Sunday: A tradition or command?

Rev. Andrew Sandlin argues that Sunday is not the day of worship, but merely a creation of human tradition. He quotes Harold O.J. Brown as saying that the change of worship from Saturday to Sunday is "not demonstrable from Scripture." I disagree. Now if these gentlemen want to argue that there is no direct command, then they are correct, but that does not mean it is not demonstrable at all nor does it mean that is a mere tradition of men.

The issue, it seems to me, is how much authority does one give the book of Acts and other historical passages in Scripture. Is the apostolic example of worshipping on Sunday inspired by the Spirit or a mere tradition of a group of men?

The theological argument revolves around the 4th Commandment and its link to redemption as seen in Deuteronomy 5. Thus, when redemption is accomplished there is now a new act and basis for the day with the resurrection of our Lord. Which by the way is on Sunday (John 20:1). Sunday worship can also be seen as prefigured in the Festival of the Booths and the high worship done on the 8th day, a Sunday. However, we will set this argument aside and simply look at the NT worship patterns.

It should be noted that the disciples met and Christ met with them on Sunday in John 20:19. They received the Holy Ghost during this meeting (22). The very next Sunday Christ met with them again in verse 26. It would seem as if Christ established a bit of a pattern of meeting with the disciples when they gathered together on Sundays after his resurrection. But did the disciples see it this way? It would seem so because on Pentecost, which is a Sunday, there were meeting "all with one accord in one place." As you know Pentecost is when the Holy Ghost came and the church baptized 5,000 people on that day. It is also reinforced in Acts 20:7 where we see "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached . . ." Here we clearly see Sunday was a day of worship that included preaching and perhaps the Lord’s Supper. Paul also seems to command a tithe or offering taken up on the first day in I Corinthians 16:2. All of this culminates in Revelation 1:10 when John tells us he was in the Spirit on the "Lord’s Day." The meaning here is that there is a day that is called the "Lord’s" and apparently was used for worship according to not only the context of being "in the Spirit", but any historical record one examines. The church can never be found to worship on any other day after the resurrection than Sunday. Church history is unanimous with this proclamation, Sunday is the day Christians worship.

Now of course all of this is familiar to Rev. Sandlin, I am not shedding any new light. Yet, he persists in calling it a tradition of men. Thus, I believe that the issue revolves around what weight one wants to ascribe to historical accounts. Are they binding? Are they prescriptive or descriptive? Should one assume the Holy Spirit inspired apostles were setting up an example to followed or were they the first tradition makers with no real guidance in what they were doing? Does the fact Christ at least twice met with them bodily after his resurrection on Sunday, and twice gave them the Holy Spirit on Sunday have any significance at all? Does it matter that on 2 of the 5 Sundays in which Christ’s resurrected body on earth the disciples gathered expecting to met with Him, and did just that? By the way it is the only 2 Sundays we are shown, so it very well could have happened every Sunday.

I believe it is significant. I believe the Bible can require things without a written command. The apostles blatant examples preserved for us in Scripture can serve as a binding command. If we are to take Rev. Sandlin’s position then not only does Sunday worship become a mere tradition of men, so too does Presbyterian church government in Acts 15. So too does the office of deacon in Acts 6. These things have the same or less amount of evidence than Sunday worship, so does Rev. Sandlin believe these to be optional traditions as well? While I do not know his answer, mine is a resounding no.

Palestinian Elections

Everyone has been talking on the news about the democratic elections of the Palestinians. Apparently the ruling party stayed in power, but Hamas gained about 40% of the vote. I heard the newsmen discuss the entrance of Hamas into the democratic process, I listened to them discuss the vote of no confidence sent to the ruling party, and I even heard discussions about how America should respond to Hamas ministers in the Palestinians. All of these are legitimate aspects of the story, but in my opinion they are not the real story.

The real story is the debunking of the Moderate Islamic myth. For years people have been claiming the Palestinians want peace, they want their own land, and Hamas is just a small group of radical terrorists. Now we see that easily 40% of the Palestinians support the terrorists. They are not some radical splinter cell, they are a popularly supported group of hate-mongering murderers. Hamas offered no political ideas; they ran on the platform of “kill Israel” and their record of suicide bombings. Thus, the 40% cannot be seen as voting for new ideas, only for terrorists. Before we believe the political line about Islam being a religion of peace, maybe we should examine some of these election results, new state constitutions, and ruling party platforms. So far all the democratic reformers in the Middle East have been able to produce are two oppressively Islamic Constitutions and a government that is fully half-terrorist. Not exactly an endorsement for the religion of peace. Yet, that story will never lead news broadcasts.

