Below you will find audio, handouts and articles I used for three of the eight weeks in my class entitled “Fear, Anxiety and Depression.” I hope they will be useful for you.
1. Introduction and Personal Story
2. A Biblical View of the Person and How it Impacts our Depression-Anxiety Care
3. The Place of Psychiatry and Medicine in Depression-Anxiety Care
Other:
In 1843, John Williamson Nevin wrote a book simply entitled The Anxious Bench. He was writing during the time when Charles Finney’s revivalism was sweeping american churches. These revivals downplayed substantive Christian teaching of any kind, and instead heightened the experience of a salvific moment in one’s life. Knowing the Bible, being catechized, having a sound understanding of who Christ is and what he has done for his people, a real understanding of what kind of obedience was required in the Christian life – all of these things were downplayed so long as a person could point to a moment in their life where they “accepted Christ.” Getting the greatest number of conversions was the new endgame of Christian ministry. No longer did pastors need to invest in long term pastoral care, affective Christian preaching, or learning sound doctrine. Instead, they began to use what would soon be called the “new measures.” These “new measures” were essentially any method, by any means necessary, where a preacher would manipulate a person into making a Christian confession.
One such method was known as the “anxious bench.” Think of modern day methods of “everyone close your eyes and bow your heads but raise your hand if you want to become a Christian,” except more intense. Essentially there was a bench at the front of a church where a preacher would force people at the end of a service to come up to the bench, and would not allow them to leave until they made a public profession of faith. Capitalizing on people’s anxiety of being put up in front of a church, this method was hailed as the greatest sign of spirituality and revival in a church.
Writing against the “anxious bench” and the “new measures,” Nevin came down hard on this method and its widespread use. This was for multiple reasons:
1) It gave people a false assurance of their salvation. Just because you had this experience where you gave in to pressure and your anxieties doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit actually did anything in your heart.
2) Man cannot control the movement of the Holy Spirit.
3) Professing Christians no longer had any idea of what the Scriptures taught (since catechesis and sound preaching were thrown out the window), and therefore had no idea how to live the Christian life.
4) Any sort of Christian knowledge is perceived as “cold” and “dead” – antithetical to the “spirituality” of a conversion experience.
5) Pastors and preachers no longer had any sort of inward spiritual strength, but instead relied on their own talent and skill to manipulate others into a “Christian” profession.
Writing specifically on this last point, Nevin says this:
“The man who had no power to make himself felt in the catechetical class (that is, teaching), is deceived most assuredly and deceives others, when he seems to be strong in the use of the anxious bench. Old forms must needs be dull and spiritless, in his hands. His sermons have neither edge nor point. The services of the sanctuary are lean and barren. He can throw no interest into the catechism. He has no heart for family visitation, and no skill to make it of any account. Still he desires to be doing something in his spiritual vocation, to convince others, and to satisfy himself, that he is not without strength. What then is to be done? He must resort to quackery; not with clear consciousness, of course; but instinctively, as it were, by the pressure of inward want. he will seek to do by the flesh, what he finds himself too weak to effect by the spirit. Thus it becomes possible for him to make himself felt. New measures fall in exactly with his taste, and are turned to fruitful account by his zeal. He becomes theatrical; has recourse to solemn tricks; cries aloud; takes strange attitudes; tells exciting stories; calls out the anxious, etc. In this way possibly he comes to be known as a revivalist, and is counted among those who preach the gospel “with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power.” And yet when all is done, he remains as before without true spiritual strength. New measures are the refuge of weakness.
The system of New Measures then is to be deprecated, as furnishing a refuge for weakness and sloth in the work of ministry, and in this way holding out a temptation, which, so far as it prevails, leads ministers to undervalue and neglect the cultivation of that true and inward strength, without which no measures can be at last of much account. This is a great evil.
