McLaren versus the Bible

You have to pity Brian McLaren. His latest internet push for book sales shows just how little he really understands or how incredibly dishonest he is.

He starts out wondering why people don’t like him, specifically evangelicals. He then goes on to say that evangelicals are trained to punish people who are different. Ignoring the obvious insult for a second, I want to continue with what McLaren is actually arguing for a minute. McLaren claims that his conscious is tormented by a few things that the “religious authorities” teach, and he has the courage to question it. That is why he is hated. He gives a few examples, but if you want them all you need to buy his new book. Clearly one example is that God sends unbelievers to hell. The idea that God sends people to hell torments McLaren and he is question that. Apparently also Global warming, evolution, homosexuality, and women not being allowed as ministers also keeps McLaren questioning those means spirited religious leaders. McLaren makes sure that we know he is a good guy. "I love God, Jesus, the Bible, prayer, worship, serving others -- the whole package." This is where McLaren is either being totally dishonest or just does not get what he is actually saying.

McLaren rejects the idea of hell. Yet, passages from the Bible abound about hell. The “lake of fire” in Revelation for example. Jesus himself tells a parable about Lazarus and the rich man, who is in hell. McLaren thinks homosexuality is okay, but the Bible states clearly that it is unnatural, sinful, and originally a death penalty crime in God’s Judicial Law. McLaren likes evolution despite passages like Romans 5:12f that specifically state that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned. That sort of rules out evolution. And I am not even going to go into Genesis 1. So McLaren has only two options.

One, he blames religious leaders for making all of this stuff up despite it all being easily located in the Bible. This means the Bible is not the infallible rule for life, it is his tormented conscious. That puts McLaren in the role of God deciding what is and is not true Christianity.

Two, he is lying when he says that he loves the Bible (at the very least). McLaren’s real problem is not with religious leaders. It is with God’s own Holy Word. He does not like hell. That means he has to not like all of the talk of Jesus about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt 25), and the weeping and nashing of teeth (Matt 22). McLaren likes homosexuality or finds it okay in God’s sight. That means he has to reject and hate Romans 1, Levitcus 19, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Ham in Genesis. He can’t have it both ways. He cannot accept the doctrines condemned in the Bible and still accept the Bible.

Either option he takes, it is not the religious leaders that torment McLaren, it is Jesus of the Bible that torments McLaren.

The Emergent Conversation Dead?

The Emergent Church movement or conversation is in real trouble. There has been a large swell of disappointment and the change in leadership or stepping aside of leadership has not really helped. A small look at some of this is helpful. Nick, the Hopeful Skeptic appears to have touched off the latest round of trouble with his blog about his disappointment in the movement. What is left of the Emergent Village is trying to get back to basics and link up like minded churches with a nice map of where such churches can be found. One interesting note about the map is the Mark Driscoll and his Seattle church do not appear to be listed. Of course the map drew some scathing comments from former Emergent types such as Remonstrans This was too much for former National Coordinator, Tony Jones. Jones unleashes a bitter diatribe at those who think the movement has lost heart or soldout and points to the emergence of women and minorities in the movement. Josh Brown declared the movement dead while the other extreme was represented by Jonathon Brink who wants everyone to partake of his enthusiasm. Of course Team Pyro and Phil Johnson were there to offer their thoughts on the death of the Emergent Church with a warning that the underlying problems that lead to Emergent Church still exist.

But I think this debate about the death of the Emergent Church and their response is enlightening. I do believe that this movement is dead for several reasons.

1. The movement was based on Post Modernism. That is about the only thing that joined the group together, and that led to much of its problems. They could not even agree on what Emergent meant, much less define any standard beliefs. Nick the Skeptic thought it was a movement that was organizing into something more, but Tony Jones hated the idea of a revolution despite the fact that Brian McLaren was writing his books and promoting the idea that “everything must change”. Josh Brown thinks it failed because it became a church or at least an organization. Showing again that for two to walk together they must be agreed. Post Modernism does not make a firm enough basis to stand together upon since it is naturally a individualistic theology/philosophy.

