Personality takes a back seat

"Put not your trust in princes" ... or in pastors. Everyone needs to be responsible to someone. When the personality of the preacher is the center of the church, the fallibility of that preacher - and we are all fallible - is the weakness of the church. Skye Jethani writing at Out of Ur about the "Church Celebrity Deathmarch":

The spring issue of Leadership includes an interview with the pastoral team at The Next Level Church in Denver. After building a booming church around the dynamic gifts of a senior pastor, TNL imploded. The senior pastor/preacher left amid controversy and the church’s attendance dropped like Wiley Coyote from a cliff. In the aftermath, the remaining pastors reorganized TNL sans senior pastor. They’ve opted for a team approach with leaders sharing equal authority and responsibility. ....

Other young church leaders are forgoing the traditional senior pastor model. They prefer a flattened structure with shared responsibility where a team, rather then an individual, has the steering wheel. Thus no one achieves celebrity status in the congregation. .... The reason is linked to the scary rate of failure seen among senior pastors. ....

Having a single “face with the place,” a senior pastor who fills the pulpit and whose personality permeates the entire congregation, has been the popular model for evangelicals, but these ecclesial celebrities crash and burn at a rate greater than a sub-Saharan airline. As Gray points out, the problem is the system and not just the pastors. So many younger evangelicals are seeking churches liberated from the celebrity death spiral. ....

In my area we are seeing a striking number of younger evangelicals move toward high-church traditions—particularly Anglican. .... At first glance one might see this as being completely out of phase with the trend outlined above. After all, high church traditions are all about structure and hierarchy. There are priests, and bishops, and even archbishops.

But a closer examination reveals that this trend may also be coming from the same discontentment with personality-driven congregations. Anglican worship is built on a time-honored liturgy that emphasizes prayer, Scripture, and the Eucharist. While preaching is certainly present, the preacher and his/her personality does not dominate corporate worship. The same could be said of the worship leader. Personality takes a backseat to tradition.

Similarly, while some churches are trying to minimize risk through a team structure, high-church traditions protect congregations from the failures of a single leader through a hierarchy that stretches far above the local church. This is one example where the much-derided denomination still has an advantage over non-denominational churches. [the article]

Each form of polity has advantages and disadvantages. Hierarchy is not insurance against error - a hierarchical structure can make things worse - decentralization can be insurance against corruption of various kinds. But giving too much attention and authority to any individual is asking for trouble - we each need to be under authority.

Church Celebrity Deathmatch | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

What is an "Evangelical," anyway?

Several people respond to the Washington Post question: "Some Christian leaders issued An Evangelical Manifesto last week to depoliticize the term 'evangelical.' 'We evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially or culturally,' they said. In your mind, what is the definition of an evangelical?" - including Charles Colson, Cal Thomas, Martin Marty, N.T. Wright, and - Deepak Chopra?!

On Faith at washingtonpost.com

The Jesus of yesterday and today and forever

The excerpts below are from another review of Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, this one by another who, in many ways fits the pattern, but nevertheless doesn't belong to the "emerging church." Kristen Scharold at First Things from "The Emerging Church and Its Critics":

.... I, like DeYoung and Kluck, should be an emergent Christian. In my more presumptuous moods, I call myself a writer, and I’m a fan of Dave Eggers. I grew up in an evangelical church. I live in a part of Brooklyn whose edges are rougher than the hipster paradise of Williamsburg. I love to listen to bands, which if named, will instantly lose their indie appeal. I drink lattes. I hate easy answers. I enjoy deep conversations. So shouldn’t I be craving a new kind of Christianity that will undo my traditional evangelical upbringing while satisfying my newfound love for diversity, social justice, and, of course, soul searching?

Not at all. Despite my hipster leanings and stale Christian pedigree, I am not emergent, if emergence is defined by its theology instead of just its ethos. And after reading this book, I am even more grateful that I never jumped onto the emergent bandwagon. I am not the only young Christian who appreciates many aspects of postmodern culture but who also yearns for the absolute conviction that DeYoung and Kluck present.

“Some of us long for teaching that has authority, ethics rooted in dogma, and something unique in this world of banal diversity,” DeYoung writes. “We long for Jesus—not a shapeless, formless good-hearted ethical teacher Jesus, but the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus of the church, the Jesus of faith, the Jesus of two millennia of Christian witness with all of its unchanging and edgy doctrinal propositions.”

This Jesus is the Jesus of traditional doctrine, the Jesus of yesterday and today and forever. He is not a Jesus who will go out of style along with skinny jeans, tight cowboy shirts, and aviator sunglasses.

