We had counted on Carl Trueman, the left-leaning emoticonoclastic Orthodox Presbyterian pastor, to continue to see through the hype and gauze of America’s celebrity culture and warn about its danger for the church (not to mention society). But a recent trip to the Together for the Gospel Conference has changed his tune (or at least prompted him not to sing so loud):
Yes, the men at the plenary sessions are ‘celebrities’ in our small world; but they were not on the platform simply because of that fact. There was no swagger in evidence; all, in their different ways, spoke powerfully about the gospel; nobody indulged in magnifying their own name; and my guess is that none of these men will do anything which embarrasses T4G in the next twelve months. Yes, T4G needs names to fill the venue; but just being a name with 500 000 twitter followers and a knowledge of Calvinist patois is not going to get you the chance to speak. The swaggerati were nowhere to be seen.
My general conclusion on this point is that celebrity is clearly here to stay; the key point is that those who have such celebrity cachet acknowledge it and leverage it for good. By ‘good’, I mean direct people back to their own churches and set examples themselves as those who are committed first and foremost to their own people, congregations and denominations. T4G was quite a contrast to the recent reports of an extra-ecclesiastical high-profile meeting of Christian evolutionists, where celebrity appears to be being leveraged to set the agenda and impact the doctrinal testimony of churches. Nothing I heard at T4G indicated that anyone here had that kind of ecclesiastically subversive ambition.
I am not persuaded. I do think Trueman is right to remind us that celebrities are human beings too. But I am not sure that recognizing the good intentions or basic humanity of people who use a platform capable of abuse prevents that platform from being as abusive as it really is.
The problem is that people whose appetites have been whetted by celebrity pastors will have great difficulty recognizing the worth of their pastor’s pale imitation of Lig, C.J., Al, or Mark. It would be like telling Carl, back in the 70s, to go to the local pub more and listen to Gary, Mike, and Joe croon and play instead of going to the Led Zeppelin concert and buying the band’s albums. How are the Swindon Boys ever going to compete with the Rolling Stones or the Who? The answer is, they can’t.
But the stakes of believers and their undershepherds is far weightier than any rivalry between celebrity musicians and local indie bands. Will Lig, C.J. or Mark come to the hospital to visit with Joe-wine-box who lives in Fremont, Nebraska? Will they come to Defiance, Ohio to counsel a husband and wife who need a referee for their Christian marriage?
Can conferences and speaking engagements be valuable? Sure they can. It is part and parcel of professional life. Attorneys go to conferences. So do nurses. But when so many downloads are available and so many broadcasts are a turn-of-the-dial away, using celebrity to nurture a taste for average pastors is little bit like going to Citizens Bank Park to groom fans for the Doylestown, Pennsylvania’s American Legion team.
190 Comments
if you want more even more influence, you reach out to embrace Romanism and the Nixon wing of the Republican party.
“Out of this meeting has come the following statement drafted by J.I. Packer, that will carry the signatures of Packer, Bright and Charles Colson.
“We Protestants who signed ECT, took this action to advance Christian fellowship, cooperation, and mutual trust among true Christians in the North American CULTURAL CRISIS. This same concern leads us now to elucidate our ECT commitment by stating:
“1. Our parachurch cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics for the pursuit of agreed objectives does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctives or endorsement of the Roman Catholic church system.
“2. We understand the statement that “we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ,” in terms of the substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ, leading to full assurance of eternal salvation.
“3. While we view all who profess to be Christian – Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox – with charity and hope, our confidence that anyone is truly a brother or sister in Christ depends not only on the content of HIS OR HER CONFESSION but on our PERCEIVING SIGNS OF REGENERATION IN HIS OR HER LIFE.
Jed Paschall: “Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?” (Ecclesiastes 7:16). Richard, one of the hardest things for any of us to achieve is balance – those who indulge in pietistic extremism run the risk of being completely unrelatable, if not obnoxious; those who understand that there is perfect freedom in Christ can run the risk of presumption, and license for otherwise irresponsible and even sinful behavior. Yet we are all tasked with working out our salvation with fear and trembling.”
