Christ the Center is on the road as Camden Bucey speaks with two guests from the Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Conference. This episode explores Reformed theology and its profound impact on missions. Camden is joined by Chad Vegas, founding pastor of Sovereign Grace Church and founding board chairman of Radius International, along with Jonathan Master, president of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, to explore the vital relationship between theological education and missionary work.

The conversation covers a broad spectrum, from the excitement surrounding the seminary’s annual spring conference to the innovative partnership between Greenville Seminary and Radius International, aimed at equipping the next generation for church planting among unreached language groups. Chad Vegas also shares his personal journey from a dispensationalist background to embracing Reformed theology and the inception of Radius International. This episode sheds light on the challenges and strategies of missionary work, emphasizing the necessity of a solid biblical foundation, cultural sensitivity, and the indispensable role of the local church in sending and supporting missionaries. Join us for an engaging discussion that reaffirms the vital role of Reformed theology in advancing the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Chapters

• [00:00:07] Introduction
• [00:06:35] Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and a Focus on Missions
• [00:08:35] Radius International and Church Planting among Unreached Groups
• [00:12:43] Missionary Training and Biblical Foundations
• [00:18:13] Historical and Theological Foundations of Missions
• [00:23:22] A Personal Journey to Reformed Theology
• [00:39:13] Development of Radius International
• [00:48:24] Missionary Work and Cultural Engagement
• [00:58:46] Evolving Role of Reformed Theology in Modern Missions
• [01:10:09] Future Directions for Presbyterian Missions

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chad Vegas, Jonathan Master

This the second installment of a quarterly series of interviews highlighting the Lord’s work in the lives and ministries of our Reformed Forum faculty. Lane Tipton, Fellow of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Reformed Forum and pastor of Trinity OPC in Easton, Pennsylvania, sits down with Ryan Noha to discuss his conversion through a Leviticus 16 sermon on TV, his zeal for Christian education and global missions, and his joyful service of the Lord in his family, church, and the work of Reformed Forum as the George Bailey of Glenside.

Lane, I’m familiar with your background and how you came to know the Lord, but it’s always a joy to hear of the old, old story of the gospel and how the Lord brings the finished work of Christ to bear effectually upon his people. Would you tell us how you were converted and then eventually became a minister in the OPC?

I grew up in a Southern Baptist home. My mother was a devout and godly woman. Her parents were both wonderful Christians. My father was not a believer, but my mother would have us attend worship with her every Sunday morning. From the earliest time I can remember, I was sitting under the gospel, but I did not accept and embrace it. After I hit about age 13, my mom did not require me to go to church but gave me the opportunity to either go or not go, and I decided I wouldn’t go. I went through my junior high and high school years without really going to church at all, without attending any worship services at all. I played a year of football on a scholarship out of Tascosa at Eastern New Mexico State University. I was thinking about pursuing a law degree and thought when I came home that summer that it would be a really wise thing to read my Bible and get a little bit of familiarity with the Judeo-Christian ethic, given the fact that I was wanting to pursue law.

I turned to Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees almost instantly where he was denouncing them in Matthew 23 and following for being whitewashed tombs, clean on the outside, but inside full of dead men’s bones. I recognized that he was speaking in his word to me, and that I was in danger of the judgment. A few days later on a Sunday morning, I turned on the television, and a man was preaching on Leviticus 16 and the Day of Atonement. He then talked about the blood of a sacrificial offering, a sin offering, being brought into the most holy place and satisfying the wrath of God. He talked about a scapegoat, having the sins of Israel confessed over its head and being driven outside the camp, bearing away the guilt of God’s people. He said these were types of Jesus. And I instantly recognized that my release from my sin, and my fear, and my guilt, and my burden was found in the wrath-propitiating, blood sacrifice of Jesus who bore away my sin. I saw instantly in that typology that Jesus was like the scapegoat, who had taken my sin away from me as far as the east is from the west. He had shed his blood for my sin and satisfied God’s wrath. And I repented of my sin; I asked the Lord to forgive me. I was elated. I thought, goodness, how could I have not seen this all of these years? I instantly told my mom who just came into the room and was weeping tears of joy. She had been praying for this for 19 years. And the Paul Harvey aspect of the story is that of all people to preach that sermon, it happened to be Jimmy Swaggart, believe that or not.

So I was converted and within a few months had found my way toward the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I had received through some men, who were in Amarillo at the time, interested in Reformed theology, some literature that led me toward the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. As I read systematic theologies—Louis Berkhof, some B. B. Warfield, a little bit of Van Til—I was very quickly led by conviction to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I came to appreciate immensely Machen’s commitment to the spirituality of the church, his critique of liberalism as a different religion, the militancy of the OPC, its self-conscious embrace of being a pilgrim people, maintaining faithfulness to the gospel, not seeking cultural influence or affluence, but seeking rather to worship the Lord as engaged pilgrims, taking every thought captive, making it obedient to Christ, seeking the things above by faith, entering Sabbath rest, and being concerned most of all for the worship of the Triune God and giving a consistent, faithful witness to the world and calling all men and women, boys and girls everywhere to repent. That sent me on a path toward going to seminary.

It was a strangely quick movement from my conversion to pursuing the OPC and coming to a profound appreciation of Machen and his militancy and humility, and the church as it has been called by Charlie Dennison, “the church of the brokenhearted,” the church that mourns. This is not the norm, this kind of policy and worship and doctrine and this heavenly-mindedness. I have been in the OPC years and years now. I joined the Abilene congregation in 1989, if my memory serves, so it’s been a while.

I rejoice to hear of the Lord’s grace in your life afresh, not only that he was pleased to raise you from the deadness of your sin, but to grant you such rapid growth and maturity, even that you would see Christ in all of Scripture from day one and then dive right away into the deep end of Reformed theology with Machen and all the greats. This is truly a wonderful grace and profound mercy. I’d love to hear about the Lord’s gracious work in your family, as well. Would you introduce us to the Tiptons and share with us how the Lord is leading you all through this current season of life?

I met my wife, Charlene, when I came back from Southwestern Oklahoma State University. She has five uncles who have been or still are Orthodox Presbyterian ministers. We met in Abilene, Texas in 1992. About 10 months later, we were married. Everyone was saying, you guys need to get married. And I was all excited about us—you didn’t have to encourage me! She’s a beautiful, godly, intelligent, wonderful woman. Soon after that, we went to seminary, Westminster California. And by the time 1998 came around, we had our first child, Lauren; a few years later, Lyle; a few years after that, Trevor; a few years after that, Katie or Kaitlyn. And so we have four children. The oldest, Lauren, is now married. Lyle and Trevor are at Geneva playing basketball. And I will admit, tearing it up, and I’m very thankful for that. They’re godly young men walking with the Lord. Katie is class president just flourishing at Phil-Mont school founded by Cornelius Van Til. It’s all worked out in an amazing way.  Char and I are coming up on our 30th anniversary this next year. She works in the OPC home offices. She has been working there for several years now and does a fantastic job.

We’ve been here in Glenside since 1998, and it’s wonderful. I’m serving at Trinity OPC in Easton. It’s about 50 minutes from here. The family is doing great. They are a delight to my heart. They love the Lord and are all flourishing. I am so thankful. I’ve joked around before; I’ll adapt it, transpose it into this: I’m the George Bailey of Glenside, brother. I am just so thankful, so happy, and so richly blessed to have this family. They are, outside of the Lord, just the truest and purest joy of my heart.

Now as long as you mentioned Phil-Mont Academy and Van Til, I’ve got to ask, did you and Char have a devotional yet over that 1961 Van Til editorial I shared with you? The one that was published by Willow Grove Christian Day School, “The Whole Armour of God”?

Not yet. But talk about a letter that just states all that my wife has said before! Char has said before a number of times that she loves obviously loves Van Til. She and I married in part around a passionate commitment to Christian education. When I was in seminary out in California, Char taught at a Christian school. She taught years before that in Reformed Christian schools. She is just a fantastic teacher. We homeschooled our children. But when we first met, she and I read Van Til’s Essays on Christian Education as devotional literature and would marvel at the wonderful, robust, Reformed Trinitarianism, and Covenant Theology, and antithesis, and understanding of common grace, and the proper and indispensable role of Christian education from a Reformed world-and-life view. We fell in love around that. And so when we came to the Philadelphia area, and Phil-Mont was within ten minutes of our house, founded by Van Til—it’s just wonderful. So we’ll get around to that essay. I’m sure we’ll have numbers of discussions about it. Char has said, and I agree in certain ways with this, that Van Til might be at his very best when he’s talking about Christian education. You know, there’s a lot of “best” about Van Til, but one of his brightest points is talking about a consistently Reformed theological education for covenant children.

