Theology Central
Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.D. Martin Lloyd-Jones and the Spirituality of the Church
Beginning with a discussion of slavery in the Bible, Nick Batzig at the Reformation 21 blog ends up explaining Martin Lloyd-Jones’s views on the spirituality of the church. Here is part of his conclusion:
The Noahic Covenant and the Common Kingdom
In summary, the Noahic covenant of Genesis 8: 20– 9: 17 constitutes the formal establishment of the common kingdom. This means that God himself established and rules the common kingdom. It exists under the lordship of the triune God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The common kingdom is not in any sense a realm of moral neutrality or human autonomy. During the early history recorded in Genesis 4 cultural commonality existed alongside a spiritual antithesis. God put an end to that cultural commonality when he separated Noah’s family from the rest of the human race at the time of the flood, but after the flood he reestablished that cultural commonality by means of a covenant. For the rest of the history of this world God ordains that the cycles of nature will continue in regular patterns, and that all people— whether believer or unbeliever— should engage in ordinary cultural activities such as marrying and childbearing, eating and drinking, and enforcing justice against those who disrupt the social order. The Noahic covenant itself does not tell us about the spiritual antithesis between believers and unbelievers, but this theme soon emerges again as the story of the Old Testament continues to unfold.
VanDrunen, David. Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Kindle Locations 1223-1231). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
Watch Metal Crystals Forming
Every machinist knows that metal has a grain. The reason is because metal has a crystalline structure. You can watch metal crystals forming in a remarkable time-lapse video by Emanuele Fornasier. God certainly made a fascinating world.
More on Cliff Barrows
Justin Taylor has a good summary of his life, plus videos of an interview in which Barrows reminisces about his history with Billy Graham.
ACCC Resolution on the Assembly of Believers
American Council of Christian Churches
75th Annual Convention, October 18-20, 2016
Faith Baptist Church, Kittery, Maine
Resolution on the Assembly of Believers
“After Christ’s ascension, His followers began assembling themselves together in their respective localities to worship their Lord and Savior on the first day of the week, the day of His resurrection. At these Lord’s Day assemblies, believers heard the Word read and preached, sang praises and offered prayers unto God, observed the Lord’s Supper and baptism, contributed gifts unto the Lord’s work, and fellowshipped with one another (Acts 2:42-47, 20:7, I Cor. 16:2, Eph. 5:19, and Col. 3:16).
“The writer of Hebrews soon noticed that some were developing a habit of neglecting their local churches, and therefore charged all to “not forsak[e] the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but [to] exhort . . . one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). Whether the “day” referred to was one of affliction or of Christ’s return, the author understood that believers must be prepared by participating diligently in corporate worship.
“Persecution of the Church persists and the day of Christ’s return is closer, but sadly, professed Christians today are forsaking the assembly of believers at an alarming rate. What the text described as “the manner of some” is now the habit of many.
“Some have abandoned churches altogether, while others have neglected a number of services for sporting events, family gatherings, or unnecessary work. Some have even tried to replace corporate worship with podcasts, radio broadcasts, televised/webcast services, or personal Bible readings. While these things can be excellent spiritual supplements, they cannot replace the gathering of believers on Sunday.
“Unfortunately, many churches have also succumbed to pressure from society and have cancelled services for secular holidays and sporting events.[i] At times, such cancellations are called “Family Sundays,” but this label fails to honor the Scripture’s designation of Sunday as “The Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10).
“Therefore, the American Council of Christian Churches at its 75th annual convention, October 18-20, 2016, at Faith Baptist Church of Kittery, ME, resolves to exhort all believers to join a sound, local church and to be faithful to it as much as is physically possible. Likewise, we resolve to encourage churches to cease canceling services to accommodate the spirit of the age. David said: “I was glad when they said unto me, ‘Let us go into the house of the LORD’” (Ps. 122:1). We urge professed Christians to examine themselves to see whether such a joy for God’s house characterizes their lives, and if not, to repent.”
[i] See also the 2003 ACCC resolution on “The God of Sports.”
A Hymn for Giving Thanks
Come, Ye Thankful People, Come
Henry Alford
Come, ye thankful people, come,
raise the song of harvest home;
all is safely gathered in,
ere the winter storms begin.
God our Maker doth provide
for our wants to be supplied;
come to God’s own temple, come,
raise the song of harvest home.