RS: Some look at that verse as being overly self-righteous. While it is true that there are extremes and there are dangers to everything, I am not sure one can be overly full of the fruit of the Spirit or the fruit that flows from the vine through the branch. Either way, I think it is a safer position on judgment day (judgment of works, not salvation) to risk pursuing holiness too much rather than other things. I cannot imagine it being said that a person loved God too much and was too holy.
RS:
“Either way, I think it is a safer position on judgment day (judgment of works, not salvation) to risk pursuing holiness too much rather than other things. I cannot imagine it being said that a person loved God too much and was too holy.”
Sean: I can definitely imagine hearing that one had too little regard for God’s good creation, and your pursuit of holiness looks more platonic all the time.
Jed said: “Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?”
(Ecclesiastes 7:16). Richard, one of the hardest things for any of us to achieve is balance – those who indulge in pietistic extremism run the risk of being completely unrelatable, if not obnoxious; those who understand that there is perfect freedom in Christ can run the risk of presumption, and license for otherwise irresponsible and even sinful behavior. Yet we are all tasked with working out our salvation with fear and trembling.”
Jed, you must have had a rough last weekend – did you wretch? I like you bettter in your manic state.
Bad answer Richard!!
I like you bettter in your manic state.
My wife sure as heckfire doesn’t. And yes struggling with a little bout of pneumonia will cause a little introspection with all that down time. Good thing is I am on the mend.
sean
Posted April 18, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
RS (old post): “Either way, I think it is a safer position on judgment day (judgment of works, not salvation) to risk pursuing holiness too much rather than other things. I cannot imagine it being said that a person loved God too much and was too holy.”
Sean: I can definitely imagine hearing that one had too little regard for God’s good creation, and your pursuit of holiness looks more platonic all the time.
RS: Not platonic, but simply a pursuit of God Himself. Paul considered all things as loss for the sake of Christ, but I suppose he would be considered platonic as well. After all, He also told us in Colossians 1:27 that this great mystery of the ages “is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Phil 3:7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.”
John Yeazel:
Jed, you must have had a rough last weekend – did you wretch? I like you bettter in your manic state. Bad answer Richard!!
RS: Interesting comment in light of your other comments. I suppose wretching is good and holiness is bad. Sounds much like the prophets in the Old Testament who were denounced and condemned for calling what was good bad and that which was bad as good.
Richard,
Lighten up man, John and I have always enjoyed throwing a barb or two each others way – it’s all in good respect. Besides, John would never actually encourage me to have a “rough weekend”, but we’ve had enough similar life experiences to be able to laugh about them – something that would serve you well.
I cannot imagine it being said that a person loved God too much and was too holy.
In that final judgement, I think we will all have a clear enough view of our lives to see that whatever good work we had done was wrought by the work of the Spirit in us; evidencing the grace of God yet further as we see how it was working through our uncanny ability to make a mess of things even with the best intentions. I can’t imagine any one standing before God in judgment being told that they loved God too much or that they were too holy – we will find ourselves in heaven, even enjoying our rich eternal rewards in spite of ourselves, not because of something we have made on our own.
JS: Paul considered all things as loss for the sake of Christ, but I suppose he would be considered platonic as well.
Sean: No just you in this scenario. How’s the holy sleeping going? Do you have a dream analyst yet? You can’t trust your own analysis, for the heart is a labyrinth of deception. Have you been writing down your dreams? You need to. That’s optimally 8 hours a day for the duration of your life. That’s a lot of time you need to get sanctified. How’s that coming? You overcoming your sinful subconscious and bringing it before the throne regularly?! Let me know when your pursuit of ‘”bible study, prayer and meditation”, like that puritan, transforms your dreams successfully. Just remember that determination must be left to the dream analyst because you can’t overcome your own(human) propensity for self-deception. On a corollary note, I just got back from New Mexico, the Indians tend to track along your lines, they even have dream catchers. You need to find your puritan version of a dream catcher. I’ll be catching up on “The Wire” episodes i’ve missed.
Okay Richard let’s go at it a bit. Here is how I think Luther would have handled you. I’m conjecturing and may be wrong but I’m pretty sure he may have said something like this to you: “Richard, go out and get drunk until you wretch and then come back and boldly confess your sin to God about how much of a wretch you really are.” And in your particular case he might counsel you to do it about 20 weekends in a row until it really got into your bloodstream and you really and truly believed it. Then you might be a bit more palatable to the sinners you are trying to reach.