Throughout the book, the authors make the case that the emergent church is simply a fad. In fact, the emergent church seems to be going down the same accommodationist path as the mainline, bourgeois, modern churches that they are reacting against. And, like the baby boomer’s megachurches, the emergent church is sweating to make the gospel entertaining and comfortable to their generation. “The mainline church bent over backward to accommodate modernism, and its members have budget crunches and shrinking churches to show for it. Will the emerging church go down the same nondoctrinal path as the mainline church relative to postmodernism?” DeYoung asks. In an attempt to “reimagine” the gospel, emergent teachers have merely repackaged the modern, seeker-sensitive approach. ....

In the end, the authors of Why We’re Not Emergent are not making a case for a new kind of Christianity. They are not trying lure emergent Christians into their fold with a hipper take on things. They are simply trying to replace the errors of the emergent church—which is, nonetheless, making important contributions to evangelicalism—with scripturally sound theology.

And it should not be so counterintuitive that young evangelicals such as myself prefer theology rooted in tradition to a spirituality waffling in relativism. We want a story with a climax so profound that it leaves us worshiping God, not reducing him to fit into our cultural paradigm. And if that story comes with a Guinness and some Coldplay, great. If not, no big deal. [the review]

Thanks to Mark Olson for the reference.

FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » The Emerging Church and Its Critics

What is truth?

Sam Storms begins a five-part review of Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, a book I've recommended before. Storms likes the book - a lot - as I did.

Obviously Evangelicalism has had and continues to have problems of definition and witness [see below], but this doesn't seem like much of an answer. The emerging emergent church seems like the current version of the "seeker-sensitive" church, but for this generation rather than the baby-boomers, except that it combines that inclination with old-fashioned liberal theology.

Brian McClaren - one of the guys most identified with the emerging/emergent whatever - doesn't help much with his inability to actually answer this question:

Q: On the theology behind the emerging church, you reject the idea that there's an absolute truth. So what boundaries are there on theology that churches are teaching? Can any church just call itself an emerging church?

A: Obviously that's a challenge. The flip side of that question is look at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran. ... Obviously, I have a lot of critics and they often say, 'You're wanting to water down the Gospel to accommodate to post-modernity.' I say, 'No, I really don't want to do that. But what I do want to do is acknowledge first the ways we've already watered down the Gospel to accommodate modernity.' ... I think the naivete of some of those critics is that they're starting with a pure pristine understanding of the Gospel. It seems to me we're all in danger of screwing up.

And what exactly are the boundaries? Is there truth?

Enjoying God Ministries > A Review Of Why Were Not Emergent By Two Guys Who Should Be Part One, Q&A: How 'emerging church' movement could change U.S. religious landscape

The beginning of a civil conversation?

Yesterday Albert Mohler explained at some length why, although he found much to agree with, he could not sign the "Evangelical Manifesto." He concluded:

In the end, I must judge "An Evangelical Manifesto" to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole. I want it to be even more theological, and to be far more specific about the Gospel, I agree with the framers that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, rather than politically, culturally, or socially. This document will have to be much more theological for it to accomplish its own stated purpose.

Now, perhaps we Evangelicals will all gain by a civil conversation about this Manifesto that calls for civility. That at least would be a good place to start. [the column]

Today, after an interview with Os Guinness, one of the authors of the document, on his radio program, Mohler continues:

Evangelicalism is an on-going project and a movement marked by a seemingly permanent identity crisis. We should be thankful for any opportunity to clarify the issues at stake - especially when we agree that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, above all.

An Evangelical Response to "An Evangelical Manifesto", "An Evangelical Manifesto" - Continuing the Conversation

"Evangelicals should be defined theologically...not politically...."

I confess to some apprehension about the Evangelical Manifesto that was to be released this morning, fearing that it would, in the guise of attacking the politicization of the faith, in fact be simply a broadside from one side - the left side. Those fears were unfounded and I find myself, with a minor quibble here and there, approving of and agreeing with what the document says. Below are some extended excerpts, but it should be read whole. It is available as a PDF here.

.... Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are "not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation." Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. ....

They define "Evangelical":

To be Evangelical, and to define our faith and our lives by the Good News of Jesus as taught in Scripture, is to submit our lives entirely to the lordship of Jesus and to the truths and the way of life that he requires of his followers, in order that they might become like him, live the way he taught, and believe as he believed. As Evangelicals have pursued this vision over the centuries, they have prized above all certain beliefs that we consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us — the following seven above all:

First, we believe that Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human, the unique, sure, and sufficient revelation of the very being, character, and purposes of God, beside whom there is no other god, and beside whom there is no other name by which we must be saved.

Second, we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life "from above." We therefore bring nothing to our salvation. Credited with the righteousness of Christ, we receive his redemption solely by grace through faith.

Third, we believe that new life, given supernaturally through spiritual regeneration, is a necessity as well as a gift; and that the lifelong conversion that results is the only pathway to a radically changed character and way of life. Thus for us, the only sufficient power for a life of Christian faithfulness and moral integrity in this world is that of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.