All the world is God’s own field,
fruit as praise to God we yield;
wheat and tares together sown
are to joy or sorrow grown;
first the blade and then the ear,
then the full corn shall appear;
Lord of harvest, grant that we
wholesome grain and pure may be.
For the Lord our God shall come,
and shall take the harvest home;
from the field shall in that day
all offenses purge away,
giving angels charge at last
in the fire the tares to cast;
but the fruitful ears to store
in the garner evermore.
Even so, Lord, quickly come,
bring thy final harvest home;
gather thou thy people in,
free from sorrow, free from sin,
there, forever purified,
in thy presence to abide;
come, with all thine angels, come,
raise the glorious harvest home.
Reflections from the Evangelical Theological Society, Part II
John Witvliet, a scholar from the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, presented an excellent paper entitled, “Protestant Suspicion of Liturgical Form: The Curious Case of Abraham Kuyper.” In his presentation, Witvliet explored Kuyper’s oft-changing and ever-evolving views on liturgical worship as a microcosm for evangelical angst between form and sincerity. A brief survey of Kuyper’s works and lectures revealed his back and forth views on the values and fears of formal liturgies in worship. Notice John H. Wood’s periodization of Kuyper’s views (from Witvliet’s presentation):
– 1864, Early Ministry – Liturgy /Forms as disposable “Husk”
– 1865-67, Incarnational Ecclesiology – L/F as indispensable
– 1870, Sacramental Ecclesiology – L/T as indispensable “bank of river,” “body to the soul”
– 1886, Believer’s Church Ecclesiology – L/T as “clothes” which dress the “body”
Kuyper states:
“Where form rules over spirit, spirituality must object and demand that spirit rule over form. Spirituality will walk in the right path when it allows the spirit to govern form, so that it is true to the spirit, accommodates the spirit, and serves the spirit as an instrument. But spirituality goes astray when it declares that form does not matter and thereby either destroys it or allows it to degenerate.” – Our Worship from Implications of Public Confession
Witvliet effectively showed that Kuyper’s own view alternated between two tropes; sincerity and ritual. For example, Kuyper followed earlier non-conformist’s reaction against the Anglican primers but allowed examples and prayer patterns to be implemented (especially for pedagogical purposes), though insisting that set prayers be spoken “imploringly and movingly.” He saw dangers in both insincere form and sincere formlessness.
Notice Kuyper’s thoughts on the prayer of confession to begin a service:
“Our Reformation fathers were wise in demanding that at least once a week, this matter [confession of sin], so important to the soul, would not be left to subjective feelings, but rather would be taken hold of by a power outside ourselves, that is, by God himself, who through the word of his servant would proclaim God’s holy Word of absolution to the congregation.” – Our Worship from Implications of Public Confession
Witvliet concluded with 4 reflections:
- A simplistic “ritual/sincerity” binary is not sufficient for a healthy theology of liturgical participation or healthy pastoral ministry.
- Evangelical suspicion of set of prayer is often set aside when those prayers are sung in the form of hymns or worship songs. This irony or complementarity is worthy of more reflection.
- Evangelical historians could benefit not only by studying responses to Anglicans but also to Quakers.
- The rejection of liturgical form has often been viewed as the ultimate outworking on potent individualism.
He calls us to a “life in the middle.”
In my opinion, Kuyper’s “life in the middle” teaches four valuable lessons.
- Worship is never isolated; it is never vacuous. Worship must always take a form. Like theology, it can never be completely removed from its own history. Liturgy in worship is simply ecclesiology recognizing history. It is revolting against the tyranny of the now and emancipating the soul from the slavery of self.
- Form does not mean rejection of freedom. It is freedom within reason. Even jazz musicians warm up with scales. To say that liturgy and sincerity are opposites is to misunderstand them both.
- Unfortunately, evangelicalism’s reaction to form has taken its own strange and twisted shape. It’s somewhat like a meeting of anarchists: after a while, someone takes control. Worship has become reactionary, the pendulum swinging from one side to the other, culture to culture, shape to shape. As Kuyper ironically adapted Hegelian dialectics in his political philosophy of The Anti Revolutionary Party, evangelicalism has come to a full synthesis with culture. Liturgy and form help to prevent that. It is the democracy of the dead; the collection of time.
- Life in the middle is only reflective of one’s methodology. The Regulative Principle of Scripture walks this line perfectly. One sees the Psalms and prayer as not only beautiful examples, but beautiful form.
