This book on Bavinck's writings should be of academic interest to many.  Hopefully this, along with Bavinck's whole Dogmatics now in english, will produce a whole generation of Reformed scholarship among English speakers. 

I was reflecting on 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15 the other day with reference to pastoral ministry.  I think that it says much which is convicting to even the finest of pastors.  It says this:

¹² We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, ¹³ and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.  ¹⁴ And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.  ¹⁵ See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

Pastors are really good at complaining.  I know; after all, I am a pastor and have struggled with contentment.  But we're complainers about - more than anything - how people treat us.  Like anybody pastor thrive on encouragement.  We are prone to discouragement, and so need to be lifted constantly.  Yes, we're very much "high maintenance." 

But too often we pastors who desire encouragement can be less than encouraging to our congregation.  In fact, the rule of thumb is that we ought - at the least - treat Christ's sheep in a way we want to be treated: with patience and encouragement. 

This lack of pastoral sensativity can begin from the pulpit.  We get ordained, we're given the keys of the kingdom, and instantly we want to take those keys out for a drive and see what we can do.  We find the weaknesses in teh congregation and there we go.  We're off to set 'em straight.  And we're going to do it with all our deep voice and full blown finger wagging.  "You need to . . . <fill in your favorite imperative here>!"  And then we pull out our seminary education over these uneducated simpletons and tell 'em what the Greek text says.  There . . . set them straight!  Another victory for pastors!

Here in 1 Thessalonians, however, things are different.  Yes, Paul says to admonish the idle.  That needs to be done.  Sin needs to be rebuked.  And false doctrine needs to be corrected.  But Paul is quick to qualify that we need to encourage the fainthearted.  Yes, even while we are admonishing, we need to be encouraging.  Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

But, what is more, Paul says we need to help the weak.  Since being a pastor in the OPC I have seen many come through our doors with some pretty rough edges (like I had when I first walked through the doors of an OPC - and still have in many ways!).  They are weak in their life and in their doctrine.  Often they have a sin they are struggling with or are struggling to understand a particular doctrine.  In other words, not everyone who enters our churches are fully matured Reformed believers.  They are spiritually and doctrinally weak.  There we are there to help them.

And not just help them, but also to be patient with them.  I'm not a quick study.  I gave up believers baptism stubbornly, along with a number of other doctrines.  Just because Calvin, or Hodge, or Ferguson said infant baptism doesn't mean I will automatically believe in infant baptism.  I had to be persuaded.  And folks worked with me patiently until I was thoroughly convinced.  But not all were equally patient with me.  At least one brother called me a dispensationalist while I was still holding to believer's baptism.  I didn't even know what a dispensationalist was!  Now, maybe I was a latent dispy at the time - granted.  But his lack of patience reflected more arrogance about his own knowledge than pastoral sensativity and 1 Thessalonians 5 like patience, help, and encouragement. 

Yes, as pastors we are given authority.  But biblical authority is not authority as it is understood by the world.  The world sees authority as that which is given to lord it over others.  But the Christian idea of authority carries with the idea of service.  The way of being first as by being last and becoming the servant of all.  We are not here to flex our authority  muscles, or all our knowledge, or our Greek, or our smarts, or our position, or our whatever.  Rather we have to use that authority in service to Christ's precious ones by feeding them the Word of God - all the while remaining patient, encouraging, and helpful to them while they learn the way of godliness.  After all, that is the way we want them to deal with us in our weaknesses.     

 

 

Above you see Paul Nimmo on the left and Bill Werpehowski on the right during the plenary discussion

On day two of the Barth Conference we were treated to two fine lectures and responses.  The first lecture of the day was given by William Werpehowski of Villanova University and was on just war theory.  A self-professed "Catholic Barthian," Professor Werpehowski set forth Barth's doctrine of just war.  He notes how it appears to some that Barth has fallen away from the pacifistic trend of his theology.  Barth does allow for just war under certain circumstances, which resonates with some Catholic ethicists.   The second lecture was by David Haddorff of St. John’s University, and spoke about Barth's views on democracy.  He makes clear that Barth believed in democracy as it falls best in line with biblical teaching.  In this way then the church may serve, by its doctrine of justification, as a witness to the freedom we ought to have politically in democracy.  The respondent, Todd Cioffi, made an interesting point.  He argues that Barth says that democracy is to be preferred and pushed for by the church because it allows the church the freedom to declare the doctrine of justification freely, not that the doctrine itself leads to a democratic state. 

But the highlight of the whole conference came on Wednesday morning with the lecture of Paul Nimmo.  Finally, this was theological ethics through and through.  The lecture was on the ontology of ethics in the theology of Karl Barth.  Nimmo set forth how the being of God in action sets the theological ontology for a Christian ethic.  While I disagree with Nimmo on core theological issues, this was Barthian theology done well.  It was faithful to Barth, rich in theological content, and intellectually stimulating.  I think that in Dr. Nimmo we have an up and coming premiere Barth theologian.  He is young, sharp, eloquent, and obviously a good mind.  He may be the next T.F. Torrance.  And the fact that he teaches at New College makes that possibility all the more attractive.  Folks, look for anything and everything this guys writes - and read it!  He will set many Barthian theological trends to come.

OK, so what about the conference as a whole?  Well, for what they're worth, here are some of my thoughts. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, I remain unconvinced that many of the discussions we had were really even warranted.  Is it really the call of Christian theologians to attempt to propose new forms of politics, economics, etc?  I'm not persuaded that it is.

This was, after all, supposed to be a conference on ethics.  Certainly there is an ethical dimension to politics and economics, but notice what was missing.  There were no lectures, really, on personal ethics.  Nothing on death and dying issues, nothing on sexual ethics, nothing on marriage, and nothing on keeping the Sabbath day holy.  Those topics would have been much more useful than utopian economic proposals. 

Speaking of which, also taking place that week was George Hunsinger's special political work, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.  This at times caused some problems.  For one, there was a lecturer scheduled at Nassau Presbyterian Church for the NRCAT at the same as one for the Barth conference.  Hunsinger, also, I suppose was so busy with the NRCAT conference that he was unable to attend the discussion groups for the Barth Conference.  He was in my group, so I was disappointed not to have that time to interact with him. 

Also, rather than having respondents, I would have preferred more lectures.  This conference was not as full as last years.  Thus, in my opinion, it was not nearly as good.

Next year's conference is on Barth and Religion and the Religions.  This sounds, already, like a great event.  I look forward to being there again!