I couldn’t agree more. Now, you mentioned that you’re currently serving as pastor of Trinity OPC in Easton, Pennsylvania. What is your beloved congregation like and how is the Lord using the ordinary means of grace to gather and perfect the saints at Trinity?

I’ve been at Trinity in Easton for around a decade. Right before I arrived, the pastor left to join the Roman Catholic communion, which was a devastating blow to the congregation. For the past decade, I’ve had the unparalleled privilege of pastoring and shepherding and encouraging the saints in their walk with the Lord. As I said, apart from the Lord, my family is my chief delight, but just right in there, just as an unqualified delight is the service of the saints at Trinity. The elders, Charlie DeBoer, Joe Olliff, Luke DeBoer, Ian Parkin—a dear brother passed away about a year ago, went to be with the Lord—serving alongside those dear brothers in such a loving and giving congregation has been an oasis in the wilderness for me. I have delighted in my service, to know and love the congregation, to preach, teach, and serve alongside those brothers on the Session. The congregation over the years has grown to be what I would consider now to be a thriving, vibrant congregation filled with delightful people. I don’t want to overuse the George Bailey allusion, so I’ll change here, but I’ve been spoiled. And there is no end in sight from my side in terms of the service there. It continues to be an increasing joy for me. To see the way the Lord blesses through slow, steady, self-conscious means of grace, through Word and sacrament, through visiting and getting to know them as brothers and sisters in the Lord, walking beside them, bearing burdens, turning them to the sufferings and the comfort that are in Jesus Christ. I’ve always wanted to be a pastor; I was never initially aspiring to be a professor. And the Lord has granted me one of the deepest desires of my heart. Once again, I’m just so thankful for it.

That is tremendous, brother. To follow up for those who don’t know, who is George Bailey? And would your elaborate a bit upon what you’re preaching and teaching through these days and share any particular insights you might have from your studies in the Word?

If you remember, Jimmy Stewart played George Bailey in an all-time Christmas classic, It’s A Wonderful Life. And the long story short is that he finds that the money, the influence, the opportunity for notoriety, that all of those things pale mightily in comparison to having a group of people, family and friends, who gather around and love you and rejoice when you rejoice and mourn when you mourn. I don’t want to spoil it in case there are some younger folks out there who haven’t seen it, but at the end of the movie, when everyone’s coming into the house, doing something that’s just beautiful—I can’t resist the analogy. It’s delightful, whether it’s you brothers at Reformed Forum, whether it’s a number of dear brothers throughout the world, my loving family, the dear congregation, the Lord has just blessed me. And so I really do mean it, partly as a joke, but partly true: I’m like the George Bailey of Glenside, brother. I’m very thankful for it.

I’ve been preaching for some time on the book of Ephesians. I took about a one-year break and did some work on Hebrews 12 during the pandemic to talk about the unshakable kingdom. No matter what happens in this world, we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Over the past several months, I’ve been preaching through the armor of God and Ephesians 6, which is Christ, and have looked at how that armor is fundamentally putting on Christ, his ordinances, his Word, his Spirit, and by faith rising up with his people to fight against the principalities and powers of this present evil age, to set forth the truth of the gospel and its antithetical, full-orbed glory, and to recognize that no matter what happens in terms of the escalation of evil around us in the culture or in the world, Jesus Christ has established his Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against it because the Lord who is our armor has gone before us, destroyed his and our enemies and is in the process of making them a footstool for his feet, which will reach its climax in his glorious, visible second coming.

It’s been a delight to preach through that that book, and I’m kind of coming up on the end of it. You never know; I can’t ever calculate how many more sermons are in the hopper for it. But we’re moving toward the end of the Ephesians 6, and it has been an unusually rich feast for me to preach through. You think you understand the text until you work on it week in and week out for weeks, months, or years, and so it has been peculiarly rich for me. I’ve been very encouraged doing it. Of course, I have—I don’t want to diminish any other congregations in the world—but I might have the most patient and loving congregation in the OPC. They have stayed through it all, and we’ve taken a slow, careful look at that text and just feasted on the Christ who is revealed in it. It’s been a delight.

Now you’re a bit unusual as a minister in the OPC because you not only have the privilege of preaching twice every Lord’s day and doing Sunday school and visitation and serving the saints in Easton, but you’re also a Fellow of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Reformed Forum. How are you actively engaged in the Colossians 1:28 mission of Reformed Forum in that particular capacity?

Let me begin by saying Reformed Forum has been and always will be a pure labor of love for me. You do not find anything like it anymore. In the past, there were some that were striving for this, but the combination of militancy and love, distinctive commitments to the Confession, Van Til, Vos Kline, and the development of what you might call the old Westminster theology or the first generation OPC theology, enriched by people like Kline, Gaffin, Strimple, and others—that’s unique to Reformed Forum. The ministry is so distinctive, while at the same time not succumbing to these biblicist, mutualist perversions that you find in the evangelical and ostensibly “Reformed” world of contemporary vintage in the last 20 years. At Reformed Forum you’ve got a catholic, Reformed, robust ministry of Reformed theology with Colossians 1:28 as the mission, seeking to present everyone mature in Christ.

My service, whether it pertains to the Reformed Academy and teaching courses on Van Til, Reformed Forum conferences—we’ve got one coming up that I’m so excited I can barely contain myself over—or the books that I’ve been graciously given the opportunity to write for Reformed Forum—Foundations of Covenant Theology, the Van Til book [The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til], and several on the way—all continues to be a joy in the Lord. I don’t feel like in any of this that I’m working. I’m serving with joy, gladness, and peace and would not want to be anywhere in the whole world serving in except Reformed Forum. So again, I said about pastoring that the Lord’s given me the desire of my heart. Serving with Reformed Forum, though, it’s just been a delight that the Lord has brought. There are people that I won’t mention by name, but they have engaged in extraordinary giving and continue to give in ways that astound me to enable this kind of ministry. They have my deepest gratitude and admiration in the Lord. So, brother, as long as the Lord continues to cause Reformed Forum to flourish, and I have the ability and capacity and strength to serve, the duty is delight. They go right together.

To have over 3800 students in 75 countries involved at Reformed Forum, and to see it exploding in terms of worldwide outreach and ministry and serving the global church so profoundly, that especially gives me unbridled joy in the Lord. I pray that the Lord will continue making Reformed Forum this growing servant of the universal, worldwide Church. I love everything about Reformed Forum, but that, in particular, really is close to my heart to be able to serve brothers and sisters in different countries, under great persecution, who otherwise don’t have access to this kind of theology. To be able to serve them with rich, Reformed theology in the way that Reformed Form enables, and with the quality in terms of the platform and the presentation, as men committed to the deeper Protestant conception, it’s very exciting. I’m thankful to be a part of it, and I’m thankful to see the way the Lord has been blessing it. I’ve been amazed at the way that the Lord is causing Reformed Forum’s ministry to explode throughout the world. And it’s all of the Lord, so we give him glory.

In terms of that worldwide explosion, would you at liberty to share about any of the work that you’ve done with our brethren in China or Cambodia?

I’ll give you just one example. I’ve had an opportunity with a dear brother to talk to numbers of brothers in China, engaging in the training of pastors. I’ve taught a course to brothers in the Lord who are serving and pastoring. I just recently recorded some sermons that will be a part of a conference coming up, and I believe that there are going to be around 1200 people attending. For the last decade, I’ve had opportunities pre-COVID to go to Hong Kong to engage in service of these Chinese brothers and sisters. I can just testify to this: the Lord is giving them extraordinary grace and deep conviction. If Reformed theology in seminaries in this country is on the decline, which it is, and if the broad evangelicalism of this country is strangling true piety and vibrant doctrine, which it is, if liberalism and Barth and the post-conservative evangelical, post-liberal movements are divesting the system of doctrine of its vitality and substance, which it is—as you see a relative decline in the West, these brothers are on fire. The persecution that they are receiving is only causing more and more joy and vigor and militancy to make Christ known and to have an opportunity to serve. I’m going to stop because this gets me choked up, brother, but to have the honor and the privilege to serve such brothers whose hearts are so clearly cruciform and cross-stamped, serving the Lord, not seeking treasure on Earth but in heaven, it’s amazing. That opportunity and ongoing attempts to partner with those brothers, it’s just a delight.