A man may be mighty in the use of new measures, preaching every day if need be for three weeks to crowded congregations, excited all the time; he may have the anxious bench filled at the close of each service, and the whole house thrown into disorder; he may have groaning, shouting, clapping, screaming, a very bedlam of passion, all around the alter; and as the result of all, he may be able to report a hundred converts or more, translated by the process, according to this own account, from darkness into God’s marvelous light. A man may so distinguish himself, and yet have no power to study, think or teach. He may be crude, chaotic, without cultivation or discipline. He may be too lazy to read or write. There may be no power whatever in his ordinary walk or conversation, to enforce the claims of religion. Meet him in common secular connections, and you find him in a great measure unfelt, in the stream of worldliness with which he is surrounded. Often he is covetous; often vain; often without a particle of humility or meekness. The truth is, he has no capacity, no inward sufficiency, for the ordinary processes of evangelical labor. Much is required to be a faithful minister of the New Testament; while small resources in comparison are needed for that resemblance of power, to which a man may attain by the successful use of the system now in view.”
Although this was written in 1843, Nevin’s critiques of the “new measures” in his time almost mirror the same phenomena we see happening in our churches today. Perhaps we have a resurgence of “new measures” happening in American Evangelicalism that even supersede what Nevin saw in his own day.
This desire Christians have to set knowledge against experience – substance against zeal – is the cause for all of our evangelical shallowness today. Our shallow preaching which all to often relies on lights, sounds and theatrics instead of convicting exposition of the Scriptures; exalting “ministers” who are all zeal but no knowledge – as if you can have true love without deep truth; “Christian” books that cater to some sort of weird pseudo-Christian mystical felt-needs rather than teaching that resembles anything like what Christians have believed for the last 2,000 years.
When will we learn that little substance and little knowledge is not the answer to an emphasis on mere knowledge and mere substance? When will we learn that to have a sustainable witness in this world we must have churches that engage both mind and heart? When will we learn that our own experience does not dictate how the Bible is supposed to be read? When will we learn that we need to grow in discernment over what we read, how we worship and what we participate in?
Friends, let us grow in worshipping and following Christ in both Spirit and in truth.
To read this article as a PDF, click here.
We’ve all felt it.
That pain in our soul that lies somewhere in between that ache in our chest we felt when we first experienced grief and loss, and the cold sweats we have in the evening before a big presentation at the office. The exhaustion that comes from spinning thoughts in our heads over and over. It’s the inexpressible confusion that can only be summarized by the question, “Oh God, why is this happening to me?”
This is the question we all ask when suffering hits and we do not know how to process it. We swing back and forth between emotions like a grandfather clock gone haywire. Our cultural influences tell us to react in one of two ways. On the one hand, we are told to rise above our suffering and our circumstances in order to remove ourselves from the situation. The other tendency, which is perhaps more dominate in Western culture, is to suppress and avoid suffering altogether. This view could best be summarized by the last great Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius who said, “Indeed in the case of most pains let this remark of Epicurus aid you, that pain is neither intolerable nor everlasting if you bear in mind that it has its limits…When then you are discontented about any of these things (pain), say to yourself that you are yielding to pain.”[1]
While the cultural norms instruct us to believe that purpose is found above or away from suffering, the Bible teaches that hope and purpose is found in the midst of our suffering. The best way for us to understand this is first by briefly looking at a Christian theology of suffering. We will then be able to see God’s purpose for us in the midst of our afflictions.
A Theology of Pain and Suffering
It is impossible to avoid suffering in this life. From the moment of conception to the day we are laid to rest, we are subject to pain and sorrow in this life. There is a popular misconception that individuals turn to Christianity in order to have suffering alleviated or altogether removed. But this is entirely antithetical to the message our God gives to us.
Did you know that there are more Psalms of lament than any other genre? Surely this gives us a clue to how common the experience of pain and suffering is going to be in this life. Jesus promised us in John 15 and 16 that we will suffer for following him. The entire letter of 1 Peter is written to a group of Christians who are facing trials and suffering for the sake of the gospel. Paul tells us in Romans 8:17 that we are children of God if we suffer with Christ. Again he says in 2 Timothy 3:12 that “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” The author of Hebrews reminds us that those who are not disciplined by God are illegitimate children (12:8). Many Christians today are taught that suffering occurs as a lack of our own faith. It is a sobering thought to examine just how much we’ve bought into this lie in light of the Bible’s cohesive teaching on the subject.
