American Church Watch: Ending Postmodern Sexual Compromises

Highlights below--in yellow--suggest our thoughts.  Evangelicalism is the new theological liberalism of yesteryear.  Give it 25 years.  Depth of theology does not occur with the Rick Warrens and Bill Hybels.  Or, with the TBN-enthusiasts or followers of Jimmy Swaggart.  Anecdotes and "it's all about me" stories abound.  Exegetes and systematicians are in short order and short demand.  Of course, the liberals in the mainline are falling like dominoes--TEC, PCUSA, UCC, etc.  There are no surprises there.  But, watching incompetent evangelicals, like Tim Keller and associates, or Joel Osteen and his enthusiasts, or Philip Yancey and Christianity Today, equivocate is an entirely new development.  Should we be surprised?  Not really.  For the evangelicals, essentially Anabaptistic and Holiness groups, they have no Confessional anchors.  They have no liturgical foundations or formation.  The public prayers are so devoid of dignity and depth..."Father God, we just wanna thank ya'..."  Never mind a discussion about the two sacraments.  They have no depth.  They embrace anti-intellectualism more often than not. Their music, the contemporary junk, is so thin, ya’ can't see it…and it’s always so loud that legitimate thinking can’t occur.  The modern or contemporary music scene is one avenue by which "dumbing down" occurs. The salt has lost its savour. We anticipate that new realignments will emerge in the next three decades.  While this is pessimistic, yet God will not be abandoning His people any time soon. Although the lights dim, confidence and trust in His Dread and Sovereign Majesty is present with Confessional Churchmen, burning in the dark.  Predestination and election provide such comfort for evangelism, missions, and disciple-making.  It ain't the first time most of the lights have gone out. Post tenebras, lux!

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16350

ENDING POSTMODERN SEXUAL COMPROMISE OF THE GOSPEL

By Philip Rosenthal
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2012/07/ending-postmodern-sexual-compromi se-of.html
July 27, 2012

Earlier this month, homosexual activists complained to the Advertising Standards Authority against a billboard by 'Light of the nations church', Pretoria which said that Jesus could set people free from a list of sins, which included homosexuality. The activists argued that Jesus cannot set people free from homosexuality in contradiction to the Bible (1 Corinthians 6:11) Tragically, without even trying to defend the gospel, the church responded by deleting the word 'homosexuality' from the billboard. http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=6169

On their Facebook page, July 13 Pastor Deric Linley said the church's philosophy had not changed but the deletion had been to "a show of a non-judgmental spirit to the gay community. Because of this attitude, we have gay members in our church; and because our members already know our unchanged philosophy on this ... "Rather have homosexual people in a church with a good attitude, than heterosexual people with a bad attitude..." Actually, the ASASA has no juristiction over any church and is just bullying - it is a voluntary association. Sadly, a few years back on court instruction Moreleta Park church apologised to a homosexual music teacher they had fired for his immorality.

Is this an isolated incident? Sadly not. Evangelical pastors and churches from almost all theological and denominational camps are capitulating like dominoes to the homosexual agenda and other sexual compromise - some more publicly than others.

But lets move focus to some of the bigger names in evangelicalism: Tim Keller, Reformed scholar, mega-church pastor and one of the founder-leaders of the Gospel Coalition when asked whether homosexuality is a sin and whether homosexuals are going to hell replied "...it is very misleading to say, 'Homosexuality is a sin' But that's not what sends you to heaven or Hell...."We would say homosexuality is not the original design for sexuality. Therefore, it's not good for human flourishing." The homosexual interviewer cited the Bible, but Keller, under pressure of an interviewer, buckled and fudged the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZFCB9sduxQ (The answer to that question is simple: Yes homosexuality is a sin;  Yes homosexuals are going to hell unless they repent of such sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Shockingly, this video is posted without criticism, correction or apology by the Veritas Forum, which purports to promote Biblical worldview.

In April this year, Andy Stanley, senior pastor of Northpoint mega-church in Atlanta preached a sermon with a case example about grace in his church. A man in his church left his wife for a homosexual relationship and the man and his new partner wanted to serve as volunteers in the church. Stanley told the man he needed to divorce his wife first, before he could do so. The story ends with the homosexual couple, the first man's ex-wife and their child, as well as her new boyfriend and his child from another relationship, all coming together to worship together church. http://global.christianpost.com/news/pastor-andy-stanley-responds-to-questio ns-over-homosexuality-stance-74262/#CGihldEQ4fcti11L.99

The implication is that homosexuality is okay, but adultery is not - and that divorce can legitimise marital unfaithfulness. Stanley has been strongly challenged but has not yet clarified his views. Stanley sends ministry teams to South Africa and his books are on sale here.

Many more similar examples could be given. Philip Yancey, Christianity Today editor and popular author gives a muddled view http://www.philipyancey.com/q-and-a-topics/homosexuality.  Why are his books still stocked and why is he an editor of this magazine?

Is this just about homosexuality? No. Is the issue about sexuality in general? No. The issue is bigger than that. What is at stake is the gospel itself: Jesus power to save. Our right to proclaim it. The definition of sin.

What is the message of the gospel? Subtly... step by step… the gospel is being eroded. And the gospel is an issue for which we must be prepared to suffer unpopularity and if necessary die. When Paul rebuked Peter in Galations 2:11 the issue that let him to write that blisteringly angry letter was not just circumcision or even Jewish-Gentile race relations. The issue was the gospel. Paul didn't get madly upset about the circumcision issue until people started linking it to a false gospel - and that is what we have here too - the argument that Jesus cannot save people from homosexuality. On that issue we must not flinch in the face of persecution.

THE PATH OF COMPROMISE

When challenged, such people will usually argue they still believe what the Bible says about homosexuality - but they are compromising on the installment plan - each year, such churches are sliding a little bit further. Lets look at the slippery slope of compromise (not necessarily in order):

* The use of homosexual language which carry their assumptions: For example: 'gay' instead of 'homosexual'. 'orientation' instead of 'sin'.

* Accepting the assumption that homosexuals are a discriminated group needing protection - so called 'gay rights'.

* Compromise 'fall-back' political positions rejecting the worst demands of the homosexual agenda, but accepting the old ones. For example, opposing 'same-sex marriage', but accepting 'civil unions'; accepting 'same-sex marriage' but opposing homosexual adoption; opposing civil unions, but accepting anti-discrimination legislation etc.

* Apologising to the homosexual community for the 'hurt' caused by the churches 'unloving' attitude - creating a false guilt and excuse for futher cowardice with the gospel.

* Accepting homosexuality as an 'identity/sexual orientation' rather than a sin - failing to distinguish between a temptation someone struggles with but fights and something people just live with like a disability.

* Talking about 'gay christians' and 'gay churches' - as if there was such a thing.

* Preaching half-truths with lies and loaded messages: - Preaching against 'all forms of discrimination & judgmentalism' while lumping homosexuality together with things people cannot change such as race and HIV status. Thus implying that homosexuality can't be changed as with these other things.

- Preaching trivialising sodomy and other sexual sin by putting it in the same category as much lesser sins - and then arguing we are all sin all the time so we should not make a big deal about sexual sin. (The Bible does categorise some sins as more serious than others, for example by the death penalty specified in the Old Covenant, the requirement of excommunication and the social effects of some sins can be seen as more destructive than others.)

- Preaching that homosexuals must just 'be celibate', while failing to preach that even celibate homosexual relationships and entertaining such lusts are also sinful.

- Being silent on the issue of homosexuality. - Avoiding the whole concept of sin and repentance for it, and applying psychological language of 'problems' and 'brokenness'.

* Affirming the pro-homosexual misinterpretaton of the Bible as 'clever' without correcting it.

* Relationships with homosexual activist 'christians', thus given them credibility:

- Accepting homosexual activists claiming to be homosexual Christians as brothers

- Eating with homosexual activists, while the scripture says we must not (1 Corinthians 5:11) as did Mega-church pastor Bill Hybels of Willow Creek (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-06-09/news/0806080226_1_gay-christi ans-willow-creek-community-church-rev-bill-hybels)

* Distancing, speaking against and even persecuting groups opposing homosexuality and presenting the true gospel to them - in order to get more acceptance from the homosexual community.

* The gospel message:

- Shifting from 'evangelising' homosexuals by challenging them to repent of sin with the gospel to 'dialoguing with them'.

- Shifting from trying to help people 'out of homosexuality' to trying help people to 'live with' the problem.