Fifth, we believe that being disciples of Jesus means serving him as Lord in every sphere of our lives, secular as well as spiritual, public as well as private, in deeds as well as words, and in every moment of our days on earth, always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures.

Sixth, we believe that the blessed hope of the personal return of Jesus provides both strength and substance to what we are doing, just as what we are doing becomes a sign of the hope of where we are going; both together leading to a consummation of history and the fulfillment of an undying kingdom that comes only by the power of God.

Seventh, we believe all followers of Christ are called to know and love Christ through worship, love Christ’s family through fellowship, grow like Christ through discipleship, serve Christ by ministering to the needs of others in his name, and share Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way. ....

Later, they describe ways that Evangelicals have failed:

We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior.

All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.

All too often we have set out high, clear statements of the authority of the Bible, but flouted them with lives and lifestyles that are shaped more by our own sinful preferences and by modern fashions and convenience.

All too often we have prided ourselves on our orthodoxy, but grown our churches through methods and techniques as worldly as the worldliest of Christian adaptations to passing expressions of the spirit of the age.

All too often we have failed to demonstrate the unity and harmony of the body of Christ, and fallen into factions defined by the accidents of history and sharpened by truth without love, rather than express the truth and grace of the Gospel.

All too often we have traced our roots to powerful movements of spiritual revival and reformation, but we ourselves are often atheists unawares, secularists in practice who live in a world without windows to the supernatural, and often carry on our Christian lives in a manner that has little operational need for God.

All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others, such as the killing of the unborn, as well as the heresies and apostasies of theological liberals whose views have developed into "another gospel," while we have condoned our own sins, turned a blind eye to our own vices, and lived captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith. ....

On Evangelicals and politics:

Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith; and it would be no improvement to respond to a weakening of the religious right with a rejuvenation of the religious left. Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons.

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival.

The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: "The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing." ....

On religion in the "public square":

We repudiate on one side the partisans of a sacred public square, those who for religious, historical, or cultural reasons would continue to give a preferred place in public life to one religion which in almost all most current cases would be the Christian faith, but could equally be another faith. In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square.

Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith. We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society. We are also concerned about the illiberalism of politically correct attacks on evangelism. We have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to adopt freely, and that we do no not demonstrate in our own lives, above all by love.

We repudiate on the other side the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. Often advocated by a loose coalition of secularists, liberals, and supporters of the strict separation of church and state, this position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are and shapes the way they see the world.

In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land. .... [the "Manifesto" as a PDF]

"She still loves the stories"

No cross, no Bible, no incarnation, no resurrection, although those may be nice metaphors for something or other. How terrible it is when those charged with "the faith once delivered" don't believe it themselves. From Canada's National Post:

There is a Bible on a pedestal in Gretta Vosper's West Hill United Church in Toronto. She would prefer it did not have a special place, she said, because it is just a book among other books. In a similar way, the cross that is high above the altar has no special meaning, but there are a few older congregants for whom the Bible and the cross are still nice symbols so there they remain.

Though an ordained minister, she does not like the title of reverend. It is one of those symbols that hold the church back from breaking into the future - to a time "when the label Christian won't even exist" and the Church will be freed of the burdens of the past. To balance out those symbols of the past inside West Hill, there is a giant, non-religious rainbow tapestry just behind the altar and multi-coloured streamers hang from the ceiling.

"The central story of Christianity will fade away," she explained. "The story about Jesus as the symbol of everything that Christianity is will fade away." ....

Ms. Vosper does not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the miracles and the sacrament of baptism. Nor does she believe in the creeds, the presence of Christ in communion or that Jesus was the Son of God.

In With or Without God, her book that was formally launched this week, she writes that Jesus was a "Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team."

The Bible is used in her services, but it gets rewritten to be more contemporary and speak to more people. Even the Lord's Prayer - also known as the Our Father - does not make the cut because it creates an image of a God who intervenes in human existence. And then there is the "Father" part that is not inclusive language and carries with it the notion of an overbearing tyrant who condemns people to hell. ....

Ms. Vosper did not change her views over time but said she felt the same way when she took her divinity degree at Queen's University in 1990. She said when the creed was mentioned, which contains those declarations of faith that acknowledge basic Christian tenants, it was uncomfortable. "I fled when I had to read the creed," she said.

For all of this, she still feels rooted in the church. She still loves the stories, metaphors though they may be. And she still measures her life against the meaning of those metaphors. ....[more]

The fact that she was ordained is mind-boggling, but since the head of her denomination doesn't think she should be condemned and himself believes that the term "Christian" should be "phased out," perhaps it isn't so surprising after all.

Thanks to Mark Steyn at NRO for calling attention to this story.

Christianity without Christ

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free...."