The message is clear: Christ-followers will suffer in this life. But what does it mean to experience pain and affliction as the Bible teaches us? I think most of us are led to believe that these passages speak to some unique form of Christian persecution which comes from publicly following Christ. While this aspect of suffering is certainly included, these passages are not speaking of only this kind of suffering. Dr. Richard Gaffin summarizes Christian suffering well: “Christian suffering, then, is everything in our lives in this present order, borne for Christ and done in his service. Suffering with Christ includes not only monumental and traumatic crises, martyrdom and overt persecution, but it is to be a daily affair – the mundane frustrations and unspectacular difficulties of our everyday lives, when they are endured for his sake.”[2] Any and all suffering and affliction we endure in this live – when we endure them for Christ’s sake – are uniquely Christians sufferings.
You might be asking, “How can this be the case?” After all, don’t Christians experience many of the same that non-Christians do? Cancer isn’t uniquely Christian, so why is it that if a Christian is diagnosed with cancer it becomes Christian suffering? The answer lies in the fact that as children of God who have placed their faith in the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, our suffering is redeemed. God uses the very things that are intended to destroy us to mature his children and make them more like Christ (1 Peter 1:3-9).
Purpose in Suffering
But why does God allow us to suffer? It is impossible to know the exact reasons for what we are going through: it might be a result of the general state of the world and natural forces, it might be a result of someone else’s or our own sins, or it could be from a host of many other reasons. However, the important question to ask is not “Why is this happening to me?” More often than not, we will not be able to answer this question. Instead, we should be asking “What is God’s purpose for me in the midst of my suffering?”
In today’s Christian subculture, we love to make signs, posters and desktop backgrounds with “inspirational” Bible verses (Philippians 4:13, 1 Corinthians 13, and 1 John 3 all come to mind). Unfortunately, one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible is often skipped on these signs. That passage is 2 Corinthians 1:3-7. The Apostle Paul writes:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.
This is one of my favorite passages in the whole Bible. Paul teaches us that God is the source of all mercy and comfort, even in the affliction we cannot see or feel him working in. We are told that although we share in Christ’s sufferings, we will also share abundantly in comfort as well. God comforts us in our affliction so that we will be able to comfort others in their affliction.
So what does this passage teach us about the purpose of suffering in the Christian community? Our suffering is meant to create an army of Christian counselors who become uniquely equipped to comfort others in their suffering. This is a part of God’s glorious and beautiful outworking of redemption in his people! While the world around us tells us to flee suffering, God instead equips us to live out the second greatest commandment (Mark 12:31). For this reason, we agree with Charles Spurgeon who wrote, “I am almost persuaded that those of God’s servants who have been most highly favoured have suffered more times of darkness than others.”[3] It doesn’t matter whether your suffering is depression or cancer, God’s purpose for you is to receive his comfort and then take it to others who are suffering. As we suffer, our churches are collectively strengthened. In this way, the church is to be marked by Christians who faithfully provide godly counsel to one another – even in the midst of their own pains and afflictions.
You could be tempted to doubt that this is the purpose for all Christians in the midst of their suffering. Perhaps you think that you can provide no comfort to anyone else because you’re barely hanging on. However, don’t underestimate your ability to comfort and provide counsel to someone who has already thrown in the towel.
Recently I’ve been weighed down by an immense fear over the future – job, finances, family, children, etc. In moments where my fear is especially strong I become overwhelmed with the temptation to just give up and pursue a new vocation with more stability and predictability. During one of those moments this week, a friend of mine emailed me telling me that he would be experiencing a job change soon. He asked me to pray that he would remain faithful during his transition. Even though he didn’t know it, he provided so much encouragement to me! Just when I was tempted to despair, a friend was able to motivate me to keep going simply by a demonstration of his faithfulness.
Friend, don’t underestimate what God is doing for his people in the midst of your suffering and affliction. God’s purpose for your suffering is to be a benefit not only to you as he makes you more like Christ, but also to bless and benefit his other children who are suffering. The counsel you bring to others as they experience pain and affliction will have a ripple effect in your Christian community that you will likely never see. It is a beautiful thing when we all play our part in the household of faith!