2. Emergent Church was primarily a protest. It was a protest against many things. The mixing of politics and church, the traditional way of worship, the current fads in Evangelicalism (too unauthentic), and for many the theological truths especially inerrancy. The point is that protest movements are hard to keep together because not everyone is protesting the same thing. Some may not be against a more traditional theology. Those people were run out of the movement early on. See Mark Driscoll. Others may not be so against traditional styles of worship or completely in favor of liberalism. Some might feel the need for some politics, and others might just be against conservative politics. After initial success the differences emerge and are very hard to keep together. I think this is part of the problem with the Emergent Movement.

3. Emergent Church was never really divorced from politics. This is going to be a bit contoversial, but I believe it is true. When one reads the works of Emergents, anger toward the Religious Right and Politics is top on their list. Notice that almost every one of the above linked articles has references to politics. Nick referenced Obama through a quote. Tony Jones cannot help but mention Fawell and Dobson. Remonstrans mentions the social gospel at the end of his post that fits into a Liberal Democratic Agenda. The Emergent Church and Liberal Politics were always intertwined. The Liberals won the election that always cools a movement. Plus, President Obama is not turning out to be the Messiah as Nick alludes too. That will also hurt the movement. This of course passes over the fact that Doug Pagitt has stepped down from leadership of the Emergent Village and moved into politics as he is running for the Minnesota Legislature. I think it is a glimpse of where the priorities of the movement lie.

4. Emergent Church is built on social action, not theology, and that is always doomed to disappointment. This fits nicely with the above point as Emergent types come to understand that the state is a quicker engine to accomplish goals such as "ending poverty, war, and environmental destruction" (From the end of Remonstrans blog). There will always be poor with us as Jesus told us and wars and rumors of wars are not going anywhere either. Environmental destruction is debatable as to whether or not it is even occurring. Thus, a movement focused on these things is destined to lose members, focus, and eventually run out of gas. It happened in the 60’s and 70’s so that the 80’s was an era of Yuppies not Hippies. Social activism is not wrong in and of itself, but when it is taken by itself apart from theology, it will be a failure and exhausting to those in the crusade. This has happened in the Emergent Conversation/Movement/Denomination/Organization.

In conclusion, I think that the entire Conversation of Emergent is doomed. I do not believe that it will be able to revive itself. Thus, while I understand what the Pyromaniacs are talking about when they think the underlying problems still exist, I think this particular manifestation is dead.

New Calvinism versus Old Calvinism

I want to briefly comment on Marc Driscoll’s blog post about the New Calvinism. Apparently Time Magazine has called the New Calvinsim is the third most powerful engine changing the world. That is exciting news. I am not really writing to pick on the New Calvinism. I just feel I have to pick on Marc Driscoll’s definition of Old Calvinism. I think it shows a real lack of historical understanding, and probably a real lack of self-reflection as well.

He has four points of difference between the New Calvinism and the Old Calvinism. He touts his first difference as Old Calvinism withdrawing from culture while New Calvinism transforms it and is missional. Again, a made up word used to define this new movement does not speak well of transforming the culture or “Culturalizing” (since we are making stuff up). It also hard to believe that the Reformation did not transform the culture. I am not sure what history books Driscoll reads, but they are not the right ones. The Reformation and Old Calvinism changed the world. New Calvinism on the other hand likes to use Twitter during worship services and cuss like sailors and use provocative language to titillate the listener. Hardly transforming, in my opinion.

His second definition has Old Calvinism as fleeing from the cities and New Calvinism flocking to them. I will just give him this one as how “old” Old Calvinism is he attacking? This probably has a little merit to it, so we will give him this one.

His third definition has Old Calvinism as favoring cessationistic with regards to the Holy Spirits miraculous gifts while New Calvinism embraces Continuationism. This is dead on and one major difference. I will not debate how wrong New Calvinism is here, but this is a very major difference.

His fourth point has Old Calvinism as fearful and suspicious while the New Calvinism is loving and open to others. While this is clearly a slanted view, I think he underestimates the value of fear. Bridge building is one thing, but unwilling to denounce is quite another. I also think that this point undercuts his first point. They are not transforming culture, but building bridges to it. If you have not read the book Young Restless and Reformed you probably ought to. That is a good tour of New Calvinism. But in that book we see people trying to minister the gospel in the milieu of the culture. Rap songs speaking Calvinism. Driscoll would no doubt point out that it is bridge building and reaching the young, but is it compromising? New Calvinism is not really dealing with these tough questions just as they ducked them in the book. Fear sometimes protects. Suspicion is often founded on solid ground.