A pastor commenting on Jeremiah Wright's statement that the attacks on him were really an attack on the "black church," disagreed saying that there is no black church or white church - there is only the Christian church. He wasn't arguing that there aren't differences in worship and preaching styles, but that there is a theological problem with "black liberation theology." In today's Washington Post, Michael Gerson:

Wright may be a camera-seeking egotist. He is certainly a showman, enjoying his moment. But his main argument seems to be: "No, Barack, I actually hold these theological convictions. You may need to attack me for political reasons. But don't you dare dismiss me as a batty uncle."

It is a tribute to the power of the Christian message that there is such a thing as African American Christian theology at all. Christianity was the religion held by slave masters - often distorted into an ideology of oppression. But African Americans found a model of liberation in the Exodus. They discovered that Jesus more closely resembled the beaten and lynched slave than their pious oppressors. And African Americans - by their courageous assertion of God's universal love and man's universal dignity - redeemed a nation they had entered in chains.

But black liberation theology takes this argument a large step further - or perhaps backward. The Rev. Wright's intellectual mentor, professor James Cone of Union Theological Seminary, retreats from the universality of Christianity. "Black theology," says Cone, "refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him." And again: "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." And again: "In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors."

This emphasis on the structural evil of white America has natural political consequences - encouraging a belief that American politics is defined by its crimes, a tendency to accept anti-government conspiracy theories about AIDS and drugs, a disturbing openness to anti-American dictators such as Castro and Gaddafi. It explains Wright's description of the Sept. 11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to "white America."

But the deepest flaws in black liberation theology are theological, not political. Jesus did advocate a special concern for the rights and welfare of the poor and helpless. But he specifically rejected a faith defined by social and political struggle, much to the disappointment of his more zealous followers. The early church, in its wrenching decision to include gentiles as equals, explicitly rejected a community defined by ethnicity. No Christian theology that asserts "Jesus is not for all" can be biblical.

Michael Gerson - The Perils Of Patronizing - washingtonpost.com

What would John Wesley have said?

Albert Mohler on one of the important votes taken by the United Methodists this week:

The United Methodist Church voted this week to maintain its official policy that homosexual activity is "incompatible with Christian teaching." The policy of the church also prohibits the recognition or celebration of same-sex relationships.

Meeting for its General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas, the Methodists voted 517 to 416 to keep the current policy and language in its Book of Discipline. The denomination voted down a proposal to replace the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language with a statement that the church should "refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to new insight." ....

Which raises the question: "Would the Spirit contradict Himself?"

A group of 300 delegates protested the decision and blamed it, at least in part, on delegates from Africa. [more]

United Methodists Maintain Standards

Methodists

Mark Tooley explains why, unlike most of the so-called mainline Protestant denominations, United Methodists may depart from the theologically and politically liberal trend:

Like the elites of other Mainline Protestant denominations, officials of the United Methodist Church have served as an amen corner for the secular left in America for more than 50 years. Episcopalians have imploded in schism since the 2003 election of their first openly homosexual bishop. Presbyterians and Lutherans are locked in gridlock over sex issues. And the more liberal-than-thou United Church of Christ has fully embraced the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a suitable spokesman.

United Methodism, whose quadrennial General Conference convenes April 23 to May 2 in Fort Worth, is heading in a different direction. Like the other Mainline Protestants, its U.S. membership has plummeted continuously for 44 years, falling from 11 million to 7.9 million. But unlike the other Mainline Protestants, United Methodism has become an international denomination. ....

The African United Methodists are strongly evangelical. While U.S. church elites are confused by their declining influence and give their attention to fading political causes of the left, the Africans are quietly assuming wide influence over what was once almost an entirely American institution. Thirty percent of the delegates at the General Conference will come from Africa, the Philippines or Europe. In coalition with another 30 percent of delegates who are U.S. evangelicals, mostly from the South, there is likely for the first time in modern Methodist history a conservative governing majority. Just 4 years ago, U.S. evangelicals and overseas delegates comprised less than 50 percent. [more, including much more about the implications]

Will Methodism Tilt Right?

Rejoice with trembling

Bob Kauflin, in one of the promotional videos for his new book, comments on the "worship wars" and the need for healthy tensions in the way we think about worship:

This is one of several short presentations presenting some of the material from Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God [most of the other videos are linked at the end of this one]. The book is described at Amazon, where the reader reviews are very favorable:

Combining biblical foundations with real-world application, a pastor and professional songwriter guides worship leaders and pastors to root their corporate worship in unchanging scriptural principles rather than divisive trends.

Nothing is more essential than knowing how to worship the God who created us. .... Bob Kauflin covers a variety of topics such as the devastating effects of worshiping the wrong things, how to base our worship on God’s self-revelation rather than our assumptions, the fuel of worship, the community of worship, and the ways that eternity’s worship should affect our earthly worship.

Mark Tubbs at Discerning Reader:

Bob’s heart for biblical, passionate worship pervades every page of this book. His writing is littered with Bible, especially the psalms, that manual of Old Testament worship. But this isn’t merely a devotional on a few aspects of worship. No, this is a handbook about how to pursue more biblical, more humble hearts in the midst of a task pregnant with tensions.