Amen, brother. What you’re saying resonates in a peculiar way with me as I’ve had the great joy of regularly corresponding and working with many brothers and sisters in mainland China and Taiwan through our Reformed Academy. I’m consistently blown away by how they are willing to joyfully lay their lives down for the gospel. They often suffer much hardship for the sake of our Savior in their families and work, and yet at the end of the day, they still have the Spirit-wrought energy and zeal do the difficult work of translation and subtitle correction for us at Reformed Forum. They labor for nothing but for the glory of God and to see the riches of the Reformed faith flourish in their land. I’m truly in awe of what the Lord is pleased to do in bringing Reformed Forum these connections with saints that weren’t on my radar, but they were on the Lord’s radar. He is bringing the Church, his global family, together even while the world is at war. Chinese believers and Western believers are loving one another and are growing unto perfection in Christ.

It is of the Lord. They are the dearest of brothers and sisters, so praise the Lord for them.

As we come to the close of our interview, how might our friends and supporters around the world pray for you and your ministry?

I really appreciate you asking. Pray for my wife to continue to flourish and for our relationship to grow; for my children to continue to flourish and walk with the Lord as they’re doing; for faithfulness in ministry at Trinity, preservation of the elders and growth of the congregation. Pray also for the work at Reformed Forum to move forward with people recognizing that we give all of our resources up front for free. Pray that the Lord would raise up people to support Reformed Forum’s work so that this global outreach, these 3800 plus students from 75 countries, could continue to be served. Pray that the Lord would make Reformed Forum faithful in serving the church and not be distracted by any other mission outside of the mission of Colossians 1:28, to seek to present everyone mature in Christ through the presentation of what the Scriptures teach as received and expounded and enriched in our Reformed confessional tradition. Prayer along all those lines, and that the Lord would make me personally faithful in love and in truth for the sake of Christ would be deeply appreciated.

This the first installment of a quarterly series of interviews highlighting the Lord’s work in the lives and ministries of our Reformed Forum faculty. Up first is Jim Cassidy, president of the Reformed Forum board of directors and pastor of South Austin OPC in Austin, Texas. He sits down with Ryan Noha to discuss growing up Roman Catholic, giving up his life for the gospel, and serving the Lord in his family, church, and the work of Reformed Forum.

Jim, we have many longtime friends and supporters at Reformed Forum who know you well, but for those who are just meeting you for the first time or haven’t heard about your background, tell us how you made your way from Roman Catholicism into the OPC. How were you converted, and then how were you “born again” as one of Machen’s Warrior Children?

I appreciate that question. I think that growing up Roman Catholic has given me a particular perspective on the Reformation. When I was growing up Roman Catholic, the emphasis was very much upon the rules and doing what you’re supposed to do so that you don’t displease God. And if you don’t displease God, then you can get yourself out from underneath his wrath. So everything was geared towards this work of merit, whether it’s in the participation of the sacraments, going to church, not talking in church to your friends, kneeling properly, being an altar boy—you got some extra points for that. Now, they didn’t put it in those terms. But that’s sort of the message that was communicated.

As I was growing up and into college, I was under the impression that if you did enough good works, or if you did more good works than bad works, then you would go to either purgatory or heaven. But if you were a particularly nasty sort that did more bad deeds than good deeds, you would go to hell. Now, nobody I knew, despite the depravity that we exercised in our lives, thought that they were so bad as to be going to hell. And when they did something that was particularly bad, and they knew it, they would joke around and laugh and say, “Ha, I’m going to hell!” But it was not really taken seriously. I had this impression going into college.

It was there in college that I met a Baptist believer who was ministering to me and praying for me. His church’s youth group back home was also praying for me. And he was witnessing to me telling me about the gospel. When I told him my understanding of Christianity as I just explained it, he said, “No, that’s not how you get to heaven. You get into heaven by having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” And now, we know, and I know from hindsight, that that’s not itself the gospel: “Having a personal relationship with Jesus.” That’s more of an evangelical way of saying that it’s not on the basis of your works or your goodness that you get into heaven but by faith in Jesus Christ. And so I remember going to bed that evening and saying to Jesus that I wanted to have a relationship with him. I woke up the next day, and I began to read my Bible and basically haven’t looked back since.

Now at that time, I didn’t fully comprehend the gospel. I knew nothing of the Reformation. So my intent was to be a Catholic—a good Catholic—and to stay in the Catholic Church. My intent was to go around telling everybody that they need to have a “personal relationship with Jesus” because that’s what I was taught. At that point, a Reformed person who was part of a Protestant Bible study took me aside. He began to explain to me the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and he told me a little bit about the Reformation and “faith alone” and “grace alone” and all of that stuff. And when I went home over Christmas break during my sophomore year, I began to read Galatians. It blew my mind because Paul was articulating everything that I did not believe or that I was not taught growing up. In fact, it was the exact opposite of what I was being taught as I was growing up. It absolutely transformed and renovated my way of thinking about sin and salvation, the gospel—the whole nine yards. I quickly became very angry at the Catholic Church when I thought about the way that they were misleading me. My soul, and the souls of millions, was dependent upon the church proclaiming the truth and the true gospel, and Rome wasn’t doing that. It upset me very much.

I’ve gotten over my anger, but speaking to the issue of Machen’s Warrior Children, perhaps the reason that I am so dogmatically committed to Reformed theology is because I believe that it is as Warfield put it: “Christianity come to its own.” And if Reformed Christianity is “Christianity come to its own,” then we absolutely must stand for it; we must fight for it. Souls are at stake. I would never want our church to lose that message. I think Machen felt that way, too, even though he wasn’t raised Catholic. He was raised within the Presbyterian Church, but he was militant about the truth because he knew that it was a life-or-death situation. And I know it’s a life-or-death situation. So I believe in the Reformed faith and in zealously maintaining it, promoting it, preaching it, and teaching it because I believe truly that lives are at stake.

Amen, brother. I never tire of hearing how the Lord has brought a person to the understanding of that life-giving gospel: the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified, risen, ascended, and coming again. It’s only through union with him that we have any hope of salvation. It’s really that simple. We aren’t Reformed because we’re pugilistic, but because the Reformed faith is the only faith worth contending for. It’s radically consistent with Scripture, and that’s why we love it. That’s why we agree with Machen when he said on his deathbed, “Isn’t the Reformed faith grand?”

Yes. I think everybody has it within them to give their lives for something. We all know the brevity of our lives, and I think I think everybody wants to give their life to something that that counts, that makes a difference. Most of the time people identify the wrong thing to give their lives for. When I found and discovered the truth of the gospel as it was recaptured and re-articulated by the Reformers, I found something where I could say, I’m willing to die on that hill. I’m willing to surrender my life for the sake of that message because it has eternal consequences, even as the message itself is eternal as it says in the Book of Revelation, the “eternal gospel.” Without that understanding, we don’t have the gospel. We only have a man-made imitation of it as Paul says in Galatians, which is “no gospel at all.”

It’s really important for us to understand that we don’t want to be Machen’s Warrior Children, as it were, for the sake of making other people’s lives difficult. Or if we’re being just obnoxious, having a reputation for being that pugilistic guy who’s always looking to fight—we don’t want that. We don’t fight for the sake of the fight; we fight for the sake of the faith. We fight the good fight of faith. It’s important for us to keep our eyes on that because it’s that faith which will bring Christ’s children to maturity. And that’s part of what our goal is at Reformed Forum: to declare the whole counsel of God unto the people of God so that everyone in the church can be brought to the point of maturity in Christ, all to the glory of Christ, for the good of his church, and the evangelization of the lost. That’s something that we have to bear in mind.

We’re supporting the Great Commission of the church. We’re not the church; we’re not doing the Great Commission. Rather, we’re seeking to come alongside the church to support its mission to preach the gospel. And without understanding exactly what it is that the Scriptures teach about the gospel, we have nothing to offer the world. We have no evangel, no gospel to preach, unless we are clear, concise, and accurate in our proper reading of the Scriptures, aided by the Holy Spirit through the testimony of the church in the past and all the greats upon whose shoulders we stand. Without that, we don’t have a message that is worth living for. It’s not worth dying for. It doesn’t aid in the work of evangelism.

That’s right. Without that message, it’s not even evangelism at all. Now, on that note of discipleship, I’d love to hear how this all works out in your family life. Would you give us portrait of your family and then share a bit about how you seek to lead in such a way that the Lord would draw your wife and children into these glorious truths that we hold so dear?