Post of Note

A good post by Mr. Baggins on the righteousness of Christ. Worth reading.

Reviews and Proofs

Reviews of the Missouri Valley Presbytery’s Report on the Federal Vision are rolling in from around the blog-o-sphere. Reviews from the Strict Confessional side and from the pro-Federal Vision side, even reviews from the others side of the Atlantic. My thoughts are posted on Westminster Brass.

There has also been some discussion on this site and others of whether or not Ursinus is the only author of the Heidelberg Cathechism. Olevianus is also an author. For those who doubt Schaff’s History of the Christian Church Vol. 7 pg. 574 states, Ursinus, "is one of the two authors of the Heidelberg Catechism." Grimm’s the The Reformation Era pg. 355 reads, "Two of these, Capser Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus, drafted the Heidelberg Catechism." I could go on. Why Olevianus receives so little attention, I do not know. Olevianus did not write a commentary, but did comment on the Apostles Creed, which makes a large portion of the Heidelberg.

Also, see the side bar for some new links!

33 Years of Roe v Wade

January 22, 1973 saw Roe v Wade become law. Since then over 40 million children have been killed. 40 million. That is mind boggling. Murders, Wars, and even the Holocaust pale in comparison with regards to death toll. We hear a lot about the fight to save Roe or over turn Roe on the news, but we seldom hear about the act itself. We hear talking points of abortions being “safe, rare, and legal”, but that fails to match the facts. We see would be justices do just enough promising and just enough eluding to keep both sides off guard and keep both sides unhappy.

Yet through all of this I am convinced of one simple fact. Abortion would not be an issue if there were not a market for it. Nothing in today’s world screams louder about the failure of the church than 40 million abortions in 33 years. If you really think that 40 million abortions were all done by professing atheists, you really think about investing in the ocean front property here in South Dakota. Some where we have failed to preach the importance of life, the sanctity of the marriage bed, and the power of forgiveness. Some where we have winked at sin, and now no one bats at eye when they sin. The blame does not lie with politicians, or judges. It lies with us. Likewise the solution is not in the legislatures or in the courts, it is in the gospel.

Let us all pray that God would help us as a church to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, to help us as a people to forgive one another, and to help us as a nation to repent of our sins.

Psalm 127
"Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain.
It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows, for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."

Hollywood in the Mainstream?

I am tempted to yell at ESPN for again blaming the fans when a basketball player entered the stands. Antonio Davis entered the stands the other night to protect his wife, who started an altercation (and has a history of altercations) when a fan who paid $95 a seat asked her to sit down. Instead I will blog about Hollywood’s recent fiasco known as the Golden Globe Awards.

Tucker Carlson recently entered a debate with Air America’s Rachel Maddow about whether or not Hollywood tries to push a social agenda. Ms. Maddow claims there is no agenda and everything that Hollywood does is American values-based. She must not have paid attention to the Golden Globe the other night in which Brokeback Mountain, a movie about two gay cowboys cheating on their wives with each other, received Best Drama, Best Screenplay, Best Original Song, and Best Director. TransAmerica, a movie about the plight of a transsexual male trying to live life as a woman, won Best Actress in a Drama. And Gena Davis won Best Actress in a TV Drama for Commander and Chief, a show about the first female President. (By the way, Commander and Chief wastes no opportunity to portray Republicans in a bad light: the antagonist is a Republican House leader and the Republican President who died giving the Presidency to Ms. Davis's character asked her from his deathbed to step down. The show has never mentioned Democrats in any way as Ms. Davis's character is an Independent.) All these Golden Globe winners are quite partisan in their outlook on life, and not surprisingly, most of them made partisan political points when accepting their awards. They spoke of the oppressed gays and the marginalized transsexuals, and they proclaimed it was time for a female President. One might argue that they are simply performing works of art, and that is not really entail an agenda. However, when they back up their art with silly political lectures as they accept their awards, which come fast and furious for left-leaning movies, Hollywood becomes impossible to defend. By the way, the top grossing movies of the year (and by consequence the most popular) such as Harry Potter and The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe received no major nominations. Imagine that.