- Changing the message from holiness to treating people as 'victims of sexual brokeness' which ignores the whole concept of sin.

* Allowing homosexuals to be in the office of a pastor: - first, provided that they are celibate. - then, even if not celibate provided they are 'married' to their homosexual partner. - then into more senior church positions. - then with no constraints.

* Turning a blind eye to open homosexual couples attending church together, and failing to challenge their sin.

* Implying that our position on homosexuality is open to change in future but not right now - for example Emerging Church leader Brian McLaren (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/open-letter-to-brian-mclaren.html)

* Arguing that one cannot speak against homosexuality unless one has first passed all sorts of requirements of close experience with homosexuals - for example Brian McLaren.

* Performing ungodly ceremonies: - Civil unions - Same-sex marriages

There is so much compromise on this issue that many people are unaware they are compromising or think they are doing well by not compromising as much as some other church or false-teacher.

While some more biblical christians may be shocked by the above and think they would never get into such confusion, they don't take into account two factors:

* OUTREACH RISKS: Those who get involved in any kind of outreach ministry to sinful people are under pressure to compromise to more easily reach them. If you are not doing such outreach you are not currently at such risk, but such outreach is dangerous. Yes, do the outreach, but a church or group should get into such outreach very cautiously and with determination not to compromise - bearing in mind how many people have got into compromise before them. The same is true of pro-life outreach (where some start affirming a pro-choice position to try save more babies), divorce outreach, scandal challenging, Muslim evangelism (compare the Insider movement).

* SOCIAL PRESSURE: If a whole community starts to compromise, the pressure mounts for you to compromise also to stay in with the group - only the only way to avoid compromise is to move. As this problem grows, more and more groups are buckling and if you are not careful you may too.

* NEW GENERATION CONFUSION: Older people grew up taking for granted biblical teaching on homosexuality, but many of our Christian youth have never properly heard it due to the cowardice and neglect of preachers. That have accepted by default many of the above views of the culture. If you don't teach your children and get them into a good church, they will probably be confused too.

DO YOU SEE THESE SIGNS IN YOUR CHURCH?

Not all backsliding churches and leaders are following these steps in the same order. If a pastor makes a mistake, lovingly point it out and give him a chance to correct it, but if he doesn't - and your church is showing several or repeated signs of compromise as listed above, be very concerned but not surprised. You need to challenge it from the scripture, pray for your church and pastor. Probably you also need to look for another church - painful as that may be to say goodbye to the community you love - but if the leadership want to go that way, then you will probably not be able to long resist backsliding yourself and with your family. Rather give your money, your time and your life to building up a healthy church.

If your own church is safe and healthy on this issue, thank God for this and keep praying for and encouraging your pastor. But this toxic compromise needs a wider response.

When Ezra returned to Jerusalem and heard about the sin and compromise of the returning exiles (Ezra 9), he lay on the floor and wept. It is not just the liberals who have sinned and compromised, but our own evangelical leadership. These men who have compromised include OUR evangelical leaders of OUR organisations. Let us pray for God to forgive the compromise of the Western evangelical church - otherwise God may reject and destroy us as he has judged other compromised churches in the past.

We are going to win this fight and Biblical Christianity will outlast this compromise but many currently seemingly thriving churches will go ICHABOD (1 Samuel 4) - God will abandon them because of their compromising.

Post comments at: http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2012/07/ending-postmodern-sexual-compromi se-of.html

Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by the Rev. Dr. Carl Trueman

The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Carl Trueman explores the necessity of clear confessions of faith.  "Why reinvent the wheel?" he asks. 

C.J. Mahaney Unsurprisingly Re-instated

The man, the myth, the legend, the scholar,
the enthusiast, the high school graduate
 and premier Baptacostalist...a man for the
history books

This is not surprising. Reformation Anglicanism investigated the issue for five months.  This Baptacostalist Apostle, Prophet, Moses, Paul and Emperor was the victim of his own large ignorance like those who followed him.   Many have left SGM. We are not surprised by Baptyerians like Ligon Duncan or Anabaptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler. Here's a recent lamentation by a former Mahaney-ite, schooled in the authoritarianism of SGM's past, Brent Detwiler.  As an aside, for RA readers, do not waste a penny on any of the books by Mahaney or SGM-teachers.  Consistent with the distinctive of anti-intellectualism in doctrine, worship and piety, those books show it.  Those books won't appeal to "men and women of discerning spirits."  If one has been reared on the Bible, expository preaching, the Reformed standards, including catechetization and memory work, and involved in Anglican worship, one would have--in a nanosecond--sniffed this from 1000 yards out.  But, being a competent mountebank, Mahaney impressed those without discernment or the disciplines of depth.  He would cryingly whisper to the silence of a pin drop, wildly gesticulate, crisscross the stage, invoke wailing hand-waving, and tolerate worship of himself by many.  A word to discerning youth and learners: steer clear and pass the word.  Here's Brent Detwiler's recent lamentation about Mahaney.

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/2/13/reinstatement-of-cj-big-news.html
Reinstatement of C.J. Big News

Monday, February 13, 2012 at 4:49PM

Today I received the latest edition of World Magazine. Here is the write up on C.J.’s reinstatement. I am the sole accuser. No systemic problems.

“The board of directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries reinstated C.J. Mahaney as president of the Maryland based church-planting ministry. Last June, Mahaney began a voluntary leave of absence after former Sovereign Grace leader Brent Detwiler accused him of pride, deceit and hypocrisy. Mahaney said he only plans to resume the role of president temporarily, noting that he would like to return pastoral ministry and the pulpit.” (World Magazine, Feb 25, 2012)

Seven months ago, Ligon Duncan commented on his blog that SGM was taking the high road. Somehow the “outside review” never materialized and SGM ended up on the low road.

“It would have been very easy for the leadership of SGM to ignore and dismiss these charges, because so many of them are so evidently self-serving and spurious accusations. But instead, the leadership of SGM has taken the high road, or rather they have chosen to go the way of self-examination, submission to outside review and correction, self-abasement and repentance. It just makes me love and respect them all the more.” (Ligon Duncan, July 12, 2011)

Al Mohler spoke in similar fashion. Like DeYoung, Ortlund, and Trueman, he found nothing of concern in my documents. We all know what happened to the “independent investigation.” It was killed in its infancy by the SGM Board.

“’I always have had only the highest estimation of C.J. Mahaney as a man and a minister,’ Mohler said in an interview. ‘That continues absolutely unchanged. There is nothing in this current situation which would leave me to have even the slightest pause of confidence in him.’… Mohler said he believes Mahaney and the Sovereign Grace board are being prudent in planning an independent investigation from people outside the denomination to make sure those involved are above reproach…. ‘There is nothing disqualifying in terms of anything that is disclosed in this [the documents]’” (Peter Smith, newspaper reporter, July 12, 2011)

Expect more of this in the days to come. Together for the Gospel is coming up on April 10-12. John MacArthur is no longer counted among the five but expect Dever, Duncan, Mohler (and lesser lights) to heap praise upon C.J. for his humility and the SGM Board for their unbiased investigation.

Rev. Absalom Jones: First African-American Anglican Cleric, Philadelphia

An interesting story emerges below.  It is about one of the first African-American "Anglican" clerics in U.S. history: Rev. Absalom Jones.  A few surmisals that need historical documents.  First, these Churchmen and Churchwomen probably used the 1789 Book of Common Prayer.  We do not get historic documentation, however. We need that.  Second, this instrument would have invoked literacy, learning and deliberativeness amongst African-Americans.  But, many blacks like whites got caught up with revivalists.  In this story, we believe Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphian, who supported Rev. Absalom Jones was himself an Anglican.  Also, Rev. Jones learned to read in his earlier years.  We surmise also that he was familiar with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  Third, Reformation Anglicanism remembers this story.  I met an African-American "Presbyterian" Chaplain.  He traced his educational and confessional lineage back to Lexington, VA, and Gen. Stonewall Jackson's catechetical work with black children.  The Navy Chaplain said this established reading and educational standards that influenced his generations. This Navy Chaplain studied under the competent church historian, the Rev. Dr. Jack Gerstner. Fourth, another story.  The Rev. Geoffrey Hubbard (D.Phil., Oxford) established a work in the inner city of Philadelphia years ago.  The sizeable and non-literate Vietnamese population brought their children to Christ Church (formerly Reformed Episcopal Church).  The goal of the parents:  teach the children to read, e.g. The Book of Common Prayer, to learn theology and to learn English.  As usual, our larger narrative is the influence of the Book of Common Prayer on good order, literacy, decency, education, decorum, and Protestant and Reformed doctrine, worship and piety.  An interesting "lead" here on an African-American Anglican cleric with other surmisals on view.  The story follows below.