Jed,
My understanding of Machen is that his celebrity is mostly a posthumous one courtesy of the OPC, and his contemporary reception couldn’t have been farther from that of CJ Mahaney. Though I may be forgetting something, I can’t recall any of the academics of T4G producing a work equal to Hodge’s Systematic or having the departmental influence that he did. Assuming his renown was due to the magnitude of his work, there’s something else happening here.
Modern celebrity is so removed from that of Hodge and Machen’s day that you would need a sociologist’s book-length treatment of ‘celebrity’ in the Internet / reality TV era to begin to compare them fairly.
Jed Paschall: Richard,
Lighten up man, John and I have always enjoyed throwing a barb or two each others way – it’s all in good respect. Besides, John would never actually encourage me to have a “rough weekend”, but we’ve had enough similar life experiences to be able to laugh about them – something that would serve you well.
RS: Humor is fine, but laughing about drunkness is not so fine. I was aware that it was most likely humor, or thought that it might be, but joking about sins that demonstrate that one is an unbeliever is not the best of humor. I doubt that Christ laughed about drunkeness on the cross as He suffered the wrath of the Father for the drunkness of many.
sean, quoting RS: Paul considered all things as loss for the sake of Christ, but I suppose he would be considered platonic as well.
Sean: No just you in this scenario. How’s the holy sleeping going? Do you have a dream analyst yet? You can’t trust your own analysis, for the heart is a labyrinth of deception. Have you been writing down your dreams? You need to. That’s optimally 8 hours a day for the duration of your life. That’s a lot of time you need to get sanctified. How’s that coming? You overcoming your sinful subconscious and bringing it before the throne regularly?! Let me know when your pursuit of ‘”bible study, prayer and meditation”, like that puritan, transforms your dreams successfully. Just remember that determination must be left to the dream analyst because you can’t overcome your own(human) propensity for self-deception. On a corollary note, I just got back from New Mexico, the Indians tend to track along your lines, they even have dream catchers. You need to find your puritan version of a dream catcher. I’ll be catching up on “The Wire” episodes i’ve missed.
RS: The point about dreams, sir, is that what the mind thinks on during the day and what the heart loves can show up in dreams. It is not that one is fully in control of dreams, but by grace when one seeks a heart that loves God and the mind is taken up with Him, the dreams will be different. So in reality Bible study, meditation, and prayer would in fact be one way of preventing sinful dreams. I bet they would work much better than watching TV.
John Yeazel: Okay Richard let’s go at it a bit. Here is how I think Luther would have handled you. I’m conjecturing and may be wrong but I’m pretty sure he may have said something like this to you: “Richard, go out and get drunk until you wretch and then come back and boldly confess your sin to God about how much of a wretch you really are.” And in your particular case he might counsel you to do it about 20 weekends in a row until it really got into your bloodstream and you really and truly believed it. Then you might be a bit more palatable to the sinners you are trying to reach.
RS: I hope you are kidding. I Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” Luther would not have counseled a person to go out and get drunk like that because that is a sin that is demonstrative evidence that a person is not a Christian. That would be like telling people to go out and spend 20 nights with a prostitute so they would be more palatable to sinners or to go out and steal for 20 nights so that you could be more palatable to sinners. Unholy and godless actions may make a person more palatable to sinners, but they make them obnoxious in the eyes of God. Unholy and godless actions may make a person more palatable to sinners, but that does not mean that the person loves God or true believers.
RS: The point about dreams, sir, is that what the mind thinks on during the day and what the heart loves can show up in dreams. It is not that one is fully in control of dreams, but by grace when one seeks a heart that loves God and the mind is taken up with Him, the dreams will be different. So in reality Bible study, meditation, and prayer would in fact be one way of preventing sinful dreams. I bet they would work much better than watching TV.