Shocking Stories

I wonder if any backlash will come of the story of Haleigh Poutre. Massachusetts Social Services and Supreme Court had decided to kill her and just hours before they took her off of life support she began to wake up from her permanent vegetative state. She is now breathing on her own.

I also wonder how Evangelical and Catholic Together advocates will react to the Pope’s proclamation that evolution is acceptable science. So much for a good conservative hard line Pope.

Internet Discussions and Church Discipline

A post by Mark Horne made me think about the role of the blog-o-sphere and the Internet in theological debates. On the one hand, the Internet is a very handy way to discuss theological topics. One can post thoughts and receive immediate interaction from people of all backgrounds and time zones. It is also very easy to interact with other theologians or bloggers via comments and trackback pings and all sorts of fancy things I do not fully understand. Clearly this is easier (and quicker) than exchanging long, handwritten letters, and it’s cheaper than making long-distance phone calls. On the other hand, it is a poor way to communicate theological debates because it is impersonal. It is easy to bash the character of someone that we have never met and who we know only by his or her web address. Too often things are done anonymously and behind the backs of men who are in ‘good and regular standing’ within the church.

I do not agree with the broad brushstrokes of Rev. Horne’s post, nor do I know anything of the specifics alluded to in the post and the comments, but I do agree with his critique that “No charges or (sic) ever filed; no direct interaction ever takes place.” The Internet is not the church, and it’s definitely not a church court. The Federal Vision controversy has been raging for over 5 years now, yet no cases have come before the Standing Judicial Commission in the PCA. Individual presbyteries make their own pronouncements in Special Study Committees that never result in action on a wider scale. ‘Good and regular standing’ means nothing on a denominational basis anymore.

The Internet and web logs are good for theological discussion, but when theological discussions become theological battles, action should be taken outside the computer room. It is evident from my blog that I do not favor the Federal Vision, I believe it to be in error; however, I do think many Federal Vision ministers have a legitimate complaint when it comes to how they have been treated by their denomination. Five years is too long for this level of disagreement to go on with neither exoneration nor conviction from the church courts. It is the loving thing to do. If one believes this or any other error to be that serious, then it would be unloving not to bring it up before the church. I worry that this impersonal, electronic format has led us to forget to treat each other with love, including the love of church discipline. The so-called ‘TR’ churches need to either take their case before the courts or take their accusations off their web sites and blogs.

Old Side / New Side

Tommy Lee has an interesting article about the Old Side / New Side split in the Presbyterian Church during the Great Awakening. The split lasted from 1741 to 1758. I happen to love that particular epoch of American history, so I thought I would offer a critique just for the fun of it. It is a good article by the way.

My main complaint is that Mr. Lee falls into some of the stereotypes that I do not believe hold up under scrutiny. First, he characterizes the Old Side as Scoth-Irish and the New Side as New England, which I believe is false. Mr. Lee uses the Adopting Act controversy (1729) as proof, but this too does not hold up. The Tennent Family was Scotch-Irsih, thus they should have been on the Old Side according to the stereotype, but they were the founders of the New Side movement. The Tennent family was in favor of adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith, which should have placed them on the Old Side, but again they were not. Jedidah Andrews was from New England. He was against adopting the WCF, which should have placed him on the New Side. Yet, Andrews was an ardent Old Sider. Jonathon Dickinson was a New England man who opposed the WCF, but he did not leave to join the New Side until 1746. George Gillespie was a Scotsman, and argued strongly for the adoption of the WCF. Yet, in 1741 he withdrew with the Tennent clan to join the New Side. He did repent and rejoin the Old Side in 1743, but was always a pro-Awakening Old Sider.
Second, Mr. Lee stereotypes the Old Siders as not having a heart for evangelism. It is true that they did not have the success that the New Side ministers did, but they were still evangelizing with all the might they could muster. The Old Side men established churches in the backcountry of Virginia before the New Side makes it into Hanover Country (non-backcountry) Virginia. The Old Side minister, John Thomson, was the first minister of any kind to settle in the backcountry of North Carolina. They simply did not have the funds or men to send out as many evangelists as the New Side.
Third, Mr. Lee does not do justice to the cause of the Old Side. He believes the split could have been avoided if the Old Side had done more to accommodate the New Side. He argues the Old Side should have been more understanding of those who could only afford a Log College Education. I believe the Old Side was very accommodating in that respect. The act of Synod did not forbid Log College education it just established a commission that included Log College men to examine any graduate from such a place. They were willing to come along side and supplement the educational lapses in William Tennent Sr.’s teaching. John Rowland, a Log College man, failed his licensure exam in the Presbytery of New Castle, and all agreed that he should spend a year with Francis Alison studying. They did not force him to a New England college, but sent him to a different minister. Instead, Rowland was licensed by the New Side Presbytery and began the split.
Fourth, Mr. Lee has a very favorable opinion of the re-union when in actuality it was a brutal take over by the New Side. The New Side majority regularly reinterpreted the re-union plan and out right violated them on other occasions. They barred Old Side men from teaching at Princeton, and the remaining Old Siders were planning to split from the Church again when the American Revolution broke out, and ended all hopes of an Old Side church.