I am not saying New Calvinism is dumb or wrong. I am all for people holding to New Calvinsim, but it is not Reformed. I will not be wearing a Jonathon Edwards is My Homeboy T-Shirts, but I would rather someone wear that than a Che T-Shirt. Still, I believe the main difference is that Old Calvinism is Time tested and allows Biblical Truth to sink to every area of life. New Calvinism is enamoured with the truth of Predestination and Sovereignty, but they have not yet had time to work out the kinks. When they do, they will either be a fad passed away or they will become Old Calvinists too.

The Shifting Sands of Emergent Beliefs

Like I said in the last post. There were some things in the Young Restless and Reformed book that made you stop and think. This quote from Tony Jones Emergent leader at Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis is one of them.

“I know conservatism works in the face of globalization. I don’t know if postmodernism works, but I really hope it does. All postmodernism means is living on the shifting sand, as opposed to looking for some foundation. But some of us would say, ‘The people who say they stand on the sure foundation – it’s not as sure as they think it is. We all live on the slippery slope.” Pg. 142 of Young Restless and Reformed

Wow.
Let me say it takes guts and a lot of stupidity to quote the bible and admit you stand on the side the Bible says is the wrong place. I have never in my life heard some reference the Parable of the Wise man who built his House upon the Rock and directly state that the Shifting Sand is really the place to stand. My jaw literally hit the floor. But, let us try to move past the brazen rejection of a parable of Jesus if we can. Let us pray that he did that for shock value. I do think the substance of what he says is also important.

This really is the fundamental point of being Emergent. It is a complete and total acceptance of Post Modernism. All the other details are up for debate. The Emergent Church likes to begin by rejecting things, such as traditional worship, traditional readings of Scripture, traditional values and voting, etc. However, the one thing they accept up front is Post Modernism. Take an article from Precipice Magazine. The author rejects the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and denies that the Bible speaks of itself in this manner. Of course a Post Modernist who believes all life is based on “shifting sand” would need to deny such bedrock principles, but notice how he aims his guns in this article. He refers to the those who accept infallibility as “fundamentalists/foundationalists”. From that point on he only uses the term Foundationalists. For those of you not familiar foundationalism is a philosophic theory of knowledge. It has become a favorite kick toy these days. What Emergent men want to attack is not so much theology as it is knowledge itself. They hate the idea of having properly basic beliefs and building other beliefs on top of those beliefs. Such a practice reeks of surety and that is a no-no in Post Modernism. You can see it color everything they do (as it should if you attack knowledge). Just look at the article discussing the debate hosted by Rick Warren. What really turned the reviewer off was certainty.

Which brings me back to the quote. I know the Emergent church believes they are emerging from the collapsed Christian mindset, but it is much more likely that they are simply wandering off the biblical reservation. The Bible speaks of certainty all the time. In fact, it demands it. I do not need to quote again the wisdom of building on the rock. James 1:6-8 talks of not wavering and how the double-minded are unstable in all their ways. Psalm 119:113 the psalmist hates the double-minded, and more importantly double-mindedneses is contrasted with law. His word does not fade but rather endures forever (I Peter 1:25). Ephesians 4:11-13 even speaks of not being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. Being tossed about is a bad thing. These are just the obvious ones. We could look at other examples such as Matthew 16 where Jesus asks the disciples who the world thinks he is, and they give a great post modern answer since it includes several possibilities. Yet, that is rejected and then Jesus asks who they think he is and Peter gives the correct answer, a certain answer. Or one could look at Jesus’s discussion with Pilate in John where Pilate says “What is truth?” (very post modern) and then allows the murder of an innocent man. The idea that the world is shifting sand is dangerous and deadly. It is clearly against the Bible.

All of this leads me to one last quote from the book by Emergent leader Doug Pagitt. He states:

“I think much of our difference comes from the fact that in many ways we are telling different stories of Christianity.” Quoted from Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives on same page as above in Young Restless and Reformed.

We are indeed giving fundamentally different stories. That cannot be stressed enough.