My wife, Eve, is a great helpmeet to me. She has been there by my side in ministry for the last 20 years. I’m so very grateful. We’ve known each other longer than that, but we’ve been married in ministry for 20 years. We have three wonderful children, Caitlyn, Ian, and Anna, and they’re all great kids. I love them dearly. In terms of your question about discipleship, it’s a little bit different now because the kids are older. Eve has a job outside the home, and I have a job, of course. So we’re all going every which way, and our time together for regular, regimented family worship is not in the same pattern as it was when the kids were younger. We were very regimented. After our evening meal, we would have Bible reading, catechesis, and prayer. Now, my pastoral instinct to try to mitigate the awkward schedule of having older kids, one of whom is in college, is to take every opportunity to talk to them about the things of the Lord and to pray with them. I drive my daughter to school every day and we pray on the way to school; we talk about the things of the Lord and about the church. My kids are inquisitive, so they like to ask questions. I try to maximize those questions to illuminate the faith.

It’s much more dynamic, living as it is now in terms of ministry to the family, but I have to emphasize the importance of catechesis. My kids have a bedrock, a foundation, in the Catechism that they learned when they were younger. If I were to be honest and sober, I would say that they probably wouldn’t be able to recite word for word the vast majority of the Q and A’s that they learned as they were growing up, but the substance is there. And there are a few very key questions and answers that the kids still very much have burned or etched within their memories, such that it would go rote if I were to ask the question at random. Sometimes I’ll say, “What does every sin deserve?” in the course of conversation, and the kids instantly say, “the wrath and curse of God,” which is from the Children’s Catechism. There are some of those questions that are really familiar: Who made you? What’s your chief end? And however you might rephrase that question, they’ve got it; they know it. So it gives us something to build on as they as they grow older and as they mature in the faith.

Catechesis was the kind of thing that I did not grow up with. Catholicism would say, we do catechesis; the Catholic Church has a Catechism. But really, catechesis is a Protestant Reformational practice. When I was growing up, we read very little Bible. Even in Catholic parochial school, which I went to from first grade right through college, we studied very little in the Scriptures. And we certainly didn’t get regular, regimented catechesis, learning questions and answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We were not well instructed at all. Despite the fact that we had religious training all throughout, we didn’t learn the faith systematically.

Nonetheless, that’s a beautiful thing that you can look back on God’s faithfulness today and see how he has worked through the “foolishness” of catechesis in your own family, in the next generation. You can share in the great joy that the Apostle John spoke about when he heard that his children, his flock, were “walking in the truth.” Tell us about your own church, your own flock. Where do you serve and how is the Lord using the means of grace to gather and perfect his people there?

Thank you for that. I love my church very much. And it’s a joy to be able to talk about the congregation and the work here in South Austin. I came here in 2014. The congregation in Pflugerville, Texas, which is just to the northeast of Austin, not very far outside city limits—that was the original South Austin Presbyterian Church actually. They were originally meeting in locations on the south side of the city. Then they were able to get a piece of land and build a building, but it was to the northeast in Pflugerville. They ended up moving up there, leaving the south side somewhat untended in terms of Reformed witness. Glen Clary was the pastor there before I arrived at Providence in Pflugerville. And they had a group at that church that was meeting for Bible study down on the south side. There were about 20 to 25 people that were traveling north from South Austin up to Pflugerville for worship on Sunday, and they were desirous of starting a work on the south side.

That Bible study had been going on for five years when they finally called me to come as a church planter. We started worship services in July of 2014, and we became a particular congregation in 2015. From there we began to grow and to develop as the Lord continued to add to our numbers. A couple of years ago, we were able to purchase the building where we now carry out our ministry. Not long after we started worshiping, after we particularized, we had a couple of families come to our church from the New Braunfels area, which is about 45 minutes south of here towards San Antonio. We ministered to those families, and they were desirous of starting a work in New Braunfels. This was funny, because we were praying from the very beginning that the Lord would allow us to become a church-planting church plant. We didn’t want to wait very long to start praying and thinking about the next church plant. And so that’s what ended up happening. Within five years, we ended up starting the work down in New Braunfels. And now in a couple of weeks’ time, Lord willing, the New Braunfels church is going to particularize as a new and regular congregation. We’re really excited about that.

South Austin OPC itself is a very mature congregation. The folks are very serious about the word. They’re absolutely committed to Reformed worship, to the inclusion of Psalms in worship—not exclusively, but inclusive psalmody—and to Reformed orthodoxy. Our elders are very good shepherds. They take good care of the people and are very attentive, patient, kind, and loving. Our deacons are the same. They’re attentive to the needs of the congregation and have done a great job tending to the flock. Anyway, that’s a little bit about us. It’s a congregation that I’m so very much in love with.

What are you preaching and teaching through these days in terms of sermon series or Sunday school, and what fruit is your ministry bearing in the congregation?

In the morning, we are going through the book of James. That has been very useful for all of us, myself, especially. James’ exhortation with regard to the use of our words has been transforming for me, and I think for others, as well. As Reformed Christians, we are a very principled people, and rightly so. We believe that we are to live on the basis of God’s Word, and so we live in a very principled way. And we believe that we can know God and how he wants us to live. But sometimes, when a principled mindset combines with the old nature, we can very quickly allow our zeal to overtake our holiness, our self-discipline, and our restraint. Then sometimes we speak out of a desire to be principled, to stand for the truth, but we do so perhaps in a way that’s not loving and kind and proper and biblical.

James’ exhortations on what it means to suffer have also been a tremendous help to me personally. He’s one of the few places outside of the Book of Job that you can find reference to Job. James is very concerned to instruct the congregation who is obviously suffering. They are suffering persecution and opposition from the world, and James is concerned to teach them what it means to suffer righteously. Sometimes, suffering righteously means guarding your words in such a way that when you’re attacked, you don’t return attack for attack and so forth and so on. That’s been very helpful, I think, to the congregation.

In the evening, I’ve been preaching on 1 Chronicles. We’re going to get to 1 Chronicles 5 this Sunday, Lord willing. The congregation has been remarkably receptive to that series. I thought it would be a flop, quite frankly, because, as you know, the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles is just a list of names except in chapter four where you have the prayer of Jabez. Of course, much has been made of that by some. I did a two-part series on chapter four, focusing exclusively on the prayer of Jabez. There were some little polemics in those sermons, which is appropriate in this instance.

The emphasis that I’ve been trying to underscore, however, is that we are the people of God. Our identity in Jesus Christ is found with the people of God under the old covenant. So when we read these genealogies, we have to understand that they are our genealogies. We’re living in a day and age where there seems to be a renewed interest in family lineage and genealogy. You can take a prick of blood or saliva, send it to some company, and they’ll tell you who your people are. But that’s DNA. We’re talking about something that’s deeper than DNA, which is the covenant of grace. We’re emphasizing our unity in the covenant of grace with the people of old and now showing the way in which the people of God are a people of every tribe, nation, and tongue.

During Sunday school, we’ve been working through R. B. Kuiper’s book on the doctrine of the church, The Glorious Body of Christ. And I talked about that a little bit recently on a Christ the Center episode. That’s been really helpful, especially in the area of church authority and power. I think there’s a lot of confusion out there about what church power and authority is or is not. Kuiper gives us a tonic to avoid an evangelical sort of no-churchism on the one hand, and then a kind of Roman Catholic-authoritarian-dominating kind of approach to authority and power on the other. He gives us the Reformed position. That’s been very helpful and sparked a good deal of interesting conversation in our congregation.

Another area where Kuiper is so good is on the indestructibility of the church. Persecution not only does not destroy the church, but persecution is actually the seed bed of the church. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. The church grows from persecution. The world can’t destroy the church; rather persecution will only advance the cause of Christ in this world. When we suffer righteously, we are identifying most intimately with our savior in his sufferings. The pinnacle point at which we are to imitate Christ is precisely here, in our willing suffering. That doesn’t mean that we go out and ask for it or look for it. Some of the early church fathers were somewhat guilty in this regard, but normally nobody wants to suffer. At the same time, we are willing, like Jesus, and as he calls his disciples to do, to lay our lives down for our friends, the glory of Christ, and the building of the church.