The Black Church

Rev. Absalom Jones, African-American
Prayer Book Churchman

When Richard Allen was 17 and the slave of a Delaware planter, he experienced a religious conversion that changed his life forever. For Allen, spiritual liberation led to physical liberation, as his master was also converted to Methodism and agreed to let Allen buy his freedom because slavery was questioned by his new faith. Allen went on to preach throughout South Carolina, New York, Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania, before settling in Philadelphia, where he dreamed of founding an African church.


Absalom Jones did not earn his freedom until the age of 38. As a child he was a servant in his master's house, where he learned to read. In 1770, at age 23, he wed fellow slave Mary. The two worked and saved, first to purchase Mary's freedom after 8 years, and then for six more years until Jones' owner let him buy his own freedom.


The African Church of Philadelphia was made reality through the Free African Society established by Allen and Absalom Jones. With the help of Benjamin Rush and Robert Ralston, a white businessman, FAS leaders drew up a plan to organize the African Church on July 25, 1791. Soon thereafter, Allen, Jones, and others began soliciting funds, again with the help of Rush. Their appeals met with resistance from white church leaders, many of whom had been supportive of the black community, but disapproved of a separate black church. However, work on the church was again postponed by the Yellow Fever epidemic, but was resumed in December 1793. The FAS was non-denominational, including mostly Episcopal and Methodist members, but the majority of the blacks in the group favored uniting with the Episcopal Church. The African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas, one of the first black churches in the country, opened its doors on July 17, 1794.  However, the FAS raised enough money to buy two adjacent lots on Fifth Street, just one block from the State House [emphasis added].

For more, see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3narr3.html 

Pastor Peters (LCMS) on Loss of Christian Culture

A confessional Lutheran Pastor, Pastor Peters, speaks to the issue of the lament over the loss of Christian Culture

http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2011/12/lament-of-loss-of-christian-culture.html

The Lament of the Loss of Christian Culture

I know that it has become fashionable this time of year to lament the unfriendliness of our culture to things religious and especially to things Christian about Christmas. Folks have forwarded a ton of emails to me about the creches removed from the public square, the holiday greetings that have displaced "Merry Christmas," and the secular character of this holy day (even among Christian practices in the home and marketplace). I once thought this was also a terrible thing but now I do not get so excited about it all.

First of all it was never the job of culture to preserve Christ in Christmas. It was and has always been the job of the Church. So if Wal-Mart does not say "Merry Christmas" and K-Mart markets tasteless Christmas gift ideas and Old Navy only has "holiday gift cards" that do not say Christmas on them, so what? When was it ever their job or their place to market the faith for us Christians or for the Church? It has always been up to the baptized and believing people of God and to the structures of the Church to keep the Christ in the Christ Mass -- something we have been rather lazy about and have grown too comfortable deferring to the state and to the marketplace.

Second, whoever said that a culture can be Christian? Only people can be Christian. Nations are Christmas not because of heritage but because their people confess Jesus Christ. To say that a country is Christian is to acknowledge the faith of the majority or the largest minority of a people in which no faith has a majority. Nations cannot be Christian. Christianity is not a legacy but a faith, born of baptism and confessed in word and deed, and marked by the gathering of the baptized around the Word and Table of the Lord. People are Christian. Not nations. Not culture. To be sure, culture may be influenced greatly by the Christian people who did and do express that culture and shape it. But culture is not Christianity. The means of grace (aka Church) and the people set apart by those means of grace -- they are Christian and that is Christianity.

We all know that the American consumer culture uses Christmas to turn a profit. Some of you think that this is worst thing on earth. What are the options? Putting all those people who work at Wal-Mart and Target and the Mall and the shipping companies and distribution centers and manufacturers out of business? Perhaps it would be better if people did not blow their whole wad at Christmas and then borrow more to make it even better. I am not arguing that. Culture is not responsible because culture does not shop. People shop. So let Wal-Mart et al have the holiday but make sure that Christians and the Church keep the holy day. If we are faithful in keeping the holy day of the Nativity of Our Lord, we will not have to worry so much about what goes on in the marketplace. Instead of dealing with what is ours to care for, we rant and rave about the terrible injustice of school "Winter Breaks" or office "holiday parties" or "Season's Greetings" on the marquees and gift cards across America. We end up spending all our energy trying to make culture and country Christian and have little time or energy left to make sure that the Church and her members keep the Christ Mass with repentant and believing hearts, rejoicing in the eternal gift of a Savior who is God's Son in human flesh and blood, and re-telling His story to a world of people groaning in want and need of redemption.
Russ Saltzman said it better here. So did Todd Wilken here. Todd's point is well taken. Why is it that Christians get their noses bent out of joint at the secular character of the Christmas holiday and then settle for a Christ absent from the preaching and liturgical life of too many churches all year round? If we cannot clean up our own act and make sure that the Christ of the manger and the cross is the center of our proclamation and His presence in the means of grace the center of our worship, how can we ever expect to stand up to the Wal-Marts of the world in reshaping the culture and the nation for the Christ whom we believe, confess, and teach?

How can we keep Christ out of Christmas. It is not a choice we can make between a religious celebration or a secular one. It is a truth we recognize and confess by the power of the Holy Spirit. Let them do what they will with the holiday. If we surrender the Holy Day, it is not because of the encroaching secular culture. It is because we have voluntarily surrendered the faith and given up our hope in Him who came.

Am I miffed that the world has become a far more complex place than when I was a child? Sure. Does it get to me that the schools and marketplace work harder than ever to NOT mention Christ at Christmas? Sure. But what really bothers me is that churches that claim to be Christian preach anything and everything except Christ and Him crucified, that worship has become religious entertainment, and that Pastors have use it all to become the chief personalities of their congregations. And it really gets to me when this happens among those who claim to be Lutheran....

Prelim Review: Mike Horton's "Christless Christianity," 9-28.

Preliminary Review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), pp. 9-27

The Rev. Dr. Mike Horton raises provocative, expansive, and important questions about American, if not English and Western, Christianity across seven short, fast and readable chapters. We ponder Mike’s opening salvo in Chapter 1. Mike has been thinking a long time on this proposition.  In light of God's Being, Word, our Confessions and liturgies, what shall think?

We ponder chapter 1, pp. 9-27, Mike’s introduction and opening salvo. Chapter 1, “Christless Christianity,” is so entitled like the book itself, "Christless Christianity." As a Reformed and Calvinistic Anglican of an older sort than most readers, the questions Mike raises resonate but invokes wider questions. (As a Senior Churchman, this scribe comfortably calls him “Mike” rather than Dr., Professor, Rev’d, or the like. I easily call Bishops by their first names. I also call USMC Generals and USN Admirals by their first names. Never mind the Colonels and Captains. Mike won't get a pass, like other Profs.) Where is Mike going in chapter 1, his setting and setup for the remaining six chapters? Is his claim too expansive?

Mike’s theme is that America, across the theological divide, Protestant liberal or evangelical, is fast becoming “Christless.” Mike says, “In fact, my sense urgency...is pervasive, crossing the conservative-liberal spectrum and all denomination lines” (Horton, 27). That is the grand thesis, the widespread drift towards Christlessness.

If the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, the church’s assimilation to the world—according to Mike—is the silencing of the biblical message. In short, here is Mike’s thinking: God and His redemptive story versus the narcissistic, American, co-hortative and trumping story of God as our life coach (supporting “our story”). Mike says:

Jesus has been dressed up as a corporate CEO, life coach, culture-warrior, political revolutionary, political revolutionary, philosopher, copilot, cosufferer, moral example, and partner in fulfilling our personal and social regimes. But in all of these ways, are we reducing the central character in the drama of redemption to a prop for our own play? (Horton, 25, emphasis added)

(The answer is preliminarily obvious.) This is an important question, the co-opting of the biblical message with redefinitions to suit modern predilections—ourselves and our own narcissistic narrative.  Mike’s thesis is that these self-aggrandizing redefinitions define the grand, national, and trans-denominational narrative. Implicit is the sub-text that Americans are falling prey to the redefinitions, not due to lack of zeal, although that—itself—warrants examination. Can Mike sustain the enquiry and cross-examination? Mike’s thesis and cross-examination warrant inquiry.