Sean: Richard, no offense, but that sounds like a cop out. You push for total life consecration, that quite frankly, is gnostic, at least in rhetoric, and then you want to be “realistic” or “not fully in control of dreams”. That’s 8 hours a day every day where you basically want to be non distinct from your heathen neighbor, you’re unwilling to be in “full control” and self-consciously consecrated, that’s a half-way measure if I ever heard one. How about bathroom activities? have you managed to distinctly sanctify those? What’s your excuse on that front? For someone who pushes for the spiritual micro-management of life, you sure leave a lot of room for error and less than circumspect behavior. Eight hours a day, every day, bathroom breaks, eating modalities, much less acceptable and forbidden foods ….. You’ll have to excuse me if I have to give more respect to the observant Jew or vegan spiritist than your attempts at being sanctified, they’ve given more thought and effort to the details of life and their attempts at serious conformation than you’ve shown.
Richard,
It had nothing to do with drunkenness, that is simply your assumption (and we know what assuming does) – I have bipolar disorder, John’s crackback was simply geared to whether or not I was manic this weekend. Having membership in the prestigious crazy club is not the moral equivalent to downing a bottle of Jack in one pull like Beluschi on Animal House. The problem with the pietist perspective on life is it has a hard time dealing with the messiness and complexity of life – which is why many here have dispensed with this unsustainable brand of Christianity.
Richard: we are, in ourselves, already hateful to God. That’s the point. Even our most sanctified actions are still filth in God’s sight. He only accepts them because of Christ. That’s Jed’s point (I think). So yes we should endeavour to live more holy, sinless lives. But we must remember that even the holiest saint is still a depraved sinner in and of himself.
Frankly you sound like a Pharisee. Your works-righteousness might make you feel more holy, but your actions are still filth in the sight of God (on their own terms).
Alexander Richard: we are, in ourselves, already hateful to God. That’s the point. Even our most sanctified actions are still filth in God’s sight. He only accepts them because of Christ. That’s Jed’s point (I think). So yes we should endeavour to live more holy, sinless lives. But we must remember that even the holiest saint is still a depraved sinner in and of himself.
Frankly you sound like a Pharisee. Your works-righteousness might make you feel more holy, but your actions are still filth in the sight of God (on their own terms).
RS: Yes, I am sure that this sounds like that. But remember that true believers are born from above and while they are not truly sanctified, they long for true holiness. There is a huge difference between true holiness which is from the life of Christ in the soul, the fruit of the Spirit, and all of that by grace, and a works-righteousness. There are Pharisees and then there are libertines who turn the grace of God into licenteousness. Indeed everything a saved sinner does is less than perfect, that is not to say that saved sinners are not to pursue holiness. The fact that we are sinners is no excuse to sin, though it teaches us that we need grace to be holy.
Jed Paschall: Richard, The problem with the pietist perspective on life is it has a hard time dealing with the messiness and complexity of life – which is why many here have dispensed with this unsustainable brand of Christianity.
RS: It is unsustainable apart from a new heart and grace, but God finishes what He starts.
Sean: Richard, no offense, but that sounds like a cop out. You push for total life consecration, that quite frankly, is gnostic, at least in rhetoric, and then you want to be “realistic” or “not fully in control of dreams”.
RS: Blast away with the gnostic stuff, but it is not so. I have simply said that there are ways that help with the dream life.
Sean: That’s 8 hours a day every day where you basically want to be non distinct from your heathen neighbor, you’re unwilling to be in “full control” and self-consciously consecrated, that’s a half-way measure if I ever heard one.
RS: Perhaps you have simply misunderstood. As at the beginning of the dream issue, I said that they are not completely beyond our control. We have no control over the devil as such and over the restraining grace of God. However, that does not mean that we are totally helpless in the situation.
Sean: How about bathroom activities? have you managed to distinctly sanctify those? What’s your excuse on that front? For someone who pushes for the spiritual micro-management of life, you sure leave a lot of room for error and less than circumspect behavior. Eight hours a day, every day, bathroom breaks, eating modalities, much less acceptable and forbidden foods …..
RS: Actually, there are comments that can be made on those, but I doubt you could hear that either.
Sean: You’ll have to excuse me if I have to give more respect to the observant Jew or vegan spiritist than your attempts at being sanctified, they’ve given more thought and effort to the details of life and their attempts at serious conformation than you’ve shown.