Kauflin also has a website, WorshipMatters, where, among much else, can be found the announcement of a conference this summer on what sounds a very profitable topic:

Jesus for Real Men

Brendon O'Brien at Christianity Today on the "masculinity movement": what it does right and what it doesn't.

"The stallions hang out in bars; the geldings hang out in church." This observation from David Murrow strikes a little close to home for someone like me. I always thrived in my congregation but was never certain I fit the mold of masculinity I saw modeled around me. So as much as I resent Murrow's sentiment, it nevertheless rings true: In many churches, a certain type of man is conspicuously absent.

The disparity in men's and women's attendance in American churches has made men the target of specialized ministry over the last two decades. Promise Keepers kicked off the men's movement in 1990 by challenging stadiums full of men and boys to fulfill their duties to God and their families. Today a growing body of literature is leveling its sights on the church, suggesting that men are uninvolved in church life because the church doesn't encourage authentic masculine participation. [the article]

A Jesus for Real Men | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Young, Restless, Reformed

Trevin Wax at Kingdom People has reviewed in several parts the new book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists, by Collin Hansen. It's a good review, describing a book about the resurgence of Calvinism among Baptists and others, but also reacting to the phenomenon. Early in the review Wax, who is broadly sympathetic to the renewed interest in Calvinism, writes:

...My theology leans Reformed, meaning that I am probably more Calvinistic than the majority of Southern Baptists. (I would be in the category often jokingly referred to as “Christmas Calvinists.” In other words, No L.) I do not see most aspects of Calvinism as being worthy of dividing over. Neither do I believe I have been commissioned to convince others of Calvinism.

In other words, I am not so much concerned that the people in the church in which I am a pastor are able to detail the historical development of the doctrine of unconditional election, as I am concerned that my people know and believe that the Bible teaches that there is nothing in them that makes them worthy of God’s grace in salvation in Christ. I have critiqued some of the aspects of the Reformed Resurgence in other posts, even as I celebrate some of its developments. ....

Later he expresses a caution about some of the more enthusiastic expressions of Calvinistic zeal:

...I am most concerned about the testimonies that give the chapter this title: “Born Again Again.” Those who discover Calvinism speak of their experience as a second conversion, like getting saved all over again. Collin himself gives a brief testimony, where he mentions his conversion, his spiritual life after conversion, and then the difference that Calvinism made in his life. The underlying impression in his story and others is this: “God saved me, praise the Lord! But I was still missing something. I needed something more.”

Ironically, the Calvinist resurgence here resembles its arch-nemesis: Wesleyanism. The Methodists have their “Second Blessing” whereupon “perfection” is granted. This event takes place after conversion. Likewise, the Pentecostals (also Arminian!) believe that the filling of the Holy Spirit takes place after conversion, once one speaks in tongues. Salvation is terrific, but the blessing that comes after salvation is even better. Is the embrace of Calvinism much different?

These questions about “converting to Calvinism” bother me more as the book goes on. (Piper later talks about being “baptized into Calvinist theology” - an unfortunate metaphor that says more than he probably intended, but is revealing nonetheless). Students speak of Calvinism as a secret they discover that they then want to take back to their churches. The person’s journey towards Calvinist convictions sounds more Gnostic to me than Christian. We finally have the secret knowledge that no one else knows about. We are the only ones who know this. ....

The book, which I haven't read, sounds good. The review, which I have read, is excellent. Find links to all of it here.

Young, Restless, Reformed Series « Kingdom People

Orthodoxy before the gospels

It is sometimes argued that since the gospels were written some time after the death of Our Lord they cannot be a reliable guide to His theology - particularly about Himself. Darrell Bock maintains that we have a good guide to the theology of the very early church from earlier sources reflecting a "core orthodoxy" well before the canon of the New Testament was established. An extended excerpt:

.... The question is how theology was passed on before there was a working New Testament to detail the theology and account of Jesus. This period without a New Testament represents a period of several decades, because the first books of the New Testament were written in the fifties of the first century and in all likelihood were completed in the nineties. It took another several decades for these books to function in any kind of concerted or organized-recognized manner as we use them today. .... How was theology passed on in this period without getting a significant variation in what was taught and believed? The claim...is that variation did exist because there was not yet a functioning canon. Theology in the earliest period was characterized by its variety, not its unity. This claim then is used to suggest that the idea of any kind of real orthodoxy (or better “proto-orthodoxy”) in the earliest period is exaggerated. ....

This claim is important because it argues that no one approach to Christianity can claim to be the one going back to Jesus at the exclusion of other options. However, there is a response to this claim. It rotates around four areas of activity in the earliest churches and their worship services. Those four areas are Scripture (i.e., the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Old Testament), Schooling (Doctrinal summaries), Singing (early Christian hymns), and Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Table). Through each of these means teachers passed on core Christian theology and taught in a culture that presented material by means of orally sharing it. ....