Mike limits his thematic liabilities to four large caveats—caveats that are as wide as his fears and his singular claim. The defenses, or caveats, are quite large.

The caveats are as follows.  First, Mike tells us, there are many faithful Pastors, congregations and Churchmen who are exempt from the claim. This single caveat appears to be as wide as the claim itself, to wit and in summary (and essence): “Let me, Mike, indict the entire nation, all publishing enterprises, all media centers of advertisement, all churches, all seminaries, all writings, all Professors, and all pulpits while excluding all those to whom the massive indictment might be imputed.” Big stuff! Mike’s claim cannot get much wider, but he makes it. Obviously, one shall require a wide set of sociological data to get at this…that awaits us. Second, the endpoint of “Christlessness” is not here, Mike avers, but “we are well on our way." Clear specifics are needed: definitions and specific dates, names, and quotes and needed. We are reminded of B.B. Warfield’s similar prognostications about Protestantism in the late 19th-century. How and where will Mike extricate himself, if at all? Third, the issue of zeal is not at bar, but rather: deeds rather than creeds. Aside from Mike, one thinks of Rick Warren’s infamous, famous, fatuous, anti-intellectual, non-confessional, anti-historic, anti-liturgical and gross, if not most highly stupid, claim to this effect…deeds not creeds. It is hard to believe that a pulpiteer would make this stupid claim, but Warren has and did: Deeds rather than creeds.  Halfwits will approve, not careful and thoughtful Churchmen or Churchwomen.  This ignorant claim finds roots in Protestant liberalism in the late 19th-early 20th century. Fourth, larger inquiries on the matter are referred by Mike to his three other books: Made in America, Power Religion, and Beyond Culture Wars. A brief summary by Mike would have been helpful here…even a paragraph. Ergo, Mike’s expansive claim needs those contexts for fairness. Clearly, Mike has been thinking about this thesis for years. Due to that alone, Mike warrants a careful ear. Is this book simply an update and rehash of the earlier ones? We’ll see. Mike’s concern is that evangelicalism is not just like theological liberalism, but is becoming theologically vacuous (Horton, 23). That is hardly novel.  He quotes the evangelical Anglican, John Stott, to wit, “growth without depth.” That is hardly new. Mike’s four caveats in Chapter 1 are self-limiting propositions that insulate him from counter-objections and wider liabilities and rebuttals.  Mike, that is convenient and unhelpful.

Having said that, Mike’s inquiry and proposition warrants additional scrutiny. Confessional Lutherans will, if catechetized, feel the force of Mike’s proposition. To the extent that a Presbyterian has ingested his Westminster standards, he or she shall feel the force of the inquest. Ditto, for Reformed Anglicans reared in the Reformed faith and the old Prayer Book. Baptacostals, we suppose, Mike's target audience, will not feel the force of the question, given their backgrounds.  In fact, Mike seems to incessantly be arguing with his own non-confessional, non-liturgical, and broadly evangelical background--with American revivalists, Anabaptists, dispensationalists, and other non-confessional evangelicals.  While that is not our background, it is Mike's and he is working it. Whatever the background, Mike's proposition MUST BE ENGAGED.  Mike's question hangs in the air melodramatically, earnestly, liturgically, confessionally, biblically and with concern. 

Rightly or wrongly, Mike's question and asseveration--notwithstanding his caveats--must be engaged and answered.  Catholic Christians of the Reformation need to engage and answer Mike's challenges.  To him, Mike, we are thankful.  Thank you, Michael.

Yet, is it simply a re-baked thesis in search of publication?  To wit, is it Baker or Horton simply seeking a rehatch of an old idea?  As to Baker Books, we have little doubt that a $$-growth-narrative is involved.  If a Baker-rehatch of an old idea from Mike's older books, this one from e.g. 2009, Mike had been working on a far more important project--The Christian Faith (1000 pages).  While we distrust publishers in Grand Rapids, MI, Mike's concerns are not doubted, assuredly.  We know his concerns from earlier years. More to follow.

The Second Sunday in Advent.
The Collect.
O BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Nature of Worship by Revd D.B. Knox

www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_071_2_Knox.pdf

The Nature of Worship
Churchman 071/2 1957
Revd D. B. Knox

What is the chief end of man? A generally accepted answer is “to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever”. But how is God glorified? The Scriptures answer that man glorifies God by trusting Him and living by His promises: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorify me” (Ps. 50. 15). “Looking unto the promise of God Abraham wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God” (Rom. iv. 20).

Absolute faith and trust in God is the true worship and honouring of God. This is clear from a consideration of the character of God. For our concept of God’s character controls the worship we offer Him and our worship reflects our concept of His character. For example, the action of the priests of Baal on Mt. Carmel reflected clearly their concept of their deity.

Christian worship should reflect the Christian concept of God. The most distinctive feature of the doctrine of God in the New Testament is the stress laid on the righteous love of God, and it was this aspect of God’s character that was once more made the centre of worship in Reformation times.

Medieval doctrine and worship obscured the love of God. Purgatory was the anticipated lot after death, while life here was made miserable by the belief that God was pleased by asceticism, self-torture and painful “good works”. That God was a cruel tyrant was, in Tyndale’s judgment, the opinion of the common people of his time, who dared not pray to God directly, but only through the intercession of the Virgin and the saints.

The Reformers emphasized the biblical doctrine of the love of God. The leading theological concept which controlled the thought of all the Reformers, Calvin and Zwingli, as well as Luther, was their sense of the love, goodness and beneficence of God. The love of God is not an abstract attribute but is ever active in self-giving. Its most distinctive activity is the provision of complete redemption in Christ. The attempt to patch out this complete redemption by the addition of our own good works was, as is well known, the centre of the Reformers’ controversy with the Church of Rome. The Catechism of the Council of Trent declared that “painful and laborious works are a compensation for past sin. They must in some way be disagreeable.” But the Reformers insisted that this Roman doctrine was not to be found in Scripture, and moreover was contradicted by Scripture, which clearly teaches that there is complete and full forgiveness of all sin to all who will call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The gratuitousness, or gift character, of salvation is the outcome of, and is itself a revelation of, the wonderful love of God. The full provision and the free offer of salvation in Jesus Christ is the supreme example, as far as sinful sinners are concerned, of God’s love.

How should such a God be worshipped? How do we honour and acknowledge His character?
The Reformers answered that trust in God’s love is the only adequate way of acknowledging this His nature. Other elements of worship, as adoration, praise, thanksgiving, offering, are consequences of the supreme worship and acknowledgment that God is the God that He is.

Such acknowledgment is rendered by our trusting Him and by our accepting His provision. The statement that faith (i.e., trust in God’s promises) is the essence of Christian worship occurs frequently in the Reformers’ writings. Thus in Joye’s Primer of 1529 (which is the earliest Prayer Book to appear in English) there is this anthem: “The highest praise and greatest glory that we may give to God is to believe His promise and to verify it with our faith”. In his preface to his translation of Isaiah, published in 1531, Joye wrote: “Praise and glorify we God when we believe that Christ is given us to die for our righteous-making”. This doctrine finds support in Scripture, e.g., in Psalm 1, where the writer deprecated worship through animal sacrifices and said that the true worship acceptable with God is to put trust in Him in time of trouble (Ps.1. 15). Similarly, in Psalm cxvi, the Psalmist states that the true worship of a thankful heart, sensible of God’s mercies already received, is rendered, paradoxically, by the acceptance of God’s supreme mercy in the provision of salvation (Ps. cxvi. 13; cf. John vi. 29).

The Reformers taught that faith is worship and is the basic way of acknowledging God’s essential character of self-giving. The application of this doctrine to the private devotional life is straightforward. Every day brings its opportunities of trusting God, and so acknowledging that He is trustworthy, that He is indeed a God of love. So all life becomes worship and there is no divorce between Sunday and the weekday.

Private Bible reading is an essential concomitant of the worship of faith. In order to live the life of faith the promises of God must be known. For faith in something which has not the promise of God is superstition, and indeed, idolatry. For it involves trust in something created by men’s imagination and will, in place of trust in the true God as He has revealed Himself.