RS: Then why pretend to believe the Bible if you have more respect to the Jew who denies Christianity or perhaps an atheist? Sanctification is by grace alone and we are taught to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Our dreams and our sleep are not totally our of our hands as you would like to claim. What we put into our minds during the day in some measure controls what we dream of. The loves of our heart determines in some way what we dream of. Seeking to keep certain things from our minds and to put certain things in the mind while praying for God to give us a true love for Him is biblical. If you don’t see that, then you don’t see that.
Richard, not to pile on, but the more I read you the more you sound monastic. I think of Luther pre-Protestant. I also think of Lloyd Braun (“Serenity now, insanity later”). Never mind, that’s a Seinfeld reference, far be it from me to foster sinful dreams tonight. But I do wonder what you think the difference is between your quest for holiness and Luther’s pre-Protestant medievalism, because to me it just sounds like post-Protestant medievalism.
RS: Then why pretend to believe the Bible if you have more respect to the Jew who denies Christianity or perhaps an atheist?
Sean: Richard you presume to present the biblical model of spirituality. In fact you don’t. I already know you won’t hear that. I bring up sleep, dreams, bathroom, eating etc.. because they represent default behaviors of humans that all, regenerate and unregenerate alike, invariably must engage, that consume inordinately large swaths of time and thus life. Your inability, in fact anyone’s inability, to dutifully and comprehensively ‘sanctify’ said areas and make them distinctly anything other than particularly human, points to the futility and in fact incompetence of your or any other ‘monastic’ brand of spirituality. So either you misrepresent biblical spirituality or the scriptures themselves turn out to be weak medicine to remedy our lack of holistic, “every corner and crevice micro spirituality”. Personally, I’ll stick with the conviction that you, Richard, misapply, misunderstand and misrepresent the thrust of apostolic direction, given in the epistles. At least how you offer it up here on this blog.
Zrim,
Stay out of my head.
“emoticonoclastic” — ha! ha! Darryl, you’re too much!
Larry Woiwode: “There is rugged terrain ahead for those who are constitutionally incapable of referring to the paths marked out by wise and spirit-filled cartographers over the centuries.”
Is Woiwode still in the OPC? Woiwode might just be more famous than Trueman (or Gaffin).
DGH: Ted, o broad, middle-aged one, would the narrow view of things apply to your understanding of 19th century southern Presbyterians?
Dabney lives. http://headhearthand.org/blog/2012/04/18/the-elephant-in-the-room-at-t4g/
Dabney is defended and Trueman pilloried. Strange tribe, brother.
Larry, I believe Carl himself came up with that self-handle.
Ted, I’d even defend you if you were as thoughtful as Dabney could be. But given your perfectionism, you may have a tough time recognizing the strengths of believers the way Paul does with the Corinthians. Where do you buy your high horses?
Dr. Hart,
What type of conferences should Dr. Trueman speak at? Academic conferences? Seminary conferences? Anywhere lots of non-Reformed people aren’t?
I’d love to hear the conversation if TG4G asked you to speak. What would you say if they did?
Zrim, I appreciated the Seinfeld reference even though RS will not. And the Julie Mccoy reference, well now you’re taking me back to my “unsanctified” days. I had to IMDB “Love Boat.” Ah, the memories …..
Brandon, I wasn’t objecting to Carl’s speaking at T4G. I expressing worry that he’s going soft on celebrity pastors.
I try to accept most invitations to speak, as long as I am allowed to represent my own convictions. I can’t imagine turning T4G down, any more than I can imagine them inviting me.
John Sizer: Zrim, I appreciated the Seinfeld reference even though RS will not.
RS: True, it is hard to appreciate a show which had the purpose of showing that there is no meaning to anything. There was nothing to appreciate?
Richard,
Do you really think you obey all the law lists and imperatives in the scriptures? Or, those scriptures that list the sins which keep people out of the kingdom of heaven- like in the Corinthian passage you noted and the list in Galatians? You read not the scriptures rightly or you search the scriptures thinking that in them you have eternal life but the scriptures testify of Christ and his perfect obedience for the benefit of the elect. None of us obeys the imperatives like God demands of us.
And I do think Luther might have told you to go out and sin boldly and then come back and boldly confess your sin to God. He did counsel Melanchthon to do that very thing when Melanchthon was spewing out pious phrases and fretting compulsively about the inward state of his soul and personal piety.