I do commend Mr. Lee in finding the heart of the split as the debate over the doctrine of convictions. Does one have to have a definable moment of conversion in order to be saved? This was the heart of the controversy, in my opinion, and led to the split. Here Mr. Lee rightly is wary of the New Side innovations, and sees them as attacking the institutions of the church. More people should come to this conclusion. The article is worth it just to get this point.

Mr. Lee asks good questions such as ‘Was the split a legitimate one?’ and ‘Why should do we split?’ His answers may disagree with mine as I would argue it was a legitimate split and an illegitimate re-union, but his article is still excellent.

Endorsement Controversy

There has been quite a scuffle over Rick Phillips’s critique of Bishop N.T. Wright endorsing an Emergent Church book. From there responses, defenses and refutations appeared. Of course this brought a response from Rick Phillips about the personal nature of the attacks and the avoidance of dealing with the issue. Of course this generated more responses, and the saga continues.

One fact remains after all of this. No one really ever answered the primary problem posed by Mr. Phillips. Is it wrong for Bishop Wright to endorse a book that rejects the atonement and original sin? Can those who hold to Wright still claim he sits on the side of Reformed Orthodoxy if he lends his name to a book that attacks it? I have not read the endorsement or the book, so whether or not the book actually denies these things I cannot say first hand. However, it is noteworthy that no one has denied Steve Chalke’s book denies these tenants of the Reformed Faith. The Joel Garver post deals wonderfully with the view of N.T. Wright on many subjects, but never really deals with the issue at hand. Only the comment that "I suspect endorsements on the backs of the books have much more to do with marketing than theology". In the Christian world, should book endorsements deal more with marketing than theology? I think not. I wish the critics of Mr. Phillips would in the responses at least answer this question before dissecting every inconsistency that can be found. It is a question that deserves an honest evaluation.

Cessationism

There is a really good discussion on Cessationism at PyroManiac. There are four or five articles so scroll down to read them all. Phil, the Pyro, makes very good points about how even the leaders of the Pentecostal movement believe in Cessationism to varying degrees. No one believes new books of the bible have been written, no one believes prophecy is the same as in the OT, no one believes in modern day apostles, and no one believes in stoning those who have made false predictions. Clearly, Pentecostalism creates a new and unbiblical group of spiritual gifts. This makes the defense of these gifts difficult, and the appeals to the OT and NT offices that even they believe are no longer existent dishonest at best.
As a full blown Cessationist, something Phil has not yet avowed in his posts, I believe this adherence to modern day prophecies, tongues, or whatever, has led many good people astray. One does not have to look far to find those who want to wait for divine signs before acting. I personally have known people who daily put of their schoolwork and life in general to go get high on spiritual fillings revolving around the new Laugher of the Spirit. I have known people who have made radical life decisions that they did not want to do because they saw a sign in the fact that they received a phone call. I have seen churches with 25 regular attendees, and only 8 members because no one could produce sufficient evidence of a Second Blessing to join the church. I look forward to Phil finishing his series, and I hope it starts a calmer discussion on the subject.

Shepherd vs. Heidelberg Catechism

Norman Shepherd has posted a brief response to Barry Hofstetter’s online critique of Shepherd’s book A Call of Grace. In this article Shepherd attacks the idea of the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. In other words, the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law, his righteousness, to us. His basis is of course denying that a Covenant of Works exists.

I just wanted to briefly respond. Many men better than I have already responded to the basic principles he discusses. However, in this response Rev. Shepherd admits that the Covenant of Works and Active Obedience of Christ may be found in the Westminster, but he denies it is found in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is this claim that I wish to debunk.