That foolishness of the cross will never become less foolish to the world, but to those who are God’s elect, it is the power of God unto salvation. So keep preaching it, brother! Now we could continue discussing and rejoicing in the Lord’s good work through your ministry in the local church, but I’d love to hear how you are also striving to serve the church in her Colossians 1:28 work through your labors here at Reformed Forum.

My role at Reformed Forum is somewhat supportive, which is great because that’s what I think I’m good at that. I’m not the sort of person that excels at leadership and taking charge and making things happen. Our dear brother Camden, our Executive Director, is excellent at organization, administration, execution of tasks and what not. He’s got the big vision; he knows what he’s doing. I’m here simply as a board member, and as the president of the board, to support him and our faculty—to cheer everybody on and to assist in anything that needs to be done to accomplish our mission.

As a faculty member, I’ve been working on a number of things, including a class on the Gospel of John that I hope to be able to roll out sometime later this year. I also do blog posts and Christ the Center episodes. I try to encourage our Van Til cohort students on Discord (our chat platform). I just see myself as playing a supporting role, throwing myself in anywhere that the Lord opens up for me to encourage, help, and assist. Everybody over there at the new office is doing a great job in terms of getting my material for the Westminster Shorter Catechism classes [Qs. 1–38 and Qs. 39–107] into published, book form. I’ve been working on that manuscript, and hopefully that will come out later on this year.

With the busyness of the pastorate and family, finding time to be able to execute on those projects that I have on my desk is something that is moving along way too slowly. I wish that I was able to produce more as a faculty member, but I remain blessed. The Lord has been gracious and kind. I love what Reformed Forum is doing. To be involved at all is a privilege and an honor. I’m sort of like the free safety in football—just kind of standing by waiting to make an interception or to maybe a tackle. I’m looking to be there when I’m needed and then to fill in that gap as those needs arise. But really, if I aspire to anything, it’s to become the water boy.

That’s one thing that I love about working with you. And the same is true for the other brothers at RF. You have a servant heart. You’re just seeking to live coram Deo and to serve the church. I love that that’s in our mission statement. It’s in our blood, our spiritual DNA. We don’t want to be big shots or to replace the church; we want to be servants to her and to labor unto the glory of our Head, even Jesus Christ, who by his Spirit and word perfects his bride. It’s such a joy to labor with you as a like-minded brother in Christ, to know the bond of peace that we have by the Spirit.  

Psalm 133. It’s better than the oil going down Aaron’s beard and robe. Amen, and amen. And the feeling is mutual brother. Thank you for the great work here that you’re doing for Reformed Forum. We are exceedingly grateful and regard you as a gift from the Lord.

All that I’ve received is from him, and I praise him for that. As we look together unto the Lord to provide the increase for all of our labors, are there any particular things that our listeners and supporters can lift up in prayer on your behalf?

We always covet prayers, the prayers of the saints wherever they may find themselves, for our church and ministry in South Austin. We covet the prayers of God’s people everywhere for the ministry of Reformed Forum for everything that we’re doing, from recording classes to rolling out books and blog posts. Pray that the work of Christ by His Spirit would continue. And I would ask even that it would increase in my heart, so that as I become more like Christ, I will be more effective at showing others how to walk with Christ.

Rodrigo Andrés Espinoza and Douglas Clawson speak about Reformed and Presbyterian ministry in the nation of Colombia and specifically, its capital, Bogotá. Rev. Clawson has been visiting and serving in Colombia for more than a decade through OPC foreign missions. Rev. Espinoza serves as pastor of Raah Iglesia Cristiana Biblical in Bogotá. The church is a member of the Iglesia Presbiteriana de la Reforma de Colombia.

This is a unique episode. Not only are we recording from the church in Bogotá, but with the assistance of Cristian Castro, we are also presenting our first entirely bilingual episode.

Links

• Iglesia Raah Podcast
• “Planting a Church in Nariño, Colombia,” pp. 14–15. New Horizons, Volume 43, Number 1 (January 2022)

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction
• 11:04 Reformed Ministry in Bogotá
• 16:18 An Approach to Foreign Missions
• 24:43 An Interest and Hunger for Reformed and Presbyterian Confessional Theology
• 36:03 Finances and Foreign Missions
• 45:19 Present Needs in Bogotá and Colombia
• 49:27 Conclusion

Participants: Andrés Espinoza, Camden Bucey, Cristian Castro, Doug Clawson

Dr. Eric Watkins joins us to speak about missions and evangelism from a Reformed perspective. Dr. Watkins is senior pastor of Harvest Presbyterian Church (OPC) in San Marcos, California as well as Director of the Center for Missions and Evangelism at Mid-America Reformed Seminary.

The Center for Missions and Evangelism is a new initiative at Mid-America Reformed Seminary designed to enhance the current M.Div. program with a great emphasis upon the Great Commission, as well as developing a new set of classes, conferences, cohorts, and internships focused on areas of evangelism, church planting, discipleship, and foreign missions.

The CME is hosting a conference in just a few weeks. There is still time to register:

More Salt, More Light: Church in an Age of Opportunity
January 28–29, 2022
Anastasia Church
St. Augustine, Florida

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction
• 03:48 Background to the Center for Missions and Evangelism
• 11:29 Focusing on Missions and Evangelism
• 20:17 The More Salt, More Light Conference
• 30:54 Additional Benefits of the Conference
• 39:44 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Eric Watkins

In this episode, several OPC missionaries discuss theological education in foreign mission fields. Douglas Clawson is associate general secretary for the OPC’s Committee on Foreign Missions. Charles Jackson serves as a missionary in Uganda, and Mike serves in East Asia. Each of these ministers speaks about their experience in training officers for the building up of indigenous churches, sharing the joys, struggles, and present needs in various fields.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Charles Jackson, Doug Clawson

David Nakhla speaks about the work of deacons and how the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is working to assist the diaconate in its labors for Christ’s church. Mr. Nakhla is the administrator for the OPC’s Committee on Diaconal Ministries and the Short-Term Missions and Disaster Response Coordinator.

Links

• OPC Diaconal Ministries Website
• OPC Disaster Response
• OPC Short-Term Missions
• OPC Refugee Ministry
• The Reformed Deacon Podcast
• National Diaconal Summit

Chapters

• [00:00] Introduction
• [04:46] Overview of the work of the Committee on Diaconal Ministry
• [16:15] An Expanding View of the Church through Short-Term Missions
• [27:31] The Challenges of COVID
• [30:22] Encouraging Diaconal Ministry at Home
• [36:25] Diaconal Ministry, Insurance, and the Government
• [48:10] Podcast and Case Studies
• [53:56] Resources for Diaconal Training
• [58:31] Conclusion

Participants: Adam York, Camden Bucey, David Nakhla

Reformed Forum exists to present every person mature in Christ (Col. 1:28). We do that specifically by supporting the Church in her God-ordained task of accomplishing the Great Commission. In this episode, we discuss our mission and vision and share exciting news about the future of our ministry including Camden Bucey’s transition to become our full-time Executive Director.

Reformed Forum is an organization committed to providing Reformed Christian theological resources to pastors, scholars, and anyone who desires to grow in their understanding of Scripture and the theology that faithfully summarizes its teachings. We are committed to the principles of the Reformation and a redemptive-historical approach to Scripture. We believe these faithfully represent the teachings of the Bible, which is our only standard for faith and practice.

During the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy of the early twentieth century, E. J. Young wrote to J. Gresham Machen, the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary and key figure in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which had yet to be formed:

Within the church there should be an organization, entirely independent of the formal church, which would act as leaven. This organization should be composed of ministers, elders and laymen of the new church alone, who not only believe the Westminster Confession but who are on fire with it. The purpose of this organization should be to propagate and to defend the Reformed faith, to point out the errors of modernism, sacerdotalism, premillennialism, Arminianism, Trichotomy, and so much of the anti-Scriptural evangelism of today. Furthermore, this group would seek to propagate Reformed literature, such as your book, Christianity and Liberalism, Boettner’s book and works of that type. It would seek to propagate this literature not only among the clergy but also among the laity. In other words, it would be a missionary agency whose primary field is the church. Further, it would eventually seek to promote truly Reformed Bible Conferences and Evangelistic Campaigns, would seek to start Reformed Bible classes and prayer meetings and would seek to encourage Reformed radio broadcasts, etc.

