was contemplated in the covenant of redemption, as constituting the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, and for the sake of which body he undertood the work of salvation.[2]

Christ’s relationship to his church is ultimately mysterious, but we can learn a bit about it by looking at the institution of marriage. The members are connected to each other through a Spiritual, mystical union that is analogously imaged in the relationship between husband and wife. Paul makes this comparison in Ephesians 5. I commend it to you as a helpful place to start when studying ecclesiology.

As we come to explore the basics of Reformed ecclesiology, it’s important to nail down a few terms. There are several qualifications we make when speaking about the church and there are many helpful distinctions we make as well. Let’s look at a few of these.

Characteristics of the Church

We recognize that the Church has four attributes: it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. These attributes distinguish the Christian Church from other religious bodies and sects. It is one, meaning that ultimately we don’t find two bodies, but a single body. It is holy, that is pure, and set apart in God’s sight for God’s purposes. It is “little c” catholic, meaning “universal.” There are not people groups or regions excluded from the body should they believe in Christ. And finally, it is apostolic, meaning it is founded on the teaching of the apostles (cf. Eph 2:20).

In addition to the attributes, the Church has three chief marks: the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline. The Belgic Confession chapter 29 enumerates the Reformed understanding of the marks of the church:

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church—and no one ought to be separated from it.[3]

Each of these are helpful when trying to “spot” the true Church? What is a true church? It is where the Word is properly preached, the sacraments administered, and church discipline conducted.

The Visible and Invisible Church

As Reformed believers, we speak of the invisible church simply as the elect. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.1 says the following:

WCF 25.1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

We call it the invisible church in part because the church is universal. We cannot observe it in its entirety at once. Second, it is not fully realized until Christ returns. Saints have gone home to be with the Lord and others have yet to be saved. We cannot observe them either.[4] Third, we are not the judges of men’s hearts. Men and women profess Christ and we admit them to membership in the visible church, but we cannot judge ultimately whether someone is deceiving themselves or making a false profession of faith.

What then is the role and importance of the visible church? The Westminster Confession of Faith describes the visible church in 25.2:

WCF 25.2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

The visible church is important then. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17). And where does the right preaching of the Word of God occur? In the Church. This is one reason why the Westminster Divines stressed that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the Church. The Church is the location of the means of grace. But at the same time there are members of the visible church who are not members of the invisible church. Moving to 25.3:

WCF 25.3. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

The visible church is where the Word is proclaimed and where the sacraments are administered. It’s been said that there are no lone ranger Christians. The point is that believers are called out of darkness into Christ’s marvelous light and incorporated into a body. They have been given the Holy Spirit who connects them together and gifts them so they can be of service within that body. Therefore, the visible church is not an arbitrary choice for Christians who want to have some social functions to be involved with. It is the assembly of the body of Christ and the location of Christ’s ministry with his people. Once again, the confession emphasizes the corporate nature of the Church:

WCF 26.1. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.

WCF 26.2. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

Mr. Snyder submitted a biographical essay on the life and death of Samuel Rutherford. The end of the essay was especially moving as it recounted the final says and words of this man of God who on his death bed defied a king!

Congrats to Mr. Snyder!