Shepherd cites Q.1, 66, and 67 as proof that the Heidelberg knows nothing of a covenant of works, or imputation of obedience to the law. Question one states that we "belong to our faithful savior Jesus Christ, who has fully satisfied for all our sins by his precious blood." Shepherd states that his sacrifice on the cross is the only grounds for the sinner. Q.66 and 67 are discussing the sacraments, and they state that we have "everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross." Shepherd says that adding Christ’s obedience to the law to the cross hides the cross as the only ground of salvation. Shepherd further states that we have two sacraments and they both memorialize the death and resurrection, not the life, of Christ.

Allow me briefly to illustrate the Covenant of Works and Active Obedience of Christ in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is implied in the beginning of the catechism with Q.4 which tells us the Law of God requires perfect obedience, and then again in Q.7 and 9 both tell us that Adam and Eve broke this law, and lost righteousness for their descendants. In case any have missed it the Catechism adds Q.18 where Christ is given to us "for complete redemption and righteousness." Our Lord gives us redemption and righteousness. Q. 21 tells us that God has given “not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. Here we see we are given righteousness by the merits of Christ. Merits of Christ! This is exactly what Shepherd is denying in his article. The Catechism goes on to explain the Apostle’s Creed. When we confess that Christ ‘suffered’ for us what does that mean (Q.37)? It means, "all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life . . ." Clearly here more than the death of Christ is in view, but his entire life is for us. The same question ends, "He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."

Then the really clear questions begin. Q.56 asks what we believe concerning the ‘forgiveness of sin?’ The answer, ". . . but God graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may never more come into condemnation." Shepherd cannot confess this question and hold to what he wrote in the article or the book. God gave us the righteousness of Christ. Q.60 further explains when it asks, ‘How are you righteous before God?’ The answer concludes, "yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me, if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart." Nothing can state the case any clearer than those two questions. Not only the satisfaction made on the cross, but his righteousness, which is linked to his obedience is imputed to us to be our own. There is not a better description of salvation anywhere, and Shepherd denies it, and claims the Heidelberg Catechism never teaches Christ’s obedience is given to us. He either does not read his Catechism, or does not understand what it says. See also 61, 62, and 84.

Just to show also that he did not even finish reading the Catechism regarding the sacraments. Q. 76 tells us that eating the crucified body and drinking the shed blood of Christ means, "to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ. . ." When we reference what the Catechism has already taught us regarding the suffering of Christ in Q.37 we see that this means his entire life, not just the end of it. So, Shepherd’s claim that no sacrament memorializes his life is also wrong.

Thanks to Barb for directing me to the articles.

Democratic Ignorance

I have lived lots of places in my life. I grew up on the Tennessee/Virginia border so that I got to see the politics of both states. I moved to South Carolina and then Colorado, and now I live on the South Dakota/North Dakota border so that I can see the politics of both states. I have to say that if the Democratic Party does not learn to abandon the New England Liberals soon, they will cease to exist as a party. I give them 20 to 25 more years. When my children are old enough to vote, there will be the Republican Party and a party to the right of it.

I say this because I saw the end of the Southern White Democrat that was the backbone of the party for such a long time. I saw the Democrats unable to win over a state full of immigrants in Colorado, and I see now traditional democratic farmers vote Republican in every election. The problem? Democrats have stopped being the party of entitlements and social handouts and started being a party with a social agenda no one likes. Roe v. Wade was the height of their power, and since then as devotion to Roe has gone up, the Democratic power has gone down.

If the Democrats would run Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico as a Vice Presidential candidate and someone like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska or former governor of Virginia Warner for President, the Democratic Party would win in a landslide and pick up seats in the Senate and House at the same time. These men could stress issues that are important to everyone like border security, working with the opposition, as well as appeal to the minority population and champion entitlement programs and government handouts. That ticket would sweep New England and California. It would take back Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and probably steal away South and North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia, Missouri, and Louisiana without much problem. Minnesota would stay a blue state as would Wisconsin and Illinois, and with some effort maybe Michigan too. This would be far and away enough to win.

If they change nothing they will lose another state or two every election. They will lose Minnesota in one, Wisconsin in the next. They will not be able to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania forever, and by that point the party will collapse. It amazes me as I watch some of Judge Alito’s hearings that the Democratic Party has not yet discovered this plan for success. Enjoy the Democratic Party now because in 20 years, it will be a thing of the past.