ACCC Resolution on New Calvinism
American Council of Christian Churches
75th Annual Convention, October 18-20, 2016
Faith Baptist Church, Kittery, Maine
Resolution on New Calvinism
“In September 2006, Collin Hansen reported for Christianity Today on a new religious movement of professed Christians who took a renewed interest in Reformed theology. At that time, Hansen called the movement “Young, Restless, Reformed” (YRR), but later he termed it “New Calvinism” and claimed that it was a “revival” of biblical Christianity. [i] By 2009, Time Magazine declared New Calvinism to be one of the “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now,” [ii] and since then, the movement’s popularity has increased. All of this success seemed to validate Hansen’s claim of another spiritual awakening.
“Hansen’s three adjectives (“Young, Restless, Reformed”) provide a rather fair description of this movement, and one adjective in particular explains its popularity. Even though most YRR leaders are age fifty or above, New Calvinism is mostly comprised of young adults in their twenties, thirties, or forties, as can be seen in two of the most popular YRR expressions: The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and Together for the Gospel (T4G). To an extent, the movement can also be called “Reformed” in that its constituents are, at a minimum, committed to the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) and appreciate the works of deceased Calvinists like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, or Charles Spurgeon.
“Restless” though is the key descriptor of this movement, and it shows why New Calvinism is so popular. New Calvinism is restless in that it is dissatisfied with the godly standards and confessional theology held by previous generations of Calvinists. It is known for being culturally progressive and flaunts itself as such. In its worship, preaching, and evangelism, New Calvinism embraces popular culture, a man-made system of customs which is incapable of bearing the weight and gravity of the Gospel. [iii] TGC authors, in particular, blog about “redemptive” elements they supposedly have found within Hollywood films, and YRR evangelists in the vein of Tim Keller (TGC cofounder) integrate pop culture in their community outreaches, [iv] hoping to gain a better hearing from their unregenerate audiences. YRR leaders also endorse “worship music” composed by modern, pop-rock hymnists [v] and “holy hip-hoppers” / “Reformed rappers.” [vi]
“Pop culture, a vital YRR ingredient, is one of the many characteristics which differentiates New Calvinism from godly Reformed movements, past and present. New Calvinism also refuses to adhere strictly to biblical truths expounded in the confessions and catechisms of historic Calvinism. Unlike most professed Calvinists since the sixteenth century, a number of New Calvinists push beyond the standard creeds and subscribe to Neo-Kuyperian postmillennialism, an eschatological position which claims that God has given His Church an institutional social mandate to redeem culture and promote social justice to help usher in the kingdom. [vii] Unlike the Puritans and Reformed fundamentalists who affirmed chapter four of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1689, New Calvinism embraces theistic evolution or joins hands with those who do. [viii] Likewise, in direct defiance of chapter one of both confessions, New Calvinism’s large umbrella [ix] includes non-cessationists. [x] Furthermore, John Piper, the designated “father” of the YRR, has distorted Scripture, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the works of Jonathan Edwards to promote a brand of hedonism that makes God’s glory contingent on man’s pursuit of pleasure. [xi]
“Finally, New Calvinism differs from traditional Calvinism in that it refuses to separate from heretics and disobedient Christians. Keller has affirmed Roman Catholic mystics such as Ignatius Loyola, Saint John of the Cross, and Saint Teresa of Ávila. [xii] Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler (TGC members and T4G participants) both signed the Manhattan Declaration which affirms that Evangelicals, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox leaders are all “Christians.” Mohler also had Billy Graham (an ecumenical evangelist) conduct a crusade in Louisville, KY in 2001, just four years after Graham publically declared that some Muslims, Buddhists, and non-believers who do “not even know the name of Jesus . . . are saved.” Just this year at a “Christian” social justice conference, [xiii] Russell Moore (TGC) spoke alongside a Roman Catholic priest (Michael Louis Pfleger) and a progressive “Evangelical” (Tony Campolo), who accepts “Christian gay couples into the Church.” [xiv] Piper has likewise shared Passion Conference platforms with Beth Moore and Christine Caine (charismatic women “preachers”), and affirmed the ministries of Rick Warren, Daniel Fuller, and Mark Driscoll. [xv] Indisputably, the parameters of “Young, Restless, and Reformed” are not sufficient grounds for obedient Christian fellowship and cooperation. Like the New Evangelicalism of past generations, today’s New Calvinism lacks purity protected by a Bible doctrine of separation.