I have been reading one of my Christmas gifts lately. It is An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. This book is a collection of essays by leaders in the Emergent Church movement. It is an attempt to drive home their viewpoint and their goals to those who are unfamiliar with the Emergent Church. I will be blogging about some of the individual chapters because there is so much in this book worthy of blog posts al there own. However, one thing is standing out and coming across as an underlying and unifying factor in the Emergent movement. One theme continually pops up that unites these very different men and different theologies. Well, two themes if you count ‘missional’ as a theme, but really what is ‘missional’ and what does that mean seems to be different for each writer, but another post for another time.

The main unifying factor seems to be an open rebellion against the Religious Right. And by that I mean a rebellion against those religious leaders who jumped into the political arena like Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson, and Dr. Dobson, but also the more theological leaders like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This is one of the reason these people like to call themselves ‘post evangelical’. The word evangelical is as much a political word today as it is a religious one. These people do not like the politics of the ‘evangelical movement’ and its leaders and have rejected the whole system. Listen to the words of Brian McLaren:

Here in the United States we see large sectors of the Christian community associated with American hyperconfidence, white privilege, institutional racism, civil religion, neocolonialism, and nationalistic militarism – often fortified by a privatized faith in a privatized nationalistic/tribal god. (pg. 148)

Other writers make similar comments. In fact, Tony Jones specifically mentions the hope of the Emergent Village being something that can counter the work of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (pg.130). These men and women really seem to be the next step in evolution of the Liberals and their Social Gospel from the early part of the 20th Century. Then the Social Gospel took over and the message was changed from one of salvation to one of helping the needy. However the Social Gospel took over the institutional churches and made few other changes besides the message. Thus, people sang the same sort of songs, sat in the same pews, and worshipped in the same manner while hearing the social gospel message. The Emergent Church wants a return to the social gospel of liberalism, but they are also throwing off the system itself. Why keep the same old trappings? Why not throw off all vestiges of that old authoritarian system and find a new way more in keeping with the message? This group is on board with Progressive/Democratic politics and it is angry at the Republican domination of the Evangelical message.

While I can agree that Evangelical as a political term is a bad thing and the mixing of the Republican Party with Christianity as is done by Robertson and others is a serious error, I do not agree with the radical solution. There is of course a middle ground, the ground always held by the church. Preaching Christ and Him crucified along with being living sacrifices of thanksgiving. I am against the ‘Republican Party will save us’ mentality that pervades so many, I am equally appalled at the ‘throw everything overboard and hope the Democrats can save us’ mentality taken by the Emergent church as well.

Answers to Armstrong's Ponderings

I have to comment on this post by John Armstrong. It involves a list of questions he ponders as a Reformed Christian, and I believe he deserves some answers, or at least some reply questions.

Q1. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians seem to have historical amnesia when it comes to events that transpired in church history from the death of John on the Isle of Patmos, late in the first century, until the completion of the Canon several centuries later?

A. I do not believe most modern Reformed Christians ignore the first centuries of the church. Just check the back of any Trinity Hymnal, an OPC production, and you will find the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. Both of which were written in the time period he describes. More importantly what is Rev. Armstrong implying in the question? Was the Canon of Scripture not completed after the last apostle died? Was it not completed the minute the last book of the Bible was written? What is the point is saying that there is a gap between the apostles and the formation of the Bible? It would appear that Rev. Armstrong believes the church created the Bible, and that is troubling.

Q2. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore the Church Fathers as well as the catholic creeds of the Christian church?

A. I fail to see how this is different than the first question, and it is just not true.

Q3. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians ignore the fact that John Calvin was especially influenced by the Church Fathers? For that matter why do these same conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore other Reformed writers who relied very heavily upon the classical catholic tradition such as Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley?

A. Obviously someone has an ax to grind by repeating the same thought in three questions. Would it not be faster just to come out and describe an example of how conservative Reformed Christians ignore the early church? Without examples it is really just the fallacy of ‘hasty generalization’ not to mention completely baseless.

Q4. Why do conservative Reformed Christians treat only certain confessional traditions, such as the Westminster Confession or its cousin the London Baptist Confession, as if only these confessions and catechisms were the proper confessional grounds for the Reformed faith and thus for contemporary understanding of the Bible and classical Christian thought, if they even care about classical thought? These important creedal standards of the 17th century are not the only standards for orthodoxy, for all time and all cultures, and few have ever treated them in this manner. Therefore, why do ordinary Christians hardly ever hear this from the many of the conservative Reformed spokesmen? (There are few if any conservative Reformed spokeswomen, which is another question for another time.)