This thought was the basis of the repeated charge of idolatry that the Reformers brought against the Papists. To put trust for salvation in rites which had no other support than church tradition was idolatry, and the depriving of the true God of His due honour. Yet medieval worship consisted in almost nothing else than this. For this reason, the reading of the Bible and its exposition in the sermon are essential and central elements in public worship. For unless the people hear the Scriptures in their own language and understand the meaning, their faith cannot be rightly directed to the true promises of God.

The Holy Communion office of the Book of Common Prayer illustrates how the Reformers
applied the doctrine that faith is worship to that service. It begins with the recitation of the Ten Commandments, the summary of God’s law, so that the worshipper may realize his need of God’s mercy. The law drives us to Christ.

In the Absolution which follows the Confession, it is noticeable how the emphasis falls on the promises of God to forgive repentant and believing sinners. This was deliberate; for, years before, when the Bishops’ Book was being revised, Cranmer had protested to Henry VIII about the form of absolution in the King’s amendments to that book, “The promise . . . is stricken out, which chiefly ought to be known”. (Incidentally, it is worth noting that all the forms of absolution in our prayer book mention God’s promise of forgiveness. It is a defect of the 1928 book that it is not so in it.)

As the service proceeds there are many foci for faith in the passages of Scripture, in the sermon, in the exhortation, and especially in the four comfortable words, which were introduced into the service by the Reformers. But God’s character is seen supremely in the words of institution, in the fraction and in the distribution. Here ear, eye and taste combine to write on the soul’s consciousness the fact of God’s love in Jesus Christ for lost sinners. The Reformers insisted that the manual acts of the celebrant should be visible, and the words which accompanied them clearly enunciated in the common language. For these things strengthen faith, which adores God’s grace by receiving His provision. The worshipper’s action of coming forward and receiving and eating the bread and wine when he hears the words of our Lord, “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you . . . for the remission of sins,” expresses his consciousness of his need and of his faith in God’s provision for it. On the other hand, the action of the non-communicating attender, continuing to sit in his seat when he hears the invitation of his Lord, is expressive of an attitude inconsistent with a true Christian worshipper. That is why the 1552 prayer book, as well as the Homilies, direct the non-communicating attender to leave before this part of the service is reached. Incidentally, the excellency of the order in our present canon may be noted in which the invitation in the words of institution is closely followed by the response of faith accepting God’s provision, and our offering of ourselves to God follows our acceptance of the primary offering, God’s offering of Himself to us.

Faith is essentially personal. A faith which does not accept for itself is an undetected lie. In this connection it is noteworthy the fourfold repetition in the brief words of institution of the words “for thee”, “given for thee,” “shed for thee”. John Frith, martyred in 1533, almost twenty years before this communion service was composed, showed what was the Reformers’ intention in stressing these words “for thee”. He wrote:

“In this supper we hear Christ speaking to us, feeding us with His body, proffering us that we should drink His blood for eternal life. When He saith, ‘Take, eat, this is my body, which for you is given . . .,’ good brother, think that these words be spoken to thee. Print them most deeply in thy mind, for when He speaketh to all He speaketh also to thee, to thee; to thee I say they profit. All things that Christ hath supplied shall profit thee no less than they do help Peter and Paul, for the promise soundeth so, the which he that receiveth by faith and believeth that which He hath saith ‘given for you and shed out for you’, hath and obtained without doubt remission of his sins.”

Faith and worship reach their climax in the service in “taking the cup of salvation” which the love of God provided for needy sinners. There follows further faith for daily needs (the Lord’s Prayer); the offering of ourselves, our souls and bodies; the prayer of thanksgiving, and the adoration of the Gloria.

The whole emphasis of the service is on God’s movement towards man. Our movement towards God, the response of faith and thanksgiving and offering, is secondary and complementary. That is why in our reformed Prayer Book the “People’s Offering” of bread and wine is omitted, as a ceremony which distracts from the emphasis that should fall on the all-important offering that God makes to us in the service, the offering of the benefits of the death and passion of our Saviour. As a ceremony omitted from the Prayer Book it cannot, of course, be introduced legally into the service without an alteration of the Prayer Book by lawful authority. Humans are always inclined to emphasize their offering to God rather than God’s to them. For example, the Roman Mass is taken up with the offering being made to God. We are wise if we follow the Reformers in not making the provision of the bread and wine into a conspicuous ceremony.

The essence of petitional prayer is faith. The worshipper, in bringing his needs to God, in specific petition, full of faith that he will be heard, worships God, for he acknowledges by this action that God is a God of love who cares and provides for His children. This is God’s essential character. And it cannot be acknowledged by the worshipper in any other way, this omitted. Petition (though not selfish petition!) is the chief element in Christian prayer. Our Lord, when asked to teach His disciples to pray, gave them a prayer which consisted in nothing else than petition.

It is good to notice that the Anglican Congress at Minneapolis put this Reformation emphasis on personal faith first in its definition of worship. “In our worship we accept by faith God’s gift of Himself to us. . .”

DAVID BROUGHTON KNOX

Dial "MT" = "Empty Theology"

Dial "MT" = "Empty Theology." Law & Order, the MT Unit, tells their stories. These well-trained and experienced detectives from this "special victims crime unit" tell their story. Many stories of those slain by false spirits, of gibberashionizings, and more.

Tune in at Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=308173344359&ref=ts

Or, if an emergency, just dial "MT." After the arrest, "Book em' Danno."

We uphold the five solas of the Reformation. We are Protestant, Creedal and Confessional. We are ready to give reason for our Faith and proclaim the Gospel to all men. We study, research, post articles, lament and most vehemently protest against the Trinity Broadcasting Network for its lack of doctrine, false teachers, a horrid presentation of the Gospel and for its abuse of all men and women, redeemed and unredeemed alike. Because of our love for all peoples and nations, we proclaim Justification by Faith alone based on the scriptural doctrines of sovereign grace. We strenuously confess our faith while opposing these lying and false spirits. True love of the Brothers and Sisters in Christ is revealed in making them aware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Because we love the lost, we desire to see the true Gospel proclaimed and protected from abuse by those who falsely take the name of Christ. We stand against those who practice cultic powers over the weak, gullible, untaught, poor and desperate. "Here we stand, so help us God." Psalm 46. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGzuUfQD-G4

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger: "The American Church" and "The Church of the Highest Common Denominator"

(It has a few typoes, but we'll endure them.) Thanks to my friend, Peter Otajian, for his post on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=15994&post=94596&uid=308173344359#post94596

by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger

Perhaps you, too, have noticed. The American church world is changing. I don't know if the religion section of your local newspaper is like the one in our neighborhood. But even on a quick reading, one thing is abundantly clear. Denomina-tions are out. “Fellowships” are in. Traditional names for churches are out. Trendy names are in. Oh, there are a few “United Methodist Church of . . .”, “First Presbyterian Church of . . .,” “Messiah Lutheran Church,” but their numbers are dwindling. There are more and more “community churches” listed in my area with no denominational affiliation mentioned anywhere in connection with the church.

Many new churches — even some reconstituted old ones—now go by the name of the upscale housing developments where they are located. “Stonebridge Christian Fellowship” meets in a high-tech office portion of a local industrial center, within eyesight of the two-year old Stonebridge housing tract. I am sure Stonebridge Christian Fellowship is typical of such places in your community as well. But from the name and the looks of the place, I know more about the demographics of the congregation than I do about the doctrine they believe, if any.

by Scott WilkinsonAnother indicator of the changing state of the American church be-comes apparent when looking at the sermon topics advertised for these same local churches. “How to Have a Happy Marriage.” “God Allows U-Turns.” “Love Conquers All.” A generation or so ago, it was not uncommon for a church to advertise a doctrinal series, or feature some denomination distinctive, like a bible prophecy conference. Some churches even dared preach on such things as why their church was right and why everyone else was wrong. Some emphasized missions or community outreach. Then, there were the “hellfire and brimstone churches,” or the “Spirit-filled” churches with weekly revivals. There are probably one or two of these in your community, but I'll bet there are not as many as there used to be.

One local church located next to my high school—and quite large, I may add—was known for its narrow-minded doctrinal positions. As a church in the Campbellite tradition, we all knew that this church taught that you must be baptized by them in order to be saved. But nearly thirty years later, that same church now sends slick monthly mailings to my house featuring a Saturday evening “postmodern service” which begins at 6:33 PM. What is a postmodern service? Why 6:33 PM? Instead of classes in restorationist theology (typical of Churches of Christ or Christian Churches a generation ago), this church now has youth groups for all ages (trips to skateboard parks and the like), classes on parenting and addiction recovery, and workshops for divorced people. Not a word is mentioned anywhere in their mailing about doctrine. Not a word is said about their denomination affiliation.