“Therefore, the American Council of Christian Churches at its 75th annual convention, October 18-20, 2016, at Faith Baptist Church of Kittery, Maine, resolves to exhort all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ to beware of the leaven of New Calvinism. While some of the writings of New Calvinists can be appreciated with caution, Christ’s people should rebuke and separate from the movement. New Calvinism is a truncated form of traditional Calvinism, syncretized with deviant doctrines and worldliness. Spurgeon, Edwards, and the apostle Paul would not recognize this movement as a revival of biblical Christianity. Finally, we affirm the words of Peter Masters, the current pastor of Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, who said: “You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises.” [xvi]
“[i] Collin Hansen, “Young, Restless, Reformed,” Christianity Today 50, no. 9 (September 2006): http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html. Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Guide Journey with the New Calvinists, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 156.
“[ii] David Van Biema, “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: No. 3: The New Calvinism,” Time Magazine (March 12, 2009). http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html.
“[iii] See Abraham Kaplan, “The Aesthetics of the Popular Arts,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 24, no. 3 (Spring 1966): 351-364 and Kenneth A. Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1989), 120.
“[iv] Samuel G. Freedman, “Evangelists Adapt to a New Era, Preaching the Gospel to Skeptics,” New York Times (March 4, 2016): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us/evangelists-adapt-to-a-new-era-preaching-the-gospel-to-skeptics.html?_r=0.
“[v] Such as Keith and Kristyn Getty, Stuart Townend, Bob Kauflin, Steve and Vikki Cook, and other Sovereign Grace Church musicians.
“[vi] Such as Lecrae, Shai Linne, Trip Lee, Curtis Allen, Marcus Gray, and Timothy Brindle.
“[vii] For a critique of this position, read Jon Anderson’s series on “Center Church,” The Cripplegate Blog: http://thecripplegate.com/center-church-summary-and-contextualization/.
“[viii] See the 2014 ACCC “Resolution on Young Earth Creationism.”
“[ix] See the 2012 ACCC “Resolution on the Theological Danger of Non-cessationism.”
“[x] Such as C. J. Mahaney (Sovereign Grace Churches), D. A. Carson (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), John Piper (Desiring God Ministries and Bethlehem College and Seminary), Matt Chandler (The Village Church and Acts 29 Network), and Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary).
“[xi] Peter Masters, “Christian Hedonism: Is It Right?” The Sword & Trowel, no. 3, (2002): 10-16.
“[xii] “Keller and the mystics,” The New Calvinists Blog: http://www.newcalvinist.com/kellers-affinity-with-rome/keller-and-the-catholic-mystics/.
“[xiii] “Speakers,” The Justice Conference 2016, http://www.thejusticeconference.com/speakers.html.
“[xiv] Tony Campolo, “Tony Campolo: For the Record,” Tony Campolo Blog (June 8, 2015): http://tonycampolo.org/for-the-record-tony-campolo-releases-a-new-statement/#.V_wObsmgs7H.
“[xv] In fact, up until 2014, almost all New Calvinists affirmed Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA who was widely known for his vulgar preaching and teaching. Driscoll only lost favor with New Calvinist networks when stories of his deceitful and dictatorial leadership surfaced.
“[xvi] Masters, “New Calvinism – The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness,” The Sword & Trowel, no. 2, (2009): http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Article/New-Calvinism-Merger-of-Calvinism-and-Worldliness/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine.”
Harvard Student Paper Asks for More Conservatives
The editorial board of the Harvard Crimson has expressed concern over the “ideological uniformity” of the university. The solution? More conservatives.
The most glaring ideological diversity deficit among undergraduates is the relatively small number of students who identify as conservative. In the election survey, fewer than 13 percent of respondents described themselves as “somewhat” or “very” conservative, compared to over 70 percent describing themselves as “somewhat” or “very” liberal.
So a commitment to diversity includes hearing the voices of conservatives? Who knew?
Studying Classics: A Manly Pursuit
So say Brent and Kate McKay at The Art of Manliness. They offer eight reasons “Why Every Man Should Study Classical Culture.” Here’s a bit:
Our educational system has become increasingly specialized. We’ve created artificial barriers between different fields of study. When you’re in history, you largely just focus on history. When you’re studying physics, you mostly focus on physics. Historian Richard Weaver referred to this as the “fragmentation” of knowledge.