A. Let us just leave aside the disturbing comment about women for today. Coming from a denomination that uses neither the Westminster nor the London Baptist Confession, I would argue that to make this question fit, Rev. Armstrong needs to replace the word “Reformed” with “Presbyterian”. There are many conservative Reformed denominations that use the Three Forms for example. More importantly note how Rev. Armstrong thinks that orthodoxy changes over time. He makes sure to include the idea that the WCF is not a standard “for all time”. If you do not think the WCF is orthodox, fine. Come out and defend your point. But arguing that it was orthodox, and now is not because of the advancement of contemporary thought is Hegelian, denying the truth can be known, and dangerous to say the least.

Q5. Why do conservative Reformed Christians demand a kind of purity from other modern Reformed writers that allows so many of them to never actually engage the culture and do the hard work of the Kingdom in the 21st century? Why do they attack all expressions of emerging culture and church life when in fact their tradition emerged in a specific time in history too?

A. While this is again purposefully vague, one gets the idea that this might be about opposition to the Emergent Church. However, the implication of his words seems to say that ‘purity’ presumably of doctrine forbids engaging the culture. From that opinion, I dissent.

Q6. Why do conservative Reformed Christians identify so strongly, and often so stridently, with other non-Reformed Christians in certain area of gospel controversy, especially in advocating very narrow definitions of the gospel in an attempt to impress lay people and inadequately taught pastors that they alone are standing for the truth in this dark day? This has been done over the last ten years with the issuance of various joint statements and widely promoted conferences, as if these faithful spokesmen alone have the courage to defend the gospel and the correct understanding of what actually constitutes the gospel.

A. I have to admit that I am lost on this one. Rev. Armstrong obviously has specifics in mind but refuses to name them. This puts him squarely in the tradition of Gilbert Tennent. But since I have no idea what he really means, and I do not attend many, if any, conferences I will just take a pass.

Q7. Why do conservative Reformed Christians generally treat Roman Catholics (and Orthodox Christians if they bother to respond to them at all) as non-Christians, especially in their public pronouncements? Do these same Reformed Christians, at least on the Presbyterian side of the aisle, ever admit that their own traditions have always accepted Catholic/Orthodox baptism as valid Christian baptism? I also wonder if these conservatives, who stand should-to-shoulder with other non-Reformed fundamentalists in a type of reductionism that results from their narrow gospel definitions (as noted as in question six above), really ever make these facts plain to their non-Reformed (Baptist and dispensational) allies, who I suppose would be aghast if they understood this?

A. This I believe is a valid question. One that was discussed recently by many ministers in my denomination. But, I do not think that accepting the validity of Baptism means that we are accepting the validity of the Roman/Popish/Eastern church. Baptism in the end is the work, not of the minister, but of the Holy Spirit. It does not depend on the holiness of the man, but on the promises of God. And just to show I do not ignore history, Augustine made this argument against the Donatists many centuries ago, and it is the basis of the Reformed position. As for making it clear to Baptist allies that we accept the baptisms of Romanists, I hope we do. Because if there is one thing we need to have discussions with Baptists about it is baptism.

Q8. Why do conservative Reformed Christians rail so harshly, and react so emotionally, against liturgy in worship (a huge list could be constructed to make this point) on the one hand, while on the other they hate pop-cultural, happy-clappy, contemporary evangelical worship services with a passion? Do they realize that what they have created, in many cases, is a modern lecture hall with hymns and a collection? Do they realize that this is much more like a Plymouth Brethren gathering than a truly Reformed service, with all its variations and rich use of older liturgical tradition?

A. We rail against both because driving into a ditch on either side of the road is a bad idea. For clarification, liturgy itself is not bad, but I suspect that Rev. Armstrong mean a high altar-based liturgy. Conservative Reformed Christians usually argue for a Pulpit based liturgy. John Nevin, a proponent of altar based liturgy said it best, “They are two different theological systems.” Nevin was not confused by the railing. The altar based system and the pulpit based system are not the same liturgical tradition. If Rev. Armstrong does not mean to argue for Nevin’s system, then I suppose his attack is so narrow that I do not know much of the lecture hall environment he describes.