What has happened over the last thirty years? Such churches have become “churches of the lowest common denominator.” Like water running downhill, they have taken the line of least resistance. They settle for the lowest point so as to be most attractive to all. Sadly, all these same churches now look alike and sound alike. They are no longer divided by doctrine or their histories. The only real difference among them is in the programs they offer.

For a number of years now, various church leaders in my neck of the woods (Orange County, CA) have told us that in order for churches to grow and recover their vitality, they needed to be more cognizant of contemporary culture. These leaders also told us that we needed to become more adept at speaking to people in ways which are meaningful to them. So far so good. But how did this stress on being “contemporary” work itself out in practice? The church I pastor—Christ Reformed Church (URC)—is within eyesight of Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral. Schuller, you may recall, built his church by going throughout the local community and asking people why they didn't go to church. The follow-up question had to do with what a church could do to get them to go. Well, it was not long before young Schuller bought a local drive-in and was preaching to people who stayed in their automobiles hooked up to the church service through the clunky drive-in speaker hanging from the car window. Going to church in their “jammies” without getting out of their cars, apparently, must have been at the top of many a person's church wish list.

Orange County was also the home of the “Jesus People” movement in the late 60's. Traditional charismatic and dispensational Christianity could indeed be translated into folk music (later, Christian rock) and counter-cultural churches where tie-dye and sandals replaced suits and wingtips. Traditional hymns and liturgy supposedly represented the pro-Vietnam War traditionalists and the “uptight” middle class. Sad to say, many churches thought this challenge from the youth to be a threat, rather than a golden opportunity. Seizing the opportunity, the Calvary Chapel movement was born. If you have ever sung a praise song, or witnessed drums, bass-guitars, and praise and worship singers in your church, you probably have Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel to thank.

Though Chuck Smith was a pastor to a whole generation of local kids because traditional churches didn't seem to care about the questions their youth were asking and Chuck Smith did, the transformation of the traditional church service into the youth-oriented pop-culture worship of the Jesus People, surely had unintended consequences. Over time, worship became an “experience.” Theologically illiterate men and women who played guitar and could sing, soon became “ministers” and were leading worship and giving testimonies. Christianity became “cool.” And to supply this burgeoning new market with all the accouterments of evangelical “coolness,” the Evangelical subculture was born. Stephen King and Eric Clapton were out. Christian novels, Christian movies, and Christian pop music were in.

Fast-forward the timeline two decades. This brings us to Southern Baptist church-growth Guru, Rick Warren and his massive Saddleback Community Church in South Orange County with about 25,000 members. Tanned and casual, Rick Warren's sermons are entertaining and deal with issues that successful, white, upper middle-class Orange Countians find important. He's very good at what he does. But more importantly, Rick Warren's book on church growth, The Purpose Driven Church, has given theological justification to the notion that the church's very existence is centered in evangelism and outreach. The church, says Warren, exists to evangelize non-Christians. Therefore, the church is “purpose-driven.”

by Scott WilkinsonIf evangelism is the reason for the church's existence, then everything the church does should serve the end of seeing new people—now called “seekers” or even “clients” in some circles—come to Christ. Every obstacle to that end must be removed. This is why traditional church furniture and architecture have been replaced by theater seating and stages. The wooden pulpit is now plexiglass. The sublime lighting on the cross has given way to shimmering stage lights for the worship band. Preaching and liturgy have given way to entertainment, drama and skits. Projector screens complete with the latest high-tech multimedia have replaced the crude sign-board with this Sunday's hymn numbers. The transformation is dramatic. All of it in the name of evangelism, of course.

Robert Schuller excels at marketing Christianity. Schuller proved that a local church could give the people what they want. Possibility Thinking and the Hour of Power are the twin-children of the marriage between post-war economic prosperity and good ole American pragmatism. It was Chuck Smith who introduced youth-dominated pop-culture into Christian worship. Keep the kids happy! If kids don't like the pipe organ, bring on the rock band! And it is Rick Warren who articulated the Arminian principle that sinners seek God, and that the church's purpose—to reach out to the lost—justifies its very existence. All of these factors in one way or another have contributed to the church of the lowest common denominator.

I mention these particular examples to make a point. The focus of the church of the lowest common denominator is me. The sermon is about problems I face. The music is music I like. The church service is designed to entertain me. That explains why they all look and sound so much alike. Somehow, God got lost in all the talk about my felt needs. The theology of the church of the lowest common denominator is utterly man-centered. It is all about me—or at least that's how I am made to feel. This is where we as Reformed Christians must make our stand.

Now, before you say to yourself, here's yet another narrow-minded Reformed pastor who doesn't care about evangelism and who is a defender of traditionalism and conservatism, let me issue the following caveat. I think that a great deal of the criticism conservative Reformed Christians receive from the church growth people is well deserved. Reformed churches have a reputation for being a bit stand-offish and unfriendly to newcomers. There are far too many Reformed people who think about the future of the church by conjuring up images of the past. “Oh, if only things were like they were back in the 1950's.” What is worse, perhaps, is that there are far too many Reformed Christians who are satisfied with small, deeply-divided denominations, in which the great treasure of Reformed worship and theology is hidden under a bushel, while turf and clan are fiercely defended against all comers.

While I will fight against theological liberalism with every ounce of strength I have, I am not one who is satisfied with the “well, we've always done it this way,” answer I hear from some Reformed conservatives. I don't think the CRC or RCA of the 1950's is the model for Reformed churches of the new millennium either. We must be Reformed and confessional, not traditionalists. We must look forward, not back. But wisdom dictates that we must do so without neglecting the faith of our fathers, nor should we forget the lessons they have taught us. Our role is to add to their labors, to build our churches upon the solid foundation they have given us. Yet, the issues they faced and the battles they fought are not the same ones facing us today. They would be the first to tell us to move on.

This is why we need to ask the hard questions. When it comes to evangelism, just how are we doing? Do we pray for our churches to grow by means other than live births? How many adult baptisms have we witnessed? Do we even care about the fate of those who are perishing in their sins because they might be different from us? Are the members of our church all of the same race and socio-economic background? And what are we doing to make it easier for non-Christians and visitors to come to our services? These are real questions, and the church growth people are correct to ask them. It is too bad, however, that they sought answers to them from the culture, not from the Scriptures or the Reformed tradition.

With that out of the way, this too must be said. We do not need to become practical Arminians to see our churches grow. The solution is both very simple and quite risky. The solution is simple because we don't have far to go to find the answer—the Scriptures, our own theology, liturgy and confessions. They contain everything we need to see Reformed churches grow, multiply and flourish. We don't need to reinvent the theological wheel. Yet, this is risky because it means that by employing our existing resources in new ways our churches may no longer be enclaves for white cultural conservatives. If we put our theology into practice, our churches will look much more like the communities of North America—filled with all races, cultures and socio-economic groups. This kind of change can be disconcerting, though it must be pointed out that this is not because of latent racism as some may argue. The discomfort has to do with having our comfort zones challenged. Change is never easy. It is hard to reach out to others outside familiar territory.

The solution is to take the focus off me, and put it back where it belongs, on God. Instead of the church of the lowest common denominator, a Reformed church should be the church of the highest common denominator. But what does a church of the highest common denominator look like? It looks like this—it is a church where the theology, worship and evangelism is God-centered, not man-centered.

In a God-centered church of the highest common denominator, God is the evangelist, not the minister, and where every member is an ambassador of Christ. Instead of adopting an unbiblical “seeker” philosophy, in which the church “dumbs-down” its worship service, supposedly, to reach non-Christians, Reformed Christians are to take very seriously what the Bible says about “seekers.” They don't exist! According to Paul “there is no one who seeks God” (Romans 3:11). Rather, our confidence is in the God who seeks sinners!