But when you read the classics, those walls disappear. For the ancient Greeks and Romans, all knowledge was interconnected. When you read The Histories by Herodotus, you’ll see him connect historical events to political theory, anthropology, and even geography. Plato doesn’t just muse about Truth, Justice, and Beauty, but also math and physics. The Roman Stoics weren’t just interested in learning how to live in alignment with Nature, but also how to govern empires and interact with people you don’t get along with.
Creation, Culture, and Two Kingdoms
Scripture requires a high view of creation and of cultural activity, but it also requires a distinction between the holy things of Christ’s heavenly kingdom and the common things of the present world. It requires a distinction between God’s providential sustaining of human culture for the whole of the human race and his glorious redemption of a chosen people that he has gathered into a church now and will gather into the new creation for eternity. Some people indeed fall into unwarranted “dualisms,” but dualism-phobia must not override our ability to make clear and necessary distinctions. Some people indeed are guilty of promoting a godless and amoral “secular” realm, but the fear of a godless secularism should not eliminate our ability to speak of a divinely-ordained common kingdom that is legitimate but not holy. The two-kingdoms doctrine enables us to affirm the goodness of creation and culture without losing sight of crucial distinctions. The two-kingdoms doctrine helps us to account for the whole biblical story.
VanDrunen, David. Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Kindle Locations 292-299). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
This Is Why . . .
. . . we have an electoral college. The American founders were wise enough to understand what the democraphiles do not: population is not the only interest that ought to be represented in an election. The cartoon is from World Magazine online.
Incidentally, the same principle applies to votes in local churches. But that’s another matter.
Denny Burk on ETS Trinity Debate
I wasn’t at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society this year. By all accounts, though, the debate about the Trinity was a highlight. Defending “eternal functional subordination” were Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. Denying it was Kevin Giles; questioning it was Millard Erickson. The most remarkable moment of the debate was the affirmation by Grudem and Ware of the eternal generation of the Son. It is difficult to see how one could affirm some version of eternal subordination while not affirming eternal generation.
As I say, I was not there. But Denny Burk was, and he provides a useful report. Central Seminary had three professors at the meeting; perhaps one of them will write a report of his own.
As an aside, it is worth noting that only two of the three positions were represented in this debate. Grudemaand Ware affirm “eternal functional subordinantion” and believe that it provides some parallels of illustrative value to a complementarian position on gender roles. Erickson and Giles question or deny eternal functional subordination and believe that the absolute equality of the Trinity parallels the absolute equality of the sexes. The third position, represented by Carl Trueman among others, denies eternal functional subordination while also denying a complete egalitarianism between the sexes. Having this position represented in the debate would have been useful.
Reflections from the Evangelical Theological Society Part I
Epistemologist Kegan Shaw, from the University of Edinburgh (http://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/kegan-shaw), presented a paper challenging the Ability Constraint on Knowledge Syllogism. The syllogism is as follows:
- If you know that p then you truly believe that p on account of your cognitive abilities. (Ability Constraint)
- Cases of faith-based belief are not cases in which you form true beliefs on accounts of your cognitive abilities. (No Ability)
Modus Tollens You don’t know anything you believe on the basis of faith. (Agnosticism)
Shaw’s critique centered around premise two. His paper desired to show that religious epistemologists “needn’t accept No Ability, so long as they conceive of religious faith as a [sic] form of extended knowledge, that is, as a product of an extended cognitive ability.”
His rejection of the No Ability premise is two-fold. First, cognition is not simply an isolated, individual, and neurological exercise. Group cognition is possible in the sense that processing can be extended and distributed among persons. Since the Holy Spirit is a person of the Godhead, the Spirit, upon residency within a human person, can be an agent of cognitive change. Thinking is not simply synapsual. “There is nothing sacred about skull and skin.” (Clark and Chalmers, 1998, pg. 14) Cognitive processes can be distributed among, between, and as a result of plural interaction. Daniel Wegner calls this “Transactive Memory Systems.” (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dwegner/files/wegnererberraymond1991.pdf)
Second, Shaw examined the “Glue and Trust” and Reciprocal Interaction processes. Scripture has proven its veracity, reliability and accessibility and should therefore be considered a “reliable-belief” process. This seems too linear though, for what is required of group cognition is dual contribution: what is known as “feedback loops.” Shaw used the example of the centrifugal or Watt governor-engine system; “When the two of them are mutually interconnected – some of the governor’s ongoing behavior both determines and is – simultaneously – determined by the behavior of the engine (and vice versa).” The Holy Spirit and believer share a non-linear interconnectedness. Though this means that the Spirit can directly or indirectly influence the cognition of the believer, it doesn’t imply that the believer can somehow influence the Spirit. Shaw gives the example of religious affections and religious discipline; “It’s one’s faith that naturally spurs one on in her religious activity – in her habitual reading of the Scriptures, communication with God through prayer, sharing about Jesus’ story with others, and in general participating in the activities of the Church. And by engaging in these religious activities one naturally increases in their affections for the things of God – affections which the Holy Spirit draws on in turn for sustaining or increasing one’s religious faith.” Love produces action which, in turn, produces love. The same can be said of Christian faith as cognition.