Q9. Why do conservative Reformed Christians often promote a high ecclesiology (in theory) while in practice they act much more like Southern Baptists who add presbyteries and general assemblies on to a modern form of culture religion? In practice these sorts of Reformed groups govern themselves, and do theology, less and less like historically Reformed bodies. Think populism and democractic idealism, not historic Reformed confessionalism, and you get my point.

A. I think the best answer there is sin. We tend toward populism rather than confessionalism naturally, and it is a constant battle. It is good to be reminded of our need for grace even in our ecclesiology.

Q10. Why do conservative Reformed Christians promote certain aspects of Puritanism, often without really understanding Puritanism in the way a real scholar like J. I. Packer does, while at the same time they despise the real Puritan approach to the Holy Spirit and to a practical experiential religion centered in the heart? And why do these same people hate almost every type of ascetical or mystical theology while whole segments of the Reformed movement have loved these parts of the Christian tradition deeply? (This is precisely why some conservative Reformed spokesmen despise Jonathan Edwards, which I discovered first-hand, to my profound surprise, about ten years ago.)

A. I am not a Puritan expert since I am not really in the Puritan tradition in the RCUS. I would be interested, however, in which parts of the Reformed traditions loved asceticism and mysticism. I am not sure why I am required to enjoy Jonathon Edwards either. He has his good points, and he has some bad points.

Rev. Armstrong challenges men to come out and abandon their narrow confessionalism. He adds his wishes that churches would live in the 21st century rather than the 17th. Yet, here is where I would challenge Rev. Armstrong. I wish he would have an open debate about Theological and Historical Development. Why is it that orthodoxy of the 17th century is now the unorthodoxy of the 21st? I believe the historical development theories of Hegel, Schaff, and Nevin are philosophically, theologically, and historically absurd. As a matrix for viewing history, the bible, and the church it fails completely. Yet it is historical development is the underpinning of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, and Rev. Armstrong’s entire post. However, I, like Rev. Armstrong, will not hold my breath.

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.

Emergent Evangelical Disaster

I have not blogged in a little while because I have been having discussions with some of my friends in Colorado Springs. It has been a sad, painful experience to say the least. Some, who formerly believed, now no longer do. Others seemed more and more confused on the gospel by the minute. They freely and quickly spout justification by faith and works.

It began with a group email conversation with former co-workers, one of whom attends an Emergent Church, or a church affiliated with the movement or whatever they want to call it. It is obvious the doctrine of justification by works must be taught or at least allowed to grow in that congregation. I protested and pointed to Scripture, but to my horror, other former co-workers jumped in siding with justification by works. These were members of mainline denominations, non-denominational churches and they all had no clue about the doctrine of justification. Upon hearing the traditional Protestant exegesis of James 2 and the belief that works flow from thanksgiving for salvation, they pronounced it “full of crap.” By the way, I used to work at a Christian ministry in Colorado Springs that had weekly chapels that apparently do not bother with salvation either.

It is one thing to know that evangelical churches out there are not doing a good job of proclaiming the gospel, but it is another to be hit right in the face with it. It was a good reminder to why I became a minister in the first place. It also reminded me not to take even the most basic doctrines for granted. The gospel must be proclaimed or people will revert to trusting in themselves. May God strengthen His church to boldly proclaim his message once more.

Confessional Hatred

I have not been following the Emergent Church controversies at all. I would hear about here and there, but it did not seem to matter much to me. Then I had a friend in an Emergent Church in Colorado Springs. Still, I remained fairly uninterested. I got curious when I saw Andrew Sandlin and John Armstrong take strong stands for the Emergent movement, with minor reservations of course. These men who support the Federal Vision movement in the Reformed Churches were supporting the Emergent movement too. I wondered what the connection might be. I believe I have found it. Pure hatred of confessionalism. The one thing that the Emergent movement is a contempt for standards in theology. Al Mohler comments about the Emerging Church:

The very nomenclature of the movement betrays a sense that evangelicalism must be cast aside in order for something new, radical, and more authentic to emerge. "For almost everyone within the movement," Carson argues, "this works out in an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationalities; on experience over against truth; on inclusion over against exclusion; on participation over individualism and the heroic loner." This approach produces what McLaren calls "a new kind of Christian," and a new kind of church.