P.S. My wife disagrees with me. She thinks that because of the current government school monopoly, our nation's children will grow up to support some party that will be to the left of the Republicans.

High Church Calvinist

D.G. Hart’s John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist is an interesting book. It is well written and easy to read. It is not a traditional biography, so do not expect to see the depth of Nevin’s friendship with Philip Schaff or discover what his married life was like. That was not Hart’s purpose in writing the book. It is more of a theological biography to show the reader the circumstances that aided Nevin in the creation of his unique brand of theology. The goal of the book is to show the reader John Nevin, and re-introduce him into the public world along with his theology, mainly the belief of the church as the mediator of grace. It is therefore a decidedly pro-Nevin biography.

I have several critiques of this book. The first is the scholarship of the book. I do this with great trepidation because Hart is an extraordinary scholar and historian. Yet, I felt that he neglected some major sources that should have been dealt with more carefully. I mentioned in a previous post that Hart fails completely to recognize the German Reformed Church known as the Reformed Church in the United States continues on today. He assumes the tradition disappears into the United Church of Christ, but that is simply untrue. I do believe that the book would have benefited by at least addressing the perspective of the continuing RCUS. You Shall Be My People, a book written to commemorate the 250th Synod of the RCUS in 1996, could have been consulted. Or even an interview with Rev. Robert Grossmann, who has written on the history of the RCUS and whose father led the Eureka Classis when it refused to merge and continued as the RCUS, would have been appropriate and helpful. It seems a good idea to define the German Reformed Tradition by talking to those who still speak German and minister in that church. I also think that James I. Good, a early 20th century historian in the RCUS, should have been consulted and his critique of Mercersburg Theology dealt with during this biography. Or at least references to Benjamin Schneck’s objections to the Mercersburg theology as outside of Protestantism. Both are listed in his biblographic essay at the end of his book, but he seems to write James Good off as a historian with a score to settle (pg. 258). Hart never concedes that Nevin may have been outside of the Reformed and Calvinistic traditions completely with his theology. He never really defends it either, and both Schneck and Good argue it rather well in their respective books. If Hart’s goals was to recommend Nevin to us, and I believe it was, then he needed to do a better job dealing with the actual controversy around his theology.

I also wonder if Hart completely sees Nevin’s High Church argument. Hart seems to argue for a return to the High Church conception of Nevin and then faults Nevin for neglecting preaching while he tried to re-emphasize the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Hart thinks if Nevin had emphasized preaching he would have won some Old School Presbyterian converts. Yet, it seems to me that Nevin would never have emphasized preaching. In fact, Nevin has no trouble saying a pulpit-based liturgy is ineffective and a source of problems. Nevin argues for an altar-based liturgy as the only way the church can be saved. This is not a neglect of preaching by accident, this is a neglect of preaching on purpose. Hart seems reluctant to admit that Nevin openly wanted a return to an altar-based liturgy, which is clearly out of accord with the Protestant Reformation. Hart believes that emphasizing the preaching of the word would have still fit with Nevin’s theology of the church as a mediator of grace, and attributes this failure to Nevin’s obsession with sacramental theology. Hart’s critique on page 214 even says that the Reformation used the pulpit over the table, and not an altar. Nevin was clear that he wanted an altar, and that the Reformation was wrong. Preaching did not fit his view of the church as mediator of grace. The sacraments were objective and the preaching was not. Nevin’s High Church argument revovled around this point, at least in the Liturgical Controversy portion of his career. Hart seems to miss this point, and view it as an oversight in Nevin rather than a direct result of his theology.

The rest of my objections are more minor points of disagreement. Hart seems to cast dispersions on opponents of Nevin such as Bomberger and Berg as insignificant reactionaries. These men did not produce great scholarly works, but they were hardly insignificant. They were major pastors of influence within the church. Hart only views other academic challenges to Nevin as real challenges. I also think he underplays the victory of Mercersburg Theology. In fact, he concludes that it lost out after the peace commission finished in 1887. I would argue that Mercersburg won. Hart admits the Mercersburg Liturgy was allowed to stay, but it was no longer mandatory. This is not a defeat, but a victory for Mercersburg. The German Reformed Church’s merger with a Lutheran denomination that had an altar liturgy and a sacramental view closer to that of Mercersburg than to the Old Reformed is telling of who really won in the peace commission.