Zrim: Richard, not to pile on, but the more I read you the more you sound monastic. I think of Luther pre-Protestant. I also think of Lloyd Braun (“Serenity now, insanity later”). Never mind, that’s a Seinfeld reference, far be it from me to foster sinful dreams tonight. But I do wonder what you think the difference is between your quest for holiness and Luther’s pre-Protestant medievalism, because to me it just sounds like post-Protestant medievalism.
RS: You do sound like a pylon in redirecting the intent. I am not sure how it is so out of line to desire to be free (or even mostly free) of dreams that involve sin. If a person takes in pornography and thinks about it, whether it is so-called “soft-porn” or the harder variety, then a person is more likely to dream about that sort of thing. If a person fills his mind with Scripture in study and meditation and avoids the other things, one is more likely not to have the sinful content in the dreams. But one difference is that pre-Prot times (in your meaning I am making an inference) there was a lot of works and self based on a self-works holiness or self-righteousness. There was a rigid treatment of the body in an effort to get these things done. What I am saying, and sure enough, based on the Puritan way of thinking, is that grace is the only real way for these things to be done. So applying the means of grace in pursuing the presence of God is really different than the previous way.
But, Sean, I think I see season 4 of “Breaking Bad” over in the corner. Netflix only goes up to season 3, so I’m staying.
John S., I admit, I was only able to swing TLB reference because we’re trying to get our girls to appreciate OUR American pop culture instead of THEIRS these days (which I find loud and screachy).
Richard, so that must mean you don’t appreciate “The Dark ‘Seinfeld,’” as Larry David calls it. But semi-revivalists and full-on pietists could stand to curb their enthusiasm.
Sean: Richard you presume to present the biblical model of spirituality. In fact you don’t. I already know you won’t hear that.
RS: In other words, you disagree. I got it.
Sean: I bring up sleep, dreams, bathroom, eating etc.. because they represent default behaviors of humans that all, regenerate and unregenerate alike, invariably must engage, that consume inordinately large swaths of time and thus life.
RS: In other words, you think you have certain areas that escape the sovereignty of God and can be done in ways that are sinful. No doubt these things are things that people must engage in, but there are different ways that they can be engaged in.
Sean: Your inability, in fact anyone’s inability, to dutifully and comprehensively ‘sanctify’ said areas and make them distinctly anything other than particularly human, points to the futility and in fact incompetence of your or any other ‘monastic’ brand of spirituality.
RS: Not at all. You have simply shown that you don’t believe that God is sovereign over all things and then that the command that we are to do all things for His glory is not really accurate.
Sean: So either you misrepresent biblical spirituality or the scriptures themselves turn out to be weak medicine to remedy our lack of holistic, “every corner and crevice micro spirituality”.
RS: Again, no sense thinking that God is in every corner and crevice. I take it, then, that you are closer to Deism?
Sean: Personally, I’ll stick with the conviction that you, Richard, misapply, misunderstand and misrepresent the thrust of apostolic direction, given in the epistles. At least how you offer it up here on this blog.
RS: And I will stick with the conviction that you, Sean, are a practical Deist. You disallow God in every corner and crevice of His creation as if He wound the world up and watches over part of it, but not all. Partial Deist? Ah, no real difference.
Richard, yes, I get the idea of filtering what we consume. I do that. But that doesn’t seem to be your point. Your point seems to be don’t see, don’t hear, don’t touch, don’t taste. It’s like the difference between fundamentalism and conservatism or between morality and moralism. But don’t you recall that Jesus said to the Pharisees who were very concerned for holiness that it’s not what goes into the body that is rotten but what comes out, and that’s because we are already rotten inside.