Note the antipathy for rational thought and the need for development. Mohler continues to state:

Accepting the postmodern insistence that "metanarratives" are dead, McLaren argues that Christianity must develop a new way of describing, defining, and defending the gospel. A metanarrative--a unifying theory of universal meaning--is to be replaced by a far more humble understanding of truth that accepts pluralism as a given and holds all truth claims under suspicion

Here again, universal meaning is a thing of the past. The Emerging Church wants a new way to “define” the gospel. Disturbing.

How does this relate to the Federal Vision? I believe in that very same way. Now there is no doubt that the Emerging Church and the Federal Vision arrive at some very different conclusions. But, they both share a need to develop new theology with a new definition of the gospel. Listen to John Armstrong discuss the PCA’s decision to not distribute the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report:

It would be a wonderful day for modern reformation, and for the true principle of semper reformanda, if this issue were put to rest once for all, at least as it is perceived as some kind of serious threat to the gospel. I have my doubts that this will happen so long as the PCA is influenced by "strict confessionalist" (TR) types.

Clearly here Armstrong equates the constant reforming change as the good guys and those who adhere to confessions as the bad guys. Note also that the gospel is better off without the Confessions. Armstrong later openly desires the PCA “will pursue an open posture toward the world in general, and the work of fresh and serious biblical theology in particular,” but doubts they will because of the “schismatic spirit” of the aforementioned ‘strict confessionalists.’ Yes, he also calls those who wish to adhere to a confession strictly “a small coalition of the theologically disturbed.”

The two groups have one thing in common, contempt for standards. Both groups need a developing theology. One that will change and grow with them. One that will not be confined to a confession, nor one that will inhibit their "fresh", innovative thinking, which stands as proof of their intellect and piety.

In the coming months and years, maybe, those who believe in truth will find it more and more under attack by those once considered allies. The idea of confessions, and confessional churches will be attacked. The “small coalition of the theologically disturbed” must continue to make its stand for an unchanging truth. Or else the Presbyterian and Reformed world will be overrun by those who would exchange the wisdom of our fathers for the whispers of the woman on the street, those who would exchange the truth of God for a lie.

Reformed Ecumenical Madness

Closely connected with what has just been said, is the last and most important point to be presented. I mean, the bearing of this view of Church History on the great work of Christian Union - Schaff. What is Church History? Pg. 122

This was a bold prediction made by Philip Schaff in one of his early writings about Historical and Theological Development. Charles Hodge warned at the time that this would make people see every innovation "the growth of orthodox dogma, never a possible devolution from the Christian gospel." Hodge was proven a prophet indeed. For Schaff’s statement helped merge the old RCUS with the Evangelical Lutherans to become the Evangelical Reformed Church and then later the United Church of Christ. This current controversy over the Federal Vision is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, and has brought with it Scahff’s view of history, and consequently his view of Christian Union. This can be clearly seen in two areas:

First the view on Christian union appears in their demands for denominations to accept divergent positions on justification, sacraments, and even the use of creeds and confessions as part of the Reformed Heritage. They want to co-exist despite these major differences, even claiming that such things should fall under the the liberty of conscience.

Second, it can be seen in the leaders of this movement accepting with open arms modern evangelical trends. John Armstrong shows this in his treatment of the Emergent Church movement, Pentecostal ideals, and even borderline Name and Claim it messages like that ofJoel Osteen, where he declares that he formerly would have joined people like Michael Horton in critiquing the bad theology, but now appreciates all things. Andrew Sandlin is not much different and has a habit of calling Roman Catholics his Christian brothers and sisters. An increase in appreciation for non-Reformed and non-Protestant traditions can be seen all throughout the internet, as the followers of these principles put into practice the logical result of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, Shepherdism, a revival of Mercersburg Theology, or whatever one wants to call it.

It seems to me that the Reformed community will have to deal with these movements one way or another. The principle ‘Always Reforming’ must be upheld, but it does not mean ‘Always evolving’ as some claim, but rather it means 'Always remaining re-formed according to God’s Word’, lest we devolve back into a salvation by works.