Shaw’s critique of the No Ability premise is sound. There is no reason to think that faith cannot be an extension of knowledge through the interaction with and influence from the Holy Spirit. Belief can be an extension of knowledge. While Shaw’s conclusion is interesting, I think it is incomplete.
Augustine, when discussing memisis, inferred that memory is the distention of the soul, striving for an understanding of reality outside of time. Cognition, at least in memory, is a product of a temporal creature wrestling as the image of an atemporal Creator. Reciprocity works both ways. What if faith is not only extended knowledge, but knowledge is an extension of faith? Modernity said cogito ergo sum; premodernity said fides quaerens intellectum.
Leprosy Is Back
Actually, it never left. It’s still there. In American Armadillos and British Squirrels. Read the report at Goats and Soda.
Kevin De Young’s Book List
I like book lists. Here’s a recent one from Kevin De Young.
Really?
According to Salon, Alexis Tsipras, Prime Minister of Greece, has been praising President Obama for his economic leadership.
Isn’t that a bit like the pilot of the Hindenburg complimenting you on your aeronautics?
Two by Blake
Here are two poems by William Blake.
The Lamb
- To whom is The Lamb an obvious reference? Who made the lamb? Whom does the lamb symbolize?
- Who made the tiger?
- Interpreters debate the symbolism of The Tyger. One theory is that the tiger symbolizes the same person as the lamb. If this theory is correct, then what does the symbolism emphasize?
Israel’s Most Important Trade Partner
Who is Israel’s most important trade partner? It’s India, according to President Reuven Rivlin.
By the way, did you know that Jews have lived in India for thousands of years? Look it up!
Characteristics of Convergents: Where Now?
A couple of days ago I posted a brief critique of Pastor Don Johnson’s description of Convergent Christianity. I suggested that his list of characteristics really didn’t do much to clarify who or what these so-called Convergents are. What I would like to do is to go back over his list one item at a time. In my discussion I would like to do two things. First, I wish to take a guess at explaining what each item might mean. Second, I would like to evaluate whether that item really differentiates Convergents from either fundamentalists or mainstream evangelicals.
I’ll be doing this for fun and not out of any obligation. Consequently, I’m only going to work on it when I feel like it. Don’t expect to see something every day or even every week. And don’t expect my discussion to be researched and documented. I’ll be relying upon more than a half century of life within fundamentalism, forty years of which have been spent in the formal study of and research into the fundamentalist and evangelical movements.
As background, it is worth noting that both separatist fundamentalism and the New Evangelicalism developed out of an older mainstream evangelicalism. This older evangelicalism, which dominated American Christianity from about 1870 to 1920, was not really a movement. It was simply the way things were. Just before the turn of the century, awareness dawned upon these people that a new heterodoxy was invading their denominations. There were various efforts (e.g., The Fundamentals) to restate Christian orthodoxy in the face of this theological liberalism, but few attempts to oust the liberals from their increasingly powerful positions of influence.
The first concentrated political opposition to liberalism was the Conference on Baptist Fundamentals in 1920. This militant group wanted to truncate the influence of liberalism in the Northern Baptist Convention. These leaders both clung to the great fundamentals and meant to do battle royal for the fundamentals. Curtis Lee Laws called these men fundamentalists, and the name stuck. Similar groups arose both in other denominations and within interdenominational evangelicalism.
It is worth noting that not everybody who was orthodox (evangelical) was fundamentalist. It is also worth noting that the fundamentalists themselves were of different sorts. Some hoped that smiling protests would prove an adequate way of addressing liberalism. Others wanted to purge the liberals out of their denominations, but failing that, they were content to remain within the denominations and in fellowship with the liberals. Still others were determined to end fellowship with the liberals, even if it meant leaving their denominations.