[1] Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 54.
[2] Richard Gaffin, “The Last Adam, the Life-Giving Spirit” in The Forgotten Christ, 231.
[3] Charles Spurgeon, The Valley of the Shadow of Death, The Journal of Biblical Counseling Number 3, Spring 2000.
The critiques, arguments and authors of the New Paul Perspective largely receive a bad reputation in Reformed/Evangelical circles. In my experience, those who are unfamiliar with the arguments of the New Paul Perspective (NPP) instinctively dismiss it wholesale because of rumors or assumptions they have heard from others. On the other hand, those who understand the NPP arguments and authors to a greater extent might interact with the arguments, but only to point out the weaknesses of them. While I agree with my Reformed Evangelical commitments and tradition, I believe that both of these interacts with the NPP fail to do justice to the arguments being made. Despite the weaknesses of the NPP, when we better understand the critiques and arguments of its proponents we are actually able to embrace the benefits it has to offer the Reformed faith. Specifically, we will find that the NPP allows us to more faithfully understand the context in which we read God’s Word, our understanding of Covenant Theology is strengthened, and the scope of God’s salvation is expanded. For the scope of this essay, I will briefly summarize the writings of Krister Stendahl, James Dunn and N.T. Wright, and then turn to my own reflections.[1]
In his essay The Apostle Paul and the Instrospective Conscience of the West, Krister Stendahl popularizes the notion that the Apostle Paul may not have been as concerned with an introspective burden of conscience as Western Audiences assume. He argues that “the Pauline awareness of sin has been interpreted in the life of Luther’s struggle with conscience.”[2] Western Christians then – in particular, those in the Protestant tradition – have read into Paul a burden from sin and guilt that the Apostle did not originally have. On the contrary, Stendahl argues that Paul actually had a very guilt-free conscience in regard to his participation in covenant law as a Jew.[3] Paul was originally concerned with how Gentiles could be included in the messianic community, but he is now read as principally being concerned with man’s assurance of individual salvation.[4] What was in focus for Paul’s theology then was not a burden of introspective conscience, but an insufficiency in the law now that the Holy Spirit has come.[5] The problem of the law – which was originally meant to be a “digression” in Stendhal’s view – is now read as the main filter for understanding Pauline thought.
Scholar James D.G. Dunn picks up Stendahl’s line of argumentation and even takes it one step further. Dunn contends that “Protestant exegesis has for too long allowed a typically Lutheran emphasis on justification by faith to impose a hermeneutical grid on the text of Romans.”[6] The problem, in Dunn’s view, is not necessarily the emphasis of justification by faith but what this emphasis is set in contrast to. The Western Reformed emphasis of reading Christianity as a religion of “salvation by grace” in contrast to a Judaism as a religion of “salvation by works” is entirely false, according to Dunn. Instead, he argues “Judaism’s whole religious self-understanding was based on the premise of grace – that God had freely chosen Israel and made his covenant with Israel to be their God and they his people.”[7] Therefore, Reformed Evangelicals not only read Paul poorly and in the inappropriate context, but they miss the emphasis of his writing. Agreeing with Stendahl, Dunn believes that Paul was not talking about an individual’s salvation but instead was focused primarily on entrance into and maintenance of status within the covenant community.