How does God seek sinners? He seeks them through his preached word (Romans 10:14)! Therefore, a growing Reformed church is a word-centered church. A church of the highest common denominator is a church where the word of God is preached. It is a church where the word of God is taught. It is a place where the promises that God makes in his word are trusted and diligently sought. The church of the highest common denominator is a church where the minister is not an entertainer but a preacher. He is not a motivator, but a man of prayer. He is not a manager, but a student of God's word. The members of such a church likewise attend to the word. They read it, they learn it, and they teach it to their children.

by Scott WilkinsonFrom a theological perspective, a church of the highest common denominator is a church where the law is preached in all its terror, the gospel in all its sweetness, and where the Christian life is centered in gratitude for all that God has done for us in Christ. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper will be prominent, since these are holy signs and seals for us to see, and which confirm in our hearts the faith produced by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the word. These are the “techniques” God uses to move sinners to repentance and to confirm the saints in the joy and comfort of their salvation. Programs are fine as they serve and support the preached word and sacraments. But they can never replace them. Why? Programs are about me. Word and sacrament are about God.

From a practical perspective the church of the highest common denominator will have a sense of purpose and drama each Lord's day precisely because it is God-centered. Indeed, there is nothing as dramatic as the story of redemption. It is positively spell-binding. But as Dorothy Sayers once quipped, the gospel is the drama, though it took the priests of the Church of England a generation to make it boring! If we preach as though we were giving a lecture, if we read the Scriptures without conviction, if we pray as though we were going through the motions, of course, our people will be bored. Lest we forget, the historic Reformed liturgy is very dramatic if utilized properly, and it contains all those elements of worship prescribed in the Scriptures—i.e., a confession of faith, confession of sin, declaration of pardon, pastoral prayer, and so on. Christ being hidden in the Old Testament to be revealed in the New makes for a very compelling story. Preaching is showing forth Christ in his saving offices of prophet, priest and king. How can that be boring?

The church of the highest common denominator will also worship in a way which seeks to glorify God, not entertain seekers. We must never forget that God is the audience on the Lord's day, not those who sit in the pews. The tragedy in the man-centered worship typical of the church of the lowest common denominator is not that it worships with drums and guitars, but that its attendees show up expecting to watch a performance. The minister had better be funny. The music had better be good. And don't bother seekers with a bunch of prayers for someone they don't know. In fact, if they don't like a particular church, they'll just go down the street to the next church and try it out. The more glitz and glamour, the more hype and noise, the better.

But the church of the highest common denominator does not try and please such fickle folk by tickling their ears. It seeks to please God through the singing of God honoring hymns and Psalms, and by offering up prayers of praise and supplication. It seeks to recount God's own mighty acts by reading from the whole of Scripture with the eager anticipation that God still speaks to us through his word. Instead of looking to pollster George Barna to find out what's hot this week, the church of the highest common denominator consults the Scriptures to find out what God says his people need to hear when they assemble for worship. The church of the highest common denominator does not debate whether a style of music will attract young people and seekers, but whether or not it will please God and be able to carry the content of a God-centered theology. The church of the highest common denominator is not about being successful. It is about being faithful, trusting God, not man-made techniques to secure genuine numerical growth.

The church of the highest common denominator will not downplay its doctrinal distinctives, but will shout them from the rooftop. I like to speak of this as running our distinctives up the flagpole, proudly displaying them for all to see. This is what we are. This is what we believe. Here is where we stand. There should be something distinctive about a Reformed church. It should be different and stand out from the church of the lowest common denominator. Such a church will stand for something and be willing to teach and defend those things it regards as precious. Instead of telling people that doctrine doesn't matter—which only plants the seed that Christianity doesn't matter—the church of the highest common denominator will tell everyone who will listen the truth in love. The great irony is that by telling the truth in love, a church attracts people to worship together based upon something absolutely fundamental—the doctrine taught us by none other than Jesus himself—and which can truly unite them, not because they happen to like the minister, or because their kids like the youth program, or because the music at church sounds just like what they hear on their favorite FM-radio station. People who are attracted by these latter means will just as easily leave when they get a better offer. The great untold story of the mega-church is the revolving backdoor. These “seekers” drop out almost as fast as they drop in. But the church-growth experts don't tell us that. The church of the highest common denominator doesn't define itself by what it does. Rather, what it is defines what it does. Rick Warren has it exactly backwards. The church is not “purpose-driven.” Rather, it has a church-driven purpose. This means that the church of the highest common denominator is that place where its members are joined and united in mind and heart and will by the Holy Spirit around the doctrine revealed in the Holy Scriptures. It is that place where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered according to the word of God. Such a church also governs itself according to God's word. It exists to give God glory and honor, as well as to comfort, equip and strengthen God's people. This is its reason for existence, not evangelism.

But if a church is truly a church of the highest common denominator, it will be like a beacon, drawing Christ's sheep into its fold. By striving to please God rather than to be popular with man, the church of the highest common denominator will be an evangelistic church, seeing itself as equipping ministers of reconciliation and ambassadors of Christ, who are willing and able to tell people the awful truth about the human condition and guilt of their sins, as well as the glories and comfort of the gospel. A church of the highest common denominator will see men and women come to faith in Jesus Christ. Why? Such a church will pray to that end, and trust in God to bring a great harvest. This church will look to the power of the preached word, not the sales-pitch. The members of this church—having been taught and catechized—will be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within them to the skeptic, as well as communicate the claims of Christ in simple terms to their next-door neighbor over coffee. Non-Christians will be welcomed in this church. And we will witness their baptisms and their professions of faith. In doing so, we will, as the author of Hebrews puts it, “taste the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the coming age” (Hebrews 6:5). The church of the highest common denominator has Christ's own promise that his sheep will hear his voice. It will grow and thrive. Therefore, the solution is easy. Let us be faithful Reformed Christians. Let us put our own theology into practice. The risk we must take is that the church of the highest common denominator will be a place where our comfort zones may disappear and where change will be inevitable. This is never easy. But it will always be worth the risk.

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is pastor of Christ Reformed Church [URC] in Anaheim and visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, in California.

CHRISTIAN RENEWAL, September 25, 2000

This is a SpindleWorks page: http://spindleworks.com/library/riddlebarger/denom.htm

Dr. R.C. Sproul, "The Christ of Revelation"

Another great presentation of His Majesty, Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Lord, the Lord of Glory, Messiah, Saviour, Son of David, King, Prophet, High Priest of our profession, Apostle of our profession, God, Word, I AM, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, the Light of the world, the Everlasting Water, the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the All-Glorious One seen in Isaiah 6/Jn.12.29ff.

R.C. Sproul - The Christ of Revelation- Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

The Montanists: Heretics or Primitive Christians? - Nicholas Conner - Theandros - An Online journal of Orthodox Christian Theology and Philosophy

The Montanists: Heretics or Primitive Christians? - Nicholas Conner - Theandros - An Online journal of Orthodox Christian Theology and Philosophy

Calvin's Institutes.4.7.7: Rome Rebuked. Fictions of Petrine Supremacy

Calvin’s Institutes, 4.7.7

Observations:

1. The subject under review: The origin and growth of Romanism until it raised itself to a height that the freedom of Christ’s True Churches were oppressed and doctrinal restraint were removed. We’ve seen the modest position of Rome in the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon and the Fifth Council of Constantinople. We’ve seen that the pompous and arrogant titles for the bishop of Rome were not embraced, but were repudiated as late as the 7th century.

2. We are talking about the limits of Roman jurisdiction in relation to emperors and metropolitans.

3. Irenaeus of Gaul (c.130-202 AD) severely rebuked Victor of Rome for contentiousness.[1] This freedom “was then customary among the holy bishops to use their brotherly right toward the Roman prelate, admonishing and chastising him whenever he sinned.” Where's Petrine supremacy?

4. Similarly, the Roman bishop did the same. Collegialty and co-equality was the rule.

5. Cyprian (c. late second century-258 AD) urges Stephen of Rome to warn the bishops of Gaul about false doctrine, not based on Roman supremacy “but upon the authority that bishops have in common.” He says, “The brotherly fellowship by which we are bound together among ourselves requires that we admonish one another.” Letters, lxviii., lxxiv.,1,3,4,7. Where’s Petrine supremacy?

6. Cyprian, Letters, lxxiv8, says Stephen is “a friend of heretics and an enemy of Christians.” Where’s Petrine supremacy?

Interpretation

No such thing as Petrine supremacy exists in this time frame.

Application

1. Educate contacts.

2. Read, mark, learn, inwardly digest, write and disseminate as soonest and as practicable.

3. Continue the new prayer for Morning and Evening Prayers, 10 AM and 4 PM, to wit, “Spare us, Good Lord, the detestable enormities of Rome.”

[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V.xxiv.11ff.