E. J. Young, letter to J. Gresham Machen, October 2, 1935.

Seventy-three years passed before Reformed Forum was founded and much has changed regarding technology, but providentially we have become such an organization. There is a need today just as there was then, because the theological challenges persist. We are committed to be faithful to Scripture to the end that Christ would be glorified in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Mark Van Drunen

Today on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss the contrast between Paul’s reception at Thessalonica and Berea. In Thessalonica, there was jealousy and hostility. In Berea, there was an examination of the Scriptures. How are we to receive the word of God preached to us through our pastors?

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

Today on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Paul’s missionary activities that draw he and his team from Asia Minor (modern Turkey) into Macedonia (modern Europe). Was Paul strategic in where he went? How did he know where and when to go? In what ways do his missionary activities guide us with ours? What happens when we become missional?

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

On today’s episode of Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob continue to reflect upon the progress of the Gospel through the ministry of Barnabas and Paul in Asia-Minor. In Acts 14, we discuss the bold confidence in the gospel even as they face trial and tribulation.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

Reflecting on Acts 8:1–3, Rob and Bob discuss the scattering of the church after the death of Stephen.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

The book of Acts is filled with stories of missionary exploits that can excite us to bold acts of faith. But at times it can unfortunately become a heavy club to strike the sheep for their lack of zeal for the lost. And, possibly worse, the Great Commission becomes the whip that drives such obedience. But is this what Christ had in mind when he commissioned his church to go? We’ll look to answer this by analyzing the motivation behind the early church’s zeal for missions as portrayed in Acts. We want to answer this question: what motivated the early church to reach the gentiles with the gospel? The answer will also provide us with the proper motivation for our missionary calling as a church today.[1]

Acts 1-9 — Ethnically Nearsighted Missions

Acts does not begin with a church zealous to reach the gentiles with the good news of the gospel; in fact, the gentiles are not even on their radar. The witness of the church in the first nine chapters is limited to those who were either members of or related to the Jewish community. The two exceptions would seem to be Philip’s proclamation of Christ to the Samaritans (Acts 8:4-25) and to the Ethiopian eunuch on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza (8:26-39). However, the Samaritans were not regarded as purely gentiles since they had Jewish ancestry and the Ethiopian eunuch is depicted as a God-fearer since he was in Jerusalem for Passover and possessed a Jewish scroll (Isaiah)—he was likely a proselyte to the Jewish religion. Why is it that the church, who during this time had already received the Great Commission, was not compelled to reach the Gentiles with the good news? Christ had commanded them, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20; cf. Acts 1:8). Yet, this command did not expand the limited insight the Jews had regarding the universality of the gospel. They remained ethnically nearsighted, targeting only the Jewish population, so that the issues and problems surrounding the incorporation of the gentiles into the church were not entertained or even imagined. Thus, the first nine chapters of Acts surprisingly supports the notion that the Great Commission did not “play a role in launching the church on her missionary labors” outside the Jewish community.

Acts 10 — Peter’s Encounter with Cornelius

Peter himself gives six utterances of a universalistic nature (2:17, 21, 39; 3:25, 26; 4:12), yet it is not until his encounter with Cornelius that he understands the true universalistic nature of the gospel to be for both Jew and gentile alike. It is in Acts 10 that the “gentile-problem” begins to appear as a blip on the church’s radar. It’s here we perceive the motivation that leads the church to bring the gospel to those outside the Jewish community. It’s interesting to note that the “gentile-problem” is first encountered here in Acts 10 and not at the Jerusalem Council found in Acts 15.[2] Peter’s words are telling when he stands up before the council and says, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (15:7). Peter indicates that the council was not meeting to necessarily answer the problem, since God had already clearly provided an answer earlier. But, as Harry Boer notes,

At the Jerusalem conference it was established that believing gentiles need not observe the law of Moses. Before the Church effected this clarification it had already, in connection with the conversion of Cornelius, made the fundamental affirmation that gentiles as gentiles could be the recipients of salvation. When later developments threatened the integrity of this affirmation (“Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved” Acts 15:1) the Church acted and acted resolutely to safeguard it. The Jerusalem conference did not bring a new state of things into being. It simply rejected a heresy. The new state of things had been brought into being earlier at Jerusalem when the Church accepted as valid the conversion and baptism of Cornelius.[3]

Let us then look more closely at Acts 10. It opens with Cornelius, a gentile centurion, seeing an angel of God in a vision who commends his offerings before God and commands him to send his servants to Joppa to bring the apostle Peter back to his home (10:1-8). As his servants journey to the city, Peter falls into a trance. He sees a great sheet descending with all kinds of animals, reptiles, and birds in it (a good friend likes to speak of this as Peter’s bacon dream). Then a voice speaks to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (10:13). Peter, bewildered at the command, replies, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (10:14). But the voice comes to him a second time, saying, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (10:15). Following this vision Cornelius’ servants arrive and invite Peter back with them (10:17-23). They arrive and Peter says to Cornelius, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean” (10:28). Cornelius goes on to explain what happened to him a few days earlier (10:30-33). Peter then speaks the good news of the gospel to Cornelius and his household, hitting some universal notes that he previously had been shortsighted to (10:34-43). Then comes this significant conclusion to the event:

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (10:44-48).

Peter’s carrying out of the Great Commission in baptizing and teaching Cornelius and his household was not motivated by Christ’s command itself, but by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the uncircumcised gentiles. That the gospel was intended for both Jew and gentile was not inferred from the Great Commission, but from the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the gentiles. Now it’s not that we’re to look for the Pentecost event (or something similar to it) to repeat itself upon a certain people group or household to then be motivated to bring the gospel to them. Rather, Pentecost was a once for all accomplishment that belongs to redemptive-history, as Gaffin has made a convincing case for in his book Perspectives on Pentecost (see also our interview with him). But isn’t the Pentecost event of Acts 2 repeated in Acts 10? Sinclair Ferguson helps us to understand the redemptive-historical significance of Acts 10,

The coming of the Spirit to the household of Cornelius marks the breakthrough of the gospel into the Gentile world. … The event is viewed as epochal, programmatic, rather than paradigmatic.[4]

This is how the church in Jerusalem interpreted the event, saying, “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). They did not see it as only motivation to reach Cornelius and his household, but the entire gentile world.

Acts 11 — Peter’s Mission Report in Jerusalem

This is precisely the defense Peter will give before the circumcision party in Jerusalem who criticized him for going to and eating with the uncircumcised. He does not say, “Do you not remember that we were commanded to make disciples of all nations by our risen Lord?” Rather, his defense is grounded in the indicative of Pentecost. After recounting his vision to them and the subsequent actions, he says,

“As I began to speak [to Cornelius and his household], the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. … If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (11:15, 17).

Again, his defense did not center on the Great Commission, but on the act of God pouring out his Spirit on the gentiles. Upon hearing this, the circumcised party was silenced “and they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (11:18). Notice there is no discussion of the Great Commission, only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: The Pentecostal Indicative

The Great Commission was being fulfilled without direct consciousness of it!

“The gift of the Spirit to Cornelius and his family removed in Peter all tension resulting from the contradiction between his ingrained Jewish exclusivism and the divine leading that required him to preach the gospel to the gentiles.”[5]

The Great Commission did not confront the early church with the “gentile-problem”; instead, it was the Pentecost event that did. This is not to say that the Great Commission was irrelevant, but that it did not carry with itself the motivation and power to reach the uncircumcised. “The Great Commission … derives it meaning and power wholly and exclusively from the Pentecost event.”[6] To demand obedience to the Great Commission without grounding it in what God has done at Pentecost is legalism. It is the indicative of Pentecost that empowers the church to carry out Christ’s command to go and make disciples of all nations. This is what moved the early church to action, and this is what should move us today.

[1] See Harry Boer, Pentecost and Missions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 15-27 for a historical survey that tries to explain the present disproportion between the Great Commission and Pentecost. He argues that the ratio in the early church favored Pentecost, while today the scales have shifted: the Great Commission receives the emphasis, while Pentecost receives very little attention at all. [2] Boer points out that Luke gives more verses to Cornelius’ conversion (66 verses) than to the crucial Jerusalem council (35 verses). He believes that this supports his conclusion that the important Gentile-question was first answered with Cornelius than with the council. [3] Boer, Pentecost and Missions, 35. [4] Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1996), 81. Gaffin, in his article “Pentecost: Before and After,” argues the same point that Pentecost belongs to historia salutis not ordo salutis. He writes, “Pentecost… is an event, an integral event, in the historia salutis, not an aspect of the ordo salutis; Pentecost has its place in the once-for-all, completed accomplishment of redemption, not in its ongoing application. Without Pentecost the definitive, unrepeatable work of Christ for our salvation is incomplete. The task set before Christ was not only to secure the remission of sin but, more ultimately, as the grand outcome of his Atonement, life as well (e.g., John 10:10; 2 Tim. 1:10)—eternal, eschatological, resurrection life, or, in other words, life in the Spirit. Without that life “salvation” is obviously not only truncated but meaningless. And it is just that life, that completed salvation, and Christ as its giver that is openly revealed at Pentecost. … All in all—from a full, trinitarian perspective—Pentecost involves the epochal fulfillment of the ultimate design and expectation of God’s covenant purposes: God in the midst of his people in triune fullness. Pentecost brings to the church the initial, ‘firstfruits’ realization of the Emmanuel principle on an irrevocable because eschatological scale.” [5] Boer, Pentecost and Missions, 40. [6] Boer Pentecost and Mission, 47.