RS;
“But one difference is that pre-Prot times (in your meaning I am making an inference) there was a lot of works and self based on a self-works holiness or self-righteousness. There was a rigid treatment of the body in an effort to get these things done. What I am saying, and sure enough, based on the Puritan way of thinking, is that grace is the only real way for these things to be done”
Sean: Richard you misunderstand the monastics. They would’ve have made the exact same argument you seek to attribute to the puritans. The monastics engaged in what they believed to be a grace-empowered asceticism. You do however unwittingly point to some previously noted parallels between Rome and a number of the puritans. The monastic label is becoming more and more appropriate to your version of spirituality. Which is fine as far as it goes, just understand how and where you are aligning yourself. Maybe Rome’s conception of infused grace by which we become more and more(think aristotelian and platonic categories of ‘becoming’, fullfilling ‘natural’ capacities) is more your speed than forensic, objective, institutional, earthly, pilgrim, simul iustus et peccator theology.
John Yeazel: Richard, Do you really think you obey all the law lists and imperatives in the scriptures? Or, those scriptures that list the sins which keep people out of the kingdom of heaven- like in the Corinthian passage you noted and the list in Galatians?
RS: I certainly believe that the list of sins that Scripture gives and then clearly says that people who practice those will not inherit the kingdom means that those who practice those will not go to heaven. Yes, I believe that. I Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” Read it again. It says “do not be deceived.” In other words, if you have a theology that allows for that, you have been deceived. Of course I keep no law perfectly, but that is no excuse for wanton disobediece. We are to mourn over our sin rather than use it as an excuse to do more.
John Yeazel: You read not the scriptures rightly or you search the scriptures thinking that in them you have eternal life but the scriptures testify of Christ and his perfect obedience for the benefit of the elect. None of us obeys the imperatives like God demands of us.
RS: Again, the fact that no one obeys perfectly is not a reason or excuse for drunkeness or any other sin. That is turning grace into an excuse for licentiousness.
John Yeazel: And I do think Luther might have told you to go out and sin boldly and then come back and boldly confess your sin to God. He did counsel Melanchthon to do that very thing when Melanchthon was spewing out pious phrases and fretting compulsively about the inward state of his soul and personal piety.
RS: I have read the context of what Luther said there. I think it was more like if you are wrong in this area, then sin boldly. In other words, do what you think is right and if it is sin you can boldly confess that sin. But he would not tell anyone to go out and boldly sin knowing that it was sin. When a person sins on purpose, that is to sin willingly and knowingly against God and presume on His grace. God is not obligated to show grace or forgive sin. His eye is on the humble and the contrite, not those who sin expecting Him to forgive as if sin is nothing.
Zrim: Richard, so that must mean you don’t appreciate “The Dark ‘Seinfeld,’” as Larry David calls it. But semi-revivalists and full-on pietists could stand to curb their enthusiasm.
RS: Look, the philosophy that drove Seinfeld was that there is no meaning in anything. In other words, it is all meaningless. Or, perhaps, there is not meaning in the crevices and corners or in any other location as well. It is hard to laugh at those things which are so opposed to God and His glory. However, I did laugh a few times at the few bits of the show I watched there and there. But I only watched it while in the very of a corner that God did not care about and I read the Puritans for hours after the show so that I would not dream about it.
Zrim: Richard, yes, I get the idea of filtering what we consume. I do that. But that doesn’t seem to be your point. Your point seems to be don’t see, don’t hear, don’t touch, don’t taste. It’s like the difference between fundamentalism and conservatism or between morality and moralism. But don’t you recall that Jesus said to the Pharisees who were very concerned for holiness that it’s not what goes into the body that is rotten but what comes out, and that’s because we are already rotten inside.
RS: In terms of food, that is correct. But in terms of the eyes, brain, and heart, it is a different story. Try this one with your wife: “Honey, watching that movie is biblical since what goes in is not rotten, it is what comes out that is. So as long as nothing comes out, I am okay.” But Jesus did say if you look on a woman to lust… It is what goes in because of the heart that is in there already.
Sean: Richard you misunderstand the monastics. They would’ve have made the exact same argument you seek to attribute to the puritans. The monastics engaged in what they believed to be a grace-empowered asceticism. You do however unwittingly point to some previously noted parallels between Rome and a number of the puritans. The monastic label is becoming more and more appropriate to your version of spirituality. Which is fine as far as it goes, just understand how and where you are aligning yourself. Maybe Rome’s conception of infused grace by which we become more and more(think aristotelian and platonic categories of ‘becoming’, fullfilling ‘natural’ capacities) is more your speed than forensic, objective, institutional, earthly, pilgrim, simul iustus et peccator theology.