Confessional or Non-Confessional Christianity? A Big Dustup at Heidelbog

We appreciate this rugged, hand-to-hand combat between Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary (California) and Rev. John Frame of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL). The "framing" perspectives are "Maximal Confessional Faith" versus "Minimalistic Confessional Faith." What should we "confess" to the fallen, dying and drifting world?

Assuredly, Dr. Clark is in the corner with his view along with Dr. Michael Horton, the butt of Rev. Frame's rather fierce review; allegedly, Rev. Frame is the latter, the minimalist, the broad evangelical. The gloves are off. To switch the metaphor, Rev. Frame has attacked a theological shark and, as a result, may have lost limbs in the process, if not his life. We'll have more to say on this combat in the Church Militant.

Of course, the new Anglican household runs the gamut from Tractarians to charismatics--they have no "Confessional" core, unlike better days. Those clerks could not follow much of this anyways...since theological literacy is required. (We, as you can tell, take very dim views of ACNA clergy.)

A good post by Dr. Clark with implications for how one assays, assesses and relates to the mish-mashing subjectivists in high places.

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/frame-horton-triperspectivalism-subjectivism/#comment-12564

I don’t know what’s in your garage, but from time to time mine has become pretty cluttered and stuff has to be pitched. What we keep and what we pitch says something about us. People have theological garages too, in which they keep all their theological influences and that collection can say a fair bit about the owner of the garage too. Recently John Frame wrote a review of Mike Horton’s book, Christless Christianity. In that review John opened up his garage and gave us a peek as to what he has kept, wants to keep, and what he wants to throw away.

Most people probably know John only from his books and to those who don’t live and breathe Reformed theology, piety, and practice he seems like a sweetly-reasonable bridge builder between Reformed theology and broad evangelicalism. Thus, folk who don’t share much in common with Reformed theology as it is (or at least ought to be) confessed and practiced by the Reformed churches favor John’s work not because it gives them insight into that odd creature in the zoo (Reformed confessional theology) but because its message is, “Sure you’re Reformed too!” The spirit of the age (Zeitgeist) is subjectivist (I define reality) and inclusivist (everyone plays and everyone wins) and John’s theology fits right in. That’s great unless, of course, one knows well the Reformed theology of the confessions and the older writers. In that case things are rather more complicated since John has lobbed out several radical proposals over years, which, if adopted and implemented, would virtually transform Reformed theology and, as I’ve said before, not in a good way.

With this pointed review we seem to be thrown again into controversy. Any disagreement of this sort is unpleasant but sometimes these things are necessary. For those who aren’t aware, this disagreement isn’t new. It’s roots go back several years to a difficult episode in the life of my school. For some years now, John has complained in print (e.g., in his infamous essay on “Machen’s Warrior Children” —for more on this see Darryl Hart’s response) and again in his recently published 1200 page festschrift (”celebration book”) that the arrival of “the historical theologians,” whom he characterizes as “traditionalists,” more or less wrecked the seminary.

You know how it is in some families. Well, at WSC circa 1998-2001, when John was unhappy, everyone was unhappy and boy was he unhappy. We tried to talk but John wasn’t having any of it. With the arrival of Darryl Hart as Academic Dean and Professor of Church History John had enough and left for greener pastures and with him went the controversy. Since that time we have been at peace and joyfully busy training pastors to preach the whole counsel of God and to reach the lost and judging from comments in the festschrift John has been happier too. So far, so good.

Into the (not entirely) quiet comes the review. Eric Landry, at the WHI blog has published a response to Frame. Fair-minded readers who’ve read Horton’s book (and the marvelous follow-up, Gospel Driven Life) will not recognize the book in John’s review. The WH response explains why that is. In the publishing business John’s review is known as a “hit piece.”

Books reviews are notorious for becoming opportunities for settling scores. In that sense it would be tempting to say with the cops on Monty Python, “Right then, nothing to see here, move along,” but there is something to see here.

This review is a fine distillation of most of what makes John’s theology what it is. Consider this: In the “Warrior Children” piece Frame endorses Norman Shepherd as one of the most brilliant theologians of our time. He says the same thing in the recent festschrift and Shepherd reciprocates in the same volume by acknowledging Frame as his “defender.” This is the same Norman Shepherd who was dismissed by WTS/P in 1981 because, during a seven-year controversy, he was unable to explain how his teaching agreed with the Word of God as confessed by the Westminster Standards. Shepherd genuinely does not understand that he has taken a Pelagian or at least Pelagianizing position. He genuinely doesn’t understand the difference between sola fides (faith that is alone) and sola fide (by faith alone).

In his volume published in 2000 Shepherd made flatly Pelagian arguments (which have roots in his 1959 ThM thesis which had Pelagian arguments). On this see the relevant chapters in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry where these things are documented. For more on the development of Shepherd’s theology see Guy Water’s essay in the festschrift for Palmer Robertson. For that matter see Palmer Robertson’s history of the Shepherd controversy. Either Norm Shepherd is a technically incompetent, biblicistic, moralist who teaches covenantal Arminianism (when covenant is in view the theology is essentially Arminian) on a trajectory toward Socinianism or he is a genius who has made a great breakthrough in Reformed theology.

Both assessments cannot be right.

Blessedly, many of the (NAPARC) Reformed churches (PCA, OPC, URCNA, RCUS, RPCNA) have considered Norman Shepherd’s proposed revisions of Reformed theology and rejected them. John (and Shepherd) may be right that Shepherd is a visionary and the rest of us are just trapped by the dead weight of traditionalism, but we haven’t seen it and this piece isn’t likely to help us see it.

Consider also that, in the review, Frame ends up siding with Joel Osteen versus Horton (whose theology he calls “narrow, factional, even sectarian”) on the question how obedience relates to wealth and remonstrates with Horton for being too hard on Osteen. What kind of a theology cannot see that what Joel Osteen says is utterly incompatible with biblical and historic Christianity?

What kind of theology even bothers to look for something redeeming in Osteen’s message? It is a theology that is premised upon an intentionally vague (but not brief), broad, inclusive evangelicalism, upon the progressive wing of the old evangelical coalition, which is in the process of cracking up.

As Darryl Hart has argued, “evangelicalism” doesn’t really exist. In short, John is an evangelical latitudinarian. How can he be the theologian of a broad, inclusive, socially influential movement if it doesn’t exist or if it’s at odds with basic Christian doctrine? Thus, a priori, there must be some way in which Osteen (who, after all speaks to 30,000 weekly in person and to millions on TV) is right.

Could there be a deep, structural connection between John’s theology and Osteen’s “glory story“? I think there is. There’s a connection between his long-standing support for Shepherd’s revision of the covenant of grace into a covenant of grace and works. It’s no accident that picked the issue of works and wealth with which to support Osteen. In traditional Protestant (both Lutheran and Calvinist) categories, Osteen, Shepherd, and Frame are theologians of glory. A theology of the cross is about Christ for us (Christus pro nobis) for righteousness, not for wealth or this-worldly power and influence. The theology of glory is about what we can do for/with God.

In the interests of duct-taping evangelicalism together, Frame is advocating confessional minimalism and multi-perspectival inclusivism. By contrast, in the interests of a genuinely biblical and Reformed theology, piety, and practice, Horton is advocating confessional maximalism. He still believes not just the broad outlines (from some perspective or other) of the faith confessed by the Reformed churches but he actually believes the stuff between the first article and the last. He actually wants to see that inform our piety (the way we relate to God) and practice (the way we live out our faith). The practical fruit of John’s theology is that Reformed churches become less distinct from broad evangelical churches. Frame is explicit that, in his view, this is a good thing. He’s argued for this sort of “evangelical” ecumenism in his book Evangelical Reunion.

Horton is arguing for a sharp antithesis between what today constitutes “evangelicalism” and confessional Reformed theology, piety, and practice. The function of the review then is to discredit, partly by misrepresenting him, Horton’s case so as to strengthen confidence in the broad, inclusivist approach to evangelicalism.

This review is an outstanding example of latter-day latitudinarianism. If you want to know where latitudinarianism leads, check out Julius Kim’s chapter in CJPM. What happened to the Church of England when it was over run by Latitudinarians?

Finally, the odd thing about this version of Latitudinarianism is that John seems to have room in his theological garage for theonomy, Norman Shepherd, the Federal Vision, and Joel Osteen but he doesn’t have room for Mike Horton his ilk. That’s an interesting garage but it’s not one in which folk who still believe the Reformed faith should want to live.