Daniel Strange speaks about his book Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (Zondervan). We talk about how theology, redemptive-history, and apologetics all converge to inform our science of missions and our theology of “the religious other.” Dr. Strange is Academic Vice Principal and Lecturer in Culture, Religion, and Public Theology at Oak Hill College, London.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Daniel Strange, Jim Cassidy

Introduction

To say that the history of the Western church and in particular of its theologizing has been specifically Western or White European theologizing is to state something obvious, and if so probably insignificant, but also potentially misleading. But it is a common saying, and uncommonly examined. My guess is that the saying is assumed to be if not profound, certainly sufficiently innocent, obviously true, and in any case useful. One writer argues that, in light of the ‘strangeness’ of Western theological history to Christianity’s newest host cultures, we ought to be engaged in “thinking the faith from the ground up.” This is the thesis of Simon Chan’s text, Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up (IVP Academic, 2014). As the global topography of confessing Christianity has shifted, interest in emerging localized theologies—Asian theology, African theology, Latin American Theology, and so on —has increased. And these themed endeavors are propelled by movement-like charters grounded principally in the complaint that Christian theology until recently has been written by white European men, coupled with the inference that the theology then too suffers from the particular narrowness of a singular sociology. Accordingly the charge is afoot that, therefore, ‘our own’ theology must be written for ‘our own people’. Best of all, this makes for plenty of fodder for professorial tenure and spills academic ink as quickly as we can produce it. Certainly the Christian faith should lead from the regeneration of individuals to the transformation of society, of particular societies in particular times and places. And we should not expect that the goal of missions and world evangelism is cultural uniformity—a single, global Christian mono-culture. So there should be Christians of all nations. Conversion is not from or out of culture and context; it includes all aspects of the present, ‘among you’ kingdom of God, as we look forward to the eschatological kingdom. So, a fruit of the gospel taking hold in a new land and among a new people would be the renewal of a new culture, not the shedding of culture nor of the importing and imposing of culture. To this I think we may all agree, and even cheer. But some caution is in order. “All races and all ethnicities and all cultures,” John Piper reminds us, “will be present in hell.” Cultural or ethnic diversity is an amoral phenomenon; to say ‘many people groups are represented here’ is no moral improvement on ‘there are many people here’. Our focus should be on where, covenantally, ‘here’ is: in Adam or in Christ. So our interest in the multiculturalism of the kingdom should be carefully monitored. My concern is that the vision of a multi-colored world Christianity bearing endlessly the fruit of [pick your socio-cultural] demo-theologies is too often embraced without caution. In what follows, I’ll address three points of unease with the typical rhetoric of ‘[pick your socio-cultural] theology’.

The claim that ‘Western theology is not helpful for non-Westerners’

No Western theologian ever set out to do Western theology for Westerners. The contemporary diagnosis is that this is in fact is false, and that theology done by Westerners is particularly, inevitably, and irrecoverably Western theology. Our failure to recognize Western parochialism is attributable to cultural-monism, or colonialism, or modernism, or a general lack of interest in other cultures. In some sense this is undeniable. But in another sense, it is a hermeneutic of panicked suspicion and trial-by-angry-mob. To simply dismiss all theology which pre-dates our post-colonial post-enlightenment ‘humility’ is to disregard two important things. First, that many of these theologians were very seriously invested in hermeneutics and methodology and in reading Scripture as Scripture; that is, they were invested in a Scripture vs. sinful man and sinful culture distinction. To put it another way, faithful biblical interpreters were very aware of a cultural distinction, but not a pluralistic or relativistic one. They were engrossed in a covenantal in-Adam/in-Christ cultural distinction—in fact not a distinction but an antithesis of revelational-covenantal origin. We may inquire with some seriousness into the consistency of this distinction in any or all areas of historic Christian thought, but this in fact is the first and primary cultural distinction with which Christians should be concerned, and which in the best cases characterizes historic reflection on the data of Scripture, particularly when anthropology and culture in view. Second, the depreciation of historical theology due to a well-intended concern for Euro-centrism, implicitly—not secretly but anyway by implication—depreciates the work of the Spirit in guiding the church via the ordinary means of the preaching and writing of extraordinary men. Of what use are old books, or books from far and different places? Distinctions of culture, history, and geography are vastly superficial compared to the active sustenance of the church by the Spirit of Christ. The life-giving Spirit is thicker than blood and culture. And certainly no one invested in the faithfulness and usefulness of theological reflection would deny that among the most valuable gifts the Lord bestows upon the church are theologians and biblical interpreters (Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:28), some great—Augustine, Luther, Calvin—and some small.

The idea that ‘we must go back to the Bible and do grassroots theology for the [pick your socio-cultural] context’

Again, there is much of value here. But precision in terms of where the variable of socio-cultural context meets the business and content of biblically grounded theology is at a premium. The worst of this rhetoric gives the impression that everything goes but the Bible. I can imagine the appeal of this idea, particularly when Scripture is translated into a language for the first time. Must we also translate multi-volume systematic theologies in order to have healthy preaching, teaching, learning, and ministry? It seems a little overbearing—some will say ‘neo-colonial’—to insist on importing, say, 19^th century Dutch Reformed theology fast on the heels of the first translation of the Bible. It seems overly selective, for one thing, but it also makes a strong magisterial impression on new converts: ‘here is your Bible, and here are your authoritative interpreters’. Caution is warranted. But reckless biblicism should also be avoided. And the thing to remember is that the Bible itself is not biblicistic. Scripture itself enjoins extra-scriptural reflection upon Scripture, and expects faithful readers to approach Scripture with a somewhat developed notion of its divine nature and authority in place as a kind of unshakable a priori. Remember that the attributes of Scripture are mutually implicative; they imply each other. So if Scripture is necessary for salvation, it is necessary as the authoritative word of God. And it must be intelligible if it is to impart saving knowledge of the gospel, and it alone must be adequate for this purpose. So ‘biblicism’ is perhaps not actually the problem here; it is a crippled doctrine of Scripture that leads one to say, or at least to imply, that extra-biblical reflection on the teaching of Scripture is devoid of biblical authority and is in fact nothing more than the muck and naiveté of cultural embeddedness. If this were true, Scripture could not command the people of God to talk about, reflect upon, teach, preach, or proclaim the word of God, and even to preserve those reflections for posterity; it could only require recitation, and only in Hebrew and Greek—and down the road, perhaps not even that; all creaturely language will be abandoned. And there would be no such thing as dogmatic theology. We could achieve only dispensable and shifting cultural application. So the Bible itself speaks against biblicism, and the idea that theology needs completely to be rebuilt for each new [pick your socio-cultural] context implies a dangerous and indeed unbiblical depreciation of the formulation, proclamation, and defense of doctrine. This is a non-starter.

Theology for whom?