In the long run, the fundamentalists did not succeed in ousting the liberals from any denomination. Also in the long run, only those who left the denominations kept the name fundamentalist. Non-fundamentalist evangelicals had various reasons for remaining in their denominations. Some still thought that they could fight the liberals in a sort of rearguard action. Others accepted fellowship with liberals as a sort of permanent stasis. It was this last group that eventually turned into the New Evangelicalism.
Fundamentalism first defined itself against liberalism; now it also defined itself against the New Evangelicalism. Fundamentalists saw liberals as enemies of the gospel, and that meant that New Evangelicals must be traitors to the gospel. Given this perspective, some form of separation had to occur. At minimum, the fundamentalists refused to cooperate with or participate in Neoevangelical enterprises. Many also critiqued the New Evangelicals for their lack of separatism.
It is important to note, however, that neither fundamentalism nor Neoevangelicalism constituted a majority of American evangelicalism. Most evangelicals fell in between. They saw liberalism (and its descendents) as a denial of the gospel, and they broke fellowship with it. Yet they could not bring themselves to limit fellowship with their New Evangelical brethren, or even to rebuke them publicly. The majority position was one of quiet disapproval of the tactics of New Evangelicals, but celebration of the results that the New Evangelicals achieved in evangelism and scholarship. This Silent Majority could be called the moderate evangelicals, and they controlled the principal institutions of American evangelicalism: the colleges and seminaries, the publishing houses, the mission agencies. They were the evangelical mainstream.
Some fundamentalists tried to act as if evangelicalism were divided into a two-party system, but that was never the case. By demanding that the moderate evangelicals choose sides, these fundamentalists tended to frighten them into the arms of the New Evangelicals. Over time, the influence of Neoevangelicalism began to flourish and that of separatist fundamentalism began to wane.
At the same time, each of the extremes was pushing further in its own direction. Some fundamentalists spun further and further Right into a hyper-fundamentalism, while some Neoevangelicals pushed the boundaries of inerrancy and other issues until they constituted the Evangelical Left. Reactions also took place on both sides. Shocked by the ugliness of hyper-fundamentalism, some fundamentalists began to soften their separatism. Appalled by the concessions of the Evangelical Left, some erstwhile New Evangelicals pulled back toward the moderate evangelical center, and some (e.g. Harold Lindsell) even began to consider using the name fundamentalist again. For a brief moment it looked as if the reactionary segments of the two movements might actually converge.
It did not happen. The evangelicals were not willing to surrender their identification with the broader evangelical movement (including Neoevangelicalism), and not many fundamentalists were willing to surrender their critique of the New Evangelicalism. What did happen is that those evangelicals who were moving to the Right began to stake out new territory of their own. They were eventually joined by the victorious conservatives from the Southern Baptist Convention. Together, these constituted what came to be known as Conservative Evangelicalism.
About ten years ago, Pastor Bob Bixby began to talk about what he called the “emerging middle.” As I understood him, he thought that younger fundamentalists were reacting against some of the extremes and abuses that they had seen in separatist fundamentalism. At the same time, he thought that Conservative Evangelicals were becoming more separatistic. He foresaw the possibility that these two streams might converge, resulting in a new via media between fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism. In fact, some who spoke of an “emerging middle” seemed to hope that mainstream, separatist fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals would discover that they actually believed in and stood for exactly the same things, eliminating the need to maintain distinct movements.
Of course, the situation was more complicated and the positions were more nuanced than many were willing to recognize. It quickly became clear that no middle was going to emerge; indeed, I once heard Dan Ebert refer to the idea as an “emerging muddle.” Yet the hope of a middle ground has not disappeared.
While the FBFI has not been quite clear, I think that they are using the label Convergent to specify this never-realized-but-still-hoped-for middle group, this tertium quid between separatist fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism. At best, Convergence is presently a mood or attitude, represented by scattered advocates here and there. So far as I am aware it controls no institutions and has started none of its own. At most it is represented by a handful of bloggers.
The FBFI does not think that this Convergent position is a healthy one; I am inclined to agree with them. It is likely that Convergence, if it ever concretizes into a movement, will be indistinguishable from Conservative Evangelicalism. For the moment, however, I am more interested in trying to understand more clearly what defines this mood. And I’m going to be using Pastor Johnson’s list of characteristics as my starting point.
APPLICATION & AID