N.T. Wright is the most prevalent popularizer of the NPP today, and his work is largely built on and is congruent with the work of both Stendahl and Dunn. Much of Wright’s work is principally focused on the ideas of righteousness and justification in Paul. Wright distinctly retells the history of Israel from a very covenantal focused framework. Israel, as a nation, was given the task of undoing the effects of Adam’s sin. Since they were unable to do so, Christ as the true Israel not only took on the curse but fulfilled the role the nation of Israel was always supposed to perform. In this framework, the terms “justification” and “righteousness” take on a very covenantal flavor. They are no longer associated with one’s moral standing before God, but instead are primarily associated with one’s standing within the covenant community. To be justified then is to have membership in the people of God.[8]
Many Reformed Evangelicals have responded to the claims of Stendahl and Dunn, such as Cornelius P. Venema, John Piper and R.C. Sproul. More recently, Stephen Westerholm has done a sufficient and thorough job of responding to the claims of Stendahl, Dunn and Wright in his book Justification Reconsidered. Westerholm rightly argues that even if the Jewish religion had some concept of grace, it clearly wasn’t to the same extent that Paul believed was now present in Christianity. Further, humanity’s predicament – original sin and the fall – must actually be worse than the Jewish people originally thought. As Westerholm concludes, “Human beings, must not, after all, be capable of the modicum obedience required by the covenant…Along such lines, we may well imagine Paul’s thinking developed.”[9]
The work of these Reformed and Evangelical leaders such as Westerholm is to be much appreciated. However, what I find missing in much of their writing is what we can learn and benefit from the arguments and critiques made by the NPP. The reality is, there are multiple benefits and ways the NPP can enhance our Reformed Theology. The first benefit I find from the NPP is the way in which it enhances our understanding of Paul’s context. Most Evangelical and Reformed circles deliver the gospel by declaring Paul’s message as a religion of grace contrasted to a religion of works. However, Stendahl and Dunn convincingly argue that the Jewish religion did have an understanding of grace behind God’s free choice of Israel to be his covenant people. While it may not be the same level and degree of grace that Christianity proclaims is actually necessary to receive from God in Jesus Christ, nevertheless we should no longer continue to caricaturize the Jewish religion in a false light. Faithful Bible teachers and preachers – as well as every day Christians – should desire to be honest and fair about how we understand and label people, even if it is people in antiquity.
Secondly, the fact that the Jewish religion understood God’s election of the nation of Israel to be motivated by his grace actually supports and strengthens a Reformed Covenant Theology and Soteriology. The fact of the matter is that God’s election has always been motivated by his grace. Whether it was because he loved Israel simply because he loved them (Deuteronomy 7:7) or because God predestines sinners to salvation (Acts 13:48), God has always operated and has been motivated out of his grace toward his people. This was true in the Old Covenant, and it is true in the New Covenant as well. By pointing out God’s grace toward Israel under the Old Covenant, Stendahl and Dunn can actually be cited to support many foundational Reformed convictions.
Third and finally, the view that Paul is merely concerned with entrance into the messianic community rather than the salvation of individual sinners is certainly an extreme reaction to the individualistic readings of Western Protestant culture. Nevertheless, this overreaction is a reminder to us that when we preach the gospel, we should remind people that they are being saved as individuals into a corporate body – the church. All who confess the name of Christ will be saved individually (Romans 10:9). At the same time, God loves and redeems the church as the Bride of Christ (2 Cor 11:2). We are saved individually and we are saved corporately. God the Father knows his children by name (John 10:14-15, Revelation 20:15) and he knows and loves all of his people by name (Isaiah 43:1). We should not be afraid to correct our own blind spots in our theologies and gospel proclamation. The NPP emphasis on entrance into and status within the covenant community is a good reminder and corrective for how Reformed Evangelicals understand their soteriology.
In our fight for orthodoxy and commitment to the grace of God we have received in Jesus Christ, we should not be afraid to listen to critiques and other views from outside our theological camp. While I have many disagreements with the consensus of the NPP, many of their arguments have shown me a view and angle on Scripture that I would not have otherwise considered. By wrestling with, digesting, and sorting through their arguments I believe my commitments to and understanding of Reformed Theology are stronger, not weaker. When we reject arguments from those outside of our theological camp entirely, we show ourselves to be closeminded and unwilling to acknowledge our own blind spots and weaknesses. In dialoging with the NPP further, Reformed Evangelicals could not only show themselves to be better at listening, but our faith and understanding of God’s grace would be strengthened.
[1] The scope of this application paper necessarily assumes that the audience has some familiarity with the arguments of the New Paul Perspective as well as the responses from Reformed Evangelicals.
[2] Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” The Harvard Theological Review 56, no. 3 (July, 1963): 200.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 206.
[5] Ibid., 213.
[6] James D.G. Dunn in Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate, rev. and expanded ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, ©1991), 300.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Stephen Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013), 51-58.
[9] Ibid., 33.