My third and final curmudgeonly complaint is that [pick your socio-cultural] demo-theology sounds so self-important. I think that “theology” says quite enough about the purpose of what we do. That purpose is God. Nor is it any enhancement to tag theology with the banner of a given (or self-selected) cultural identifier. Anyway, as for me, I am not so interested in the demographics of the theologizer; I am interested in the faithfulness of the theology—and I mean faithfulness to Scripture, not to a generation of man. The usefulness of doctrine—in any context—depends upon its faithfulness to the Word of God in Scripture, not upon its faithfulness to man, since it is primarily God who works in us to complete what he has begun. Paul condemns divisions in the church: “one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos’” (2 Cor 3:4). Precisely the error Paul has in mind is Christian sub-culture parochialism. No doubt on other occasions Paul himself sided with some folks against others; but Paul’s divisiveness, if we may call it that, was always doctrinal. That is, his concern was unequivocally faithfulness to revelation and to the one, self-consistent gospel. His jealously for the purity of the gospel led him to curse angels (Gal 1:8) and publicly rebuke Peter (Gal 2:11-14). And Jesus says, “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt 12:50). But the dissension and tribalism in Corinth that Paul sought to undo exalted a non-doctrinal metric: people groups. And isn’t this very distinction between genealogy and faith in the Word the substance of Paul’s law/gospel discussion in Romans 3:21-4 and Galatians 3? God is able from the stones to multiply ethnic diversity. Paul’s response to the strife in Corinth is to emphasize the servanthood of gospel workers (2 Cor 3:5-9). In other words, Paul’s view is that theology should never find itself without a charter; it should be eagerly attentive to the word of the Lord and the work of the church that is founded upon and sustained by that word. An irksome lack of self-image haphazardly plugged with tribalism indicates neglect of this most determinative identity: “whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present of the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (2 Cor 3:22-23). I am Reformed, not because I wish to be associated with particular persons or skin colors or a socio-cultural narrative; but because I believe the Reformed faith to understand and to interpret Scripture most faithfully. One can be any sort of person and be Reformed; this is because ‘Reformed’ is a doctrinal designation, not a socio-cultural one. And this follows the example and teaching of Paul, even of Jesus himself. Of course ‘Reformed’ is not the point here; but it is a case in point. My fear is that sub-culture-demo-theologies are a substitute, displaying laziness or even subversiveness, for rigorous attention to Scripture. And certainly the tendency toward demo-theologies does fail to partake of the urgency of Paul’s gospel—of his preaching, evangelism, missions, and doctrinal rigor. I fear that interest in a culturalized Christianity, meandering into demothasized religiosity, indulges in an intellectual extravagance unauthorized by Scripture and unbecoming of Christian servants.

Conclusion

Perhaps there is something in the way theology is often done that evokes these concerns. Perhaps Evangelicalism’s post-post-modern sensibilities are not solely to blame; maybe there is in fact something amiss in the way we present theology. For the theologian who teaches theologians as his subject matter, I think he has well earned native distaste. Faithful theologians teach theology from Scripture, and entrust the cultural conundrum to the Holy Spirit, in his management of the universal church and his blessing the conveyance of the doctrines of Scripture and of good and necessary consequence. Non-speculative, exegetically and biblical-theologically guided theologizing will never be alien to the ear that is primed to hear. I teach systematic theology far from my home and my native culture, and I have never heard anyone say, ‘that teaching of Scripture does not apply here’. And if I ever do hear something like that, I can say already that the problem will not be with Scripture or with biblically sound theology. Nor is the cause or even the catalyst of theological breakdown necessarily or primarily cultural. Breakdowns in the interpretation of Scripture are ascribed properly, ultimately, to finitude or to sinfulness. There is need for and great wisdom in cultural adaptability in Christian witness, just as there is, we may say, from person to person in local church ministry. Paul became all things in order to witness to all, even “a servant to all,” he says, that he “might win more.” But Paul embraces with his whole heart this adaptability in order to witness to the self-same truth, “for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor 9:19-23), and no other (Gal 1:6-9). My view is that Scripture and theologizing according to Scripture’s own self-witness are neither one of them subject ultimately to variations of culture or era, that the only always important demographical distinction is between under-wrath and under-grace, and that for all the wonderful variety of the body of Christ, to which believers are called and for which they are gifted in untold variety and variation, “there is one body and one Spirit . . . one hope . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6). Choose your sub-culture demo-theologies may certainly produce helpful, edifying, and biblically sound insights. There is no reason from the mere idea of such things to reject a priori the possibility that they offer insights good and necessary for the church in accordance with the gospel. Indeed if it is true that, for example, protestant theology, has throughout its relatively brief history been produced by the same type of people, then it stands to reason that folks of different types will excel at exposing blind spots and heralding refreshing insights. But of course the premise is dubious, since to group, say, a 16^th German with a 17^th century Frenchman with an 18^th century Scotsman with a 19^th century Dutchman with a 20^th century Texan with a 21^st century South Korean, even if they are indeed all of the same gender, is to stretch the guilty demographic beyond usefulness. Such a motley gathering has far too little in common to ascribe its theological fellowship to anything cultural or sociological. That just cannot be the most likely explanation. And if the premise is dubious, the endeavor itself is something of an imprudent balancing act. But anyway I have not in the preceding claimed that it is impossible for such theologies to produce anything good or helpful, or that they never have. My purpose here has been to articulate some general theological concerns that I think any such endeavor would be wise to keep in mind.

Dr. Bruce Baugus speaks about the history and current state of missions in China with a focus on Reformed ecclesiology. China’s Reforming Churches: Mission, Polity, and Ministry in the Next Christendom, edited by Dr. Baugus, is a collection of essays from a recent conference held concerning the growing Reformed churches of China. Dr. Baugus is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS.

Participants: Bruce Baugus, Camden Bucey, Doug Clawson

Drs. Michael Haykin and Jeffrey Robinson Sr. join us to speak about John Calvin and Calvinism’s legacy in missions. Their book To the Ends of the Earth: Calvin’s Missional Vision and Legacy explores John Calvin’s theology concerning missions, the history of his involvement in foreign missions, and the influence of other Calvinistic missionaries of later times. Dr. Haykin is Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as well as the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He received his Th.D. in Church History from Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto and has written several books. Dr. Robinson is adjunct Professor of Church History at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, editor for The Gospel Coalition, and a senior fellow at the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He received his PhD at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has contributed to the forthcoming volume from Crossway, One God in Three Persons.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jeffrey Robinson Sr., Michael A.G. Haykin

Today we welcome to the program hip-hop recording artist Shai Linne to speak about his brand new album Lyrical Theology: Doxology, part two of a three-part hip-hop album series. Shai’s album is based on the conviction that all thinking about God should lead to worship of him. Our discussion covers cultural engagement and contextualization, with Shai’s music as a prime example, as well as the theology that underlies this album and Shai’s other albums. Shai Linne is a hip-hop artist with Lamp Mode Recordings and a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. His album Lyrical Theology: Doxology can be found on iTunes and Amazon, and on Youtube, a music video of his track “Be Glorified (Psalm 55).” Timothy Brindle is a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, and his record label is Lamp Mode Recordings. We interviewed Timothy about his music in episode 300.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jared Oliphint, Shai Linne, Timothy Brindle

[I]t is ever necessary to remind ourselves that abrupt eschatology is inherent in the Christian scheme. It was prepared under the auspices of this, born under them, and must in the end stand or fall with the acceptance or denial of them. This is generic eschatology. A simple consideration of the factors in the case suffices to show how indispensable it is. Even if by persistent application of the gradual processes in the most intensive missionary propaganda, it were possible to convert every individual in the world, this would not provide for the conversion of the generations passed away in the course of history, and which none of our means of grace can reach. And, even discounting this, the conversion of all individuals would not make of them perfectly sinless individuals, except one were to take refuge in the doctrine of perfectionism. The sum total of men, therefore, living at any time would, in order to form a perfect world, stand in need of a marvelous soteric and ethical transformation, such as would rightly deserve the name of eschatology. But even this would not exhaust the factors necessary for the establishment of a perfect order of affairs, because the present physical state of the world with its numerous abnormalities, including human physical weaknesses and defects, would render the continuance of such a state of perfection impossible. Thus there would be created as a further element in generic eschatology the need of a transformation of the physical universe, including the resurrection of the body. [Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000), 379–80.]

Eschatological redemption is not by works either. If we fear that this truth puts a damper on missions, we have nothing less than the words of Christ himself to counter those fears and to lead us toward action:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20)

Not only do we have the words of Christ to spur our mission, but we have Christ himself. Richard Gaffin:

It’s fair also to say that the church has been most captured by the challenge of the Great Commission, especially the largeness of the challenge, the sheer magnitude of the task in view there. The “all”s are quite pronounced: “Disciple all nations,” Jesus says; “teach everything I have commanded.” So, you see, we have a challenge here that is both extensive and intensive, as comprehensive as it is universal… Promise yourself this before God, that you will never again quote Matthew 28:19 and 20 without verse 18. That you will always emphasize the “therefore.” That you will never overlook that the bookends of the Great Commission are, in fact, its indispensable basis—our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Promise yourself that you will not become so preoccupied with the challenge of the Great Commission that you miss its comfort—the contentment and confidence in Christ it also provides.