(1) Scripture. When the early church preached, it accepted as Scripture what most Jews recognized, the Hebrew Bible. This means that the early church presented the story of Jesus in the context of messianic and other texts that spoke of the decisive era of salvation. It means they accepted the creation accounts as meaning that God was the Creator of the world and of man, a point that would become crucial later when many Gnostic Christians would argue differently. ....

(2) Schooling. Here we have in mind short doctrinal summaries that were laid out in balanced lines and reflected the teaching and passing on of core church teaching. A survey of such texts shows key doctrines were included: Creation by God and Christ confessed as the activity of God (1 Cor 8:4–6), the belief in a material resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–5), the idea that Jesus is both Son of David and Son of God (Romans 1:2–4), Jesus, the one mediator between God and man through His death (1 Tim 2:5–6), or teaching on the grace of God motivating us to a life of honoring God until Jesus returns (Titus 2:11–14). In these verses alone, much of the core theology of the church is present. Such core teaching would stand against other ideas that would claim to be Christian in the first and second centuries.

(3) Singing. Here the hymns of the church are in view. Two hymns stand out. Again it is the metric balance of the lines that points to hymns as present. One hymn focuses on the exemplary career of Jesus, who emptied himself to take on the form of humanity and who is exalted now to God’s side, sharing in the honor given to God (Phil 2:6–11). At the end of this hymn is the idea that every knee will bow and tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God. This picture of worship given to Jesus draws on language from Isaiah 45:23, where worship of the one God of Israel is in view. Here this honor goes to Jesus, showing just how exalted early Christians viewed him. The second hymn is from Colossians 1:15–20. Here Jesus is the “first born,” that is a figure of speech for the “highest positioned” in the creation (Ps 89:27), who created with God, and was not a creature. Jesus also was the first born from the dead, that is, the first one to experience and pioneer resurrection. In these hymns, sung regularly and memorized as a result, core theology was celebrated. In Pliny’s Letter to Trajan in the second decade of the century, the Roman governor of Bythnia, in what is now Central Turkey, wrote of Christians singing hymns to Christ as God (Letter 96). Here is testimony of the practice from a non-Christian.

(4) Sacraments. Here we refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which reviewed and portrayed in sacred rituals core theology. Baptism pictures the washing away of sin, the death of the old life, the cleansing that leads to new life, picturing being born again (Romans 6:4-6). Every time someone was baptized the entire gathering of believers received a reminder of what Jesus’ death and resurrection means. The Lord’s table does the same with Jesus’ offer of his body and blood to open up the way to forgiveness and the new covenant. Even an early second century work, the Didache, one of our earliest catechisms, makes this point about the Supper in chapter 9:2–4. These events were observed regularly in the gatherings of those loyal to Jesus. They taught the core theology.

In fact, each of these four categories represents theological activity taking place, not in a corner of the new Jesus community with a few, but in the core and repeated activity of the entire community. Everyone was exposed to this teaching in this way. Thus, such activity taught the core theology of the faith before there was a functioning New Testament. .... [more]

Thanks to Justin Taylor for the reference.

Orthodoxy (or Proto-Orthodoxy) Before There Was a Functioning New Testament April 8.08 | Primetime Jesus

Revelation and response

In a Christianity Today article, Gary Parrett offered "9.5 Theses on Worship." This quotation is from his third thesis "Worship involves a rhythm of revelation and response" and seemed to me to get something very important just right:

God initiates the worship experience by graciously revealing something of himself—his character, his mighty deeds, his will for our lives. Our obligation, having received this revelation, is to respond appropriately. The pattern is evident throughout the Scriptures: God, the Lord, is one; therefore, we must love him with all that we have (Deut. 6:4-5). God has demonstrated profound mercies to us; in view of these mercies, we must offer our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1).

One of the most striking examples of this rhythm of revelation and response is recorded in Isaiah 6:1-8. There, the prophet has an amazing encounter with the living God. First, God's character is revealed: God is high, lifted up, and holy, holy, holy. The prophet's response is exactly right: "Woe to me, I am ruined!" But God graciously reveals more. He is loving and merciful. This is revealed by atoning action and explanatory speech. Isaiah's response, again, is the right one: He humbly receives God's grace and believes God's word. Finally, God's work and will are revealed as the Lord himself asks, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" Isaiah faithfully responds: "Here am I. Send me!"

As we read this account, we are reminded of Romans 12:1—"in view of God's mercy, offer your bodies as living sacrifices." Indeed, the Isaiah passage provides a wonderful example of a pattern that could, and perhaps should, mark all of our worship gatherings. First, we are reminded of God's awesome and holy character. In light of this, we are moved to humble confession. Next, we are reminded of how God has intervened on behalf of us sinners, by sending his Son to be an atoning sacrifice for us. This good news we humbly receive and believe. Finally, God charges us to be engaged in his ongoing work in this broken and defiant world. We respond by offering our lives afresh for his service. ....