The book as a whole is good, but I do not believe presents every side of the controversy surrounding Nevin and his theology.

Pat Robertson again

It goes without saying, but in case anyone doubts, Pat Robertson is out of line with his attribution of Prime Minister Sharon’s stroke to God being angry about the ‘holy land.’ Yet, Pat Robertson has tremendous influence and has his defenders even after calling for an assassination, telling people not to call out to God if they are against Intelligent Design, and this incident as well. It seems to me that Robertson’s The 700 Club is actually one of the more dangerous influences in the Christian sub-culture today. Not only does the 700 Club take money from the elderly and poor at an alarming rate, but it promotes disturbing theological ideas and often outwardly anti-Christian behavior (like killing foreign leaders), as well as promoting salvation through politics.

Schaff against Rome or against Geneva?

Rick Phillips at Reformation 21 gives us a quote from Philip Schaff about the evils of Popery or Romanism, and how it is not Catholicism. Schaff compares Catholicism to Judaism. Judaism pointed the way to Christ, and then after Christ became something altogether horrible. For Schaff so too did Catholicism. It pointed the way to the Reformation, and at Trent it became something horrible. It became Popery. While I agree Popery is wrong, I disagree with the reasoning Schaff gives. Schaff states, Popery never forgets and never learns anything, and can allow no change in doctrine (except by way of addition), without sacrificing its fundamental principle of infallibility, and thus committing suicide. It seems to me that Schaff is saying that Popery is wrong because it does not change its doctrines. Do we as Protestants want constant change in our doctrine? We ascribe infallibility to the Bible alone, but do we really want to say a church that refuses to learn and change is a church that is dead?

Rick Phillips seems appreciative of the quote because it does not pander to Romanism, which he thinks is a growing error in the church today. I believe this a somewhat thinly veiled reference to ECT and the Reformed Catholics of today’s churches. Yet, is this quote not exactly the sort of thinking that has led to Reformed Catholicism, and Federal Vision movements in today’s churches? Historically speaking Schaff and Nevin pandered to Rome by changing Protestant doctrines into more Roman Catholic ones. They argued for altar based liturgies, they did a lot of what could be considered pandering to Rome. I believe Rich Phillips has mistaken Schaff’s refusal to pander to the Pope and mistaken it for a refusal to pander to Rome. Perhaps even worse, he has missed the endorsement of Historical and Theological Development that is Schaff’s critique of the Pope. Unless we as Protestants are willing to sign on to Schaff’s ever changing doctrine as the principle of Protestantism, as he suggests, then we need to throw out Schaff’s critique, and hopefully one day clarify a better Protestant historiography

Hart, Nevin, and the German Reformed

I have just begun reading John Williamson Nevin: A High Church Calvinist by D.G. Hart. I have only finished the opening sections, but I am already highly disappointed in Mr. Hart. Do not get me wrong. I greatly respect the scholarly nature of D.G. Hart’s work, and have a decent number of his work, but he makes an insulting blunder in his opening. On page 18 he writes,

What is more, the German Reformed Church itself vanished over the course of the twentieth century, going through a series of mergers and church unions that landed the denomination in which Nevin labored for over half of his life in the United Church of Christ.

This is simply false. Yes, the vast majority of the German Reformed Church followed the mergers, but not all did. The Reformed Church in the United States did not disappear, as in fact, I currently serve the RCUS. I am sure that our denomination would be surprised to learn that it disappeared. While, I would not find it hard to believe that laymen would make this mistake, D.G. Hart is a scholar, and should have known that the RCUS still exists today. The German Reformed Tradition is alive and well.

Yet this is more than just upsetting because he overlooked my particular denomination as existing, but because I believe it may affect his analysis of John Nevin the biography. When one reads and learns of the German Reformed Tradition and church in America, Nevin has a high place in it; however, is he a legitimate representative of it is unclear. Hart is already using Nevin interchangeably with German Reformed tradition. This is not correct, or at least has to be defended.

Hart is right that the German Reformed tradition has been overlooked by American Theologians, much to the detriment of church by the way. The RCUS is a church that was mostly immune to the church splits of the First Great Awakening, that stood against the Biblical criticism of the early 20th century, never caved to feminism, and today is still highly resistant to the Federal Vision and other movements in popular Presbyterianism. Hart is wrong about what the German Reformed tradition is, but is right that it needs to be rediscovered.