Thanks to In the Clearing for the reference.

9.5 Theses on Worship | Christianity Today

Idols

At the 9Marks blog, Jonathan Leeman quotes these "gospel counterfeits" from How People Change by Tim Lane and Paul David Tripp and asks us to examine our own beliefs and behavior in light of them.

1. Formalism. “I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.”
2. Legalism. “I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.”
3. Mysticism. “I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.”
4. Activism. “I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.”
5. Biblicism. “I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.”
6. Therapism. “I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs."
7. “Social-ism.” “The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.”

Church Matters: The 9Marks Blog

Decisions

At 9 Marks, Greg Gilbert writes about church governance. I've been parliamentarian for a variety of organizations, political, union and denominational, and his conclusions make sense to me. Every one of us belonging to a denomination that has congregational polity can recall a divisive debate about something that - in the long run - signified nothing, but that seriously damaged relationships within the congregation. Our own congregation's worst debate was about the choice of a new hymnal. Gilbert:

I've told the story here before of the raucous business meeting at our church where we had a knock-down-drag-out congregational . . . discussion . . . on whether the baptistry curtains ought to be left open during the Sunday morning services so people could see the mural of the Jordan River. We actually voted on that question, and we lost a few members over it, too. (The curtains stayed closed.) [....]

In the years since those halcyon days, our church has moved to an elder-led, congregational government, and we’ve had to think through the question of just how elder-led the church ought to be. What kinds of things should the church vote on? Everything? Nothing? What decisions should the elders and other church officers be able to make without a congregational vote? I would argue (right now, that is—I could be convinced otherwise; that’s what blogs are for, right? Discussion.) that there are really only five things a congregation ought to vote on, three of which I see clear biblical instruction about, and the other two of which are mainly prudential. Here they are:

1. Membership and Discipline. Two sides of the same coin. The congregation as a whole ought to decide who is a part of its fellowship and who is not. This is clearest in the biblical teaching about church discipline. In Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5, it is the church as a whole that makes the decision to exclude someone from its membership. Moreover, they perform that discipline by voting. (Note Paul’s use of the word “majority” in 2 Corinthians 2:6.) Given that, it only makes sense that the congregation ought to vote also on who comes into its fellowship.

2. Leadership. I don’t see anything explicit in the New Testament—either by command or example—about the church voting on its elders. But it’s clear that they did elect, or at least somehow “choose from among themselves,” their own deacons in Acts 6. From that, and also from the fact that an erring elder is to be rebuked publicly (1 Timothy 5:20), I’d argue that the congregation as a whole ought to choose its own leaders. They ought to vote on their elders and deacons.

3. Doctrine. In Galatians 1, Paul holds the whole congregation accountable for what is taught to it. If false teaching is allowed to take root in the church, it’s the whole congregation’s fault. Moreover, the church as a whole is to anathematize false gospels, as well as the teachers who teach false gospels. Thus I believe the congregation ought to vote on adopting or changing its statement of faith.

[4. Budget.] This is less clear to me than the others, but I still think it’s wise for the church to vote on its budget. That’s partly for legal reasons, and partly because it just seems good for the church to “own” its spending plan. The fact is, they’re going to “vote” on the church’s spending plan anyway, with their giving or lack of it, so it seems good to do it up front. Besides, perhaps there is some biblical precedent for this--even if not formal--in the Macedonians “pleading” with Paul to let them spend money for a contribution to the poor saints in Jerusalem. (See Romans 15:26 and 2 Cor. 8:3-4.)

[5. Rules.] This is also a matter of prudence. Though there are obviously some rules a church of Jesus Christ is bound by Scripture to follow, and you don't see churches voting on by-laws in the New Testament, it seems a good idea to have the church formally agree to the rules by which it will operate. That means voting on its own constitution and/or by-laws. For our church, this meant voting to adopt a constitution that fairly strictly (though not entirely) limits congregational votes to these five areas. In other words, the congregation voted to delegate a whole lot of decision-making responsibility to its officers, keeping in its own hands only those things which Scripture explicitly or implicitly puts in its hands—along with a couple of other things for prudential reasons.

The result of all this has been that our Members’ Meetings are wonderfully encouraging times now. The congregation knows where it must exercise authority, it knows what it has delegated to others, it votes on the important matters it is charged with voting on, we hear reports from officers about other decisions that have been made and implemented, and we don’t get bogged down with “bitty” little motions, discussions, and votes under “New Business.” [more]

Today the small congregation of which I am part has an annual meeting that lasts about twenty minutes with others called ad hoc to deal with important matters. Otherwise decisions are left, with a good deal of informal consultation, to the pastor and the officers.

Church Matters: The 9Marks Blog

"What does it profit a man...?"

Last week the Missouri Synod Lutherans canceled a long-running radio program, explaining that it had few listeners and was losing money. Today, a report in the Wall Street Journal suggests that there may be other reasons:

.... The program was in all likelihood a pawn in a larger battle for the soul of the Missouri Synod. The church is divided between, on the one hand, traditional Lutherans known for their emphasis on sacraments, liturgical worship and the church's historic confessions and, on the other, those who have embraced pop-culture Christianity and a market-driven approach to church growth. The divide is well known to all confessional Christian denominations struggling to retain their traditional identity.

The Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, the synod's current president, has pushed church marketing over the Lutherans' historic confession of faith by repeatedly telling the laity, "This is not your grandfather's church." ....

While "Issues, Etc." never criticized Mr. Kieschnick or his colleagues, its attacks against shallow church marketing included mention of some approaches embraced by the current leadership. It opposed, for instance, the emergent church - an attempt to accommodate postmodern culture by blending philosophies and practices from throughout the church's history - and the Purpose Driven Church movement, which reorients the church's message toward self-help and self-improvement.

Anthony Sacramone at First Things provides some context:

.... The LCMS, in which I was baptized and confirmed, is unlike any other Protestant body: Its not mainline and not quite evangelical, at least in the altar-call, clap-happy sense. Rather it is orthodox, confessional, and liturgical - or at least it's supposed to be. For those Christians who are tired of the strip-mall approach to church-hopping, in which the congregation with the best music and most emotional appeal wins your heart this week, the LCMS has always been a traditional, sober, and catholic alternative. Unfortunately, many within the LCMS have decided that being Lutheran isn't enough; they also want to be BIG and compete with the nondenoms around the corner. [....]

Radio Silence - WSJ.com, First Things » Blog Archive » The LCMS Mess

You might be emergent if...

I've just started to read Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by DeYoung and Kluck, and my impression is that it is going to be very interesting. It received a good review at Discerning Reader today that concludes:

Why We’re Not Emergent is not a scholarly treatment of what is decidedly not an intellectual movement. Instead this is an eminently accessible book and one that should have very wide appeal. It will introduce you to the key leaders and foundational books of the emerging movement. It will show you why this emergent movement is so deceptive and so dangerous. If you have been searching for a book that will help you to understand the emerging church or if you have been seeking to answer a friend’s question “What is the emerging church?,” this is just the book you’ll want. I heartily recommend it. [the review]

Early in the Introduction DeYoung describes what he understands the "emerging movement" to be, and he includes this paragraph:

After reading nearly five thousand pages of emerging-church literature, I have no doubt that the emerging church, while loosely defined and far from uniform, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash's Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, David Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Winks and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don't like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren't sure it can be found; if you've ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn't count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic, naive, and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritize urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular divide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one's business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word "story" in all your propositions about postmodernism—if all or most of this tortuously long sentence describes you, then you might be an emergent Christian. [emphasis added]

I found myself described by many of the "ifs", yet I am confident I don't fall within the parameters of the movement. I suspect that this is one of those books that will not take very long to read.

Update 11:00 pm: I have now read about half of the book. It is extraordinarily good. I commend it to anyone who wishes clarity about the subject.

Update: I don't want my final paragraph above to be misleading. Although many of the "ifs" do describe me, even more do not.

Update again 4/26: Here is the book's website and it includes a video interview with the authors. I am within a couple of chapters of finishing the book with enthusiasm undiminished.

The heart of Evangelicalism is the Gospel

In an interview with the Internet Monk, C. Michael Patton [Reclaiming the Mind] responds to a question about the state of Evangelicalism. Patton says we have an "identity crisis" and, essentially, that we need to remember the answers, remember what everything is all about, remember just what the "Good News" is. Patton:

Ask ten people for a definition of Evangelicalism and you will find ten different answers. For some evangelicals the Gospel has been lost to the entertainment business. For others it is a means to justify consumerism. And still, for others, it is an obscure journey without a destination or reliable map. We need to reclaim the center once again.

At the heart of evangelicalism is the Gospel. At the heart of the Gospel is the truth about God and man. God is holy, righteous, and loving. You lose one of these and you have lost the Gospel. Humans have dignity as God’s image bearers, yet they have been corrupted with sin. God’s Son is our only hope for restoration. We must call upon God for mercy. Each one of these components, when lost, produces a different Gospel and, hence, a different Evangelicalism.

If Evangelicalism is to survive (and I believe that it can), we need to get back to the Gospel. If this means that a conversation needs to happen about what the Gospel is, then we need to push for this conversation. But people need to come informed beyond their own subjectivity or we will just have more “gospels” and a greater identity crisis in Evangelicalism. [the interview]

internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » C. Michael Patton of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries: The Internet Monk Interview