RS: Short on time, but for the moment, the grace that saves is a grace that indwells. It is not an infused grace that results in working for holiness and then justification, but it is Christ in the soul and the fruit of the Spirit of love that moves the soul to love holiness. All we do is either for God or against Him.
Richard, are you telling me that when you sin, it’s not on purpose? Isn’t our recognition of our sin part of being alive in Christ? Not that we continue in it, but that by grace we can overcome. The Christian life is not without the the struggle because we are alive in Christ. Your view seems to be very mechanical and formulaic. You can erase a bit of Seinfeld by reading the Puritans? That was a joke, right?
RS: but it is Christ in the soul and the fruit of the Spirit of love that moves the soul to love holiness.
Sean: And it is the Imago Dei in us, that allows us to embrace what is good. The creation, the city, the human and many of his products(culture) are good, yet they are not transformed. It seems so remedial, but we live in the world, a fallen world, but a world we are called to affirm everywhere we can, when we can, until we can’t. Our seperation is a cultic seperation, thus the emphasis on sabbath, not a cultural one, until the culture takes on a cultic identity and demands fealty on our part(i.e. the emperor’s cult). It’s in it’s cultic manifestation that the “city” becomes an antagonist to the church, not in the legitimate pursuit of cultural endeavors, in building a city or being a city. You can be against movies, sitcoms, theater, pubs, etc.. all you want, but you can’t marshall the word in support of a particular boycott and call it a “Christian prohibition or prescriptive.” It’s just your own conviction and scruple and your welcome to it, but you’re not allowed to give it as standard or prescriptive or descriptive for others as exemplary of “Christian conduct.” I’m willing to leave it as you fizz one way and I another, but are you willing to do the same?
Isn’t it time for one of the confessionalists who post on Old Life to step up and “confess” creating the caricature Richard Smith as a transformational, pietistic foil for those who esteem the 2K position?
Holy sleep… how bizarre! (Until that comment I believed Mr. Smith was an actual person commenting here!)…
Holy sleep… nearly as absurd as a local transformational, neo-Cal pastor who eulogized one of his members by stating the man had spent his career “redeeming air conditioning!”
I liked this thread more when it focused on the issue of celebrity pastors.
I don’t want to vote Richard off the island, but his comments (and various respondents to him) almost always take the discussion off course to the same depressing place. It seems more charitable to just stop engaging him.
Richard, are you not worried about the amount of time you spend on an OldLife blog exchanging with folks who aren’t as holy as thou? That’s not a shot, I am being serious. What’s the difference between exposing yourself to earthy types and exposing yourself to the earth they consume? If the ratio of TV watching:Puritan reading is half hour:hours on end, then the ratio of OldLife blogging:Puritan reading in your case must be astronomical.
And on that topic of celebrity pastors (or seminary professors, as the case may be).
It’s not going away, obviously, but here are a few suggestions:
*Let’s talk about what size church a pastor can really pastor with good elders at his side. If we commit to planting and growing (and splitting) appropriately sized churches, mega-pastors will be kept in check. [I give Dever lots of credit for insisting that his church is defined by a single service in a historically-sized and bounded church, and consistently encouraging his members to leave and populate struggling area churches]
*Let’s make sure our own pastors and professors are fulfilling their primary callings. A good session or consistory won’t let their pastor wander about gormandizing on arena audiences if he has work to do at home.
*Let’s ask our celebrities to ruthlessly prioritize not market-share, but requests from churches within their confessional family to come and preach and teach. Imagine if a Trueman or a Horton came to tiny little OPC or URC in an out of the way locale. Or to a Classis meeting. A lot of local blog readers might discover that there’s a local pastor serving true food and true drink instead of scorpions.
We can’t change evangelical (or mass) culture; never will. All we can hope for is that when our confessional churches are gifted with charismatic speakers and teachers, they stay true to their callings, and we don’t encourage them to cave to celebrity.
Radio/TV/Internet amplifies voices, and magnifies celebrity. This can be used for good or ill.
“A lot of local blog readers might discover that there’s a local pastor serving true food and true drink instead of scorpions.
We can’t change evangelical (or mass) culture; never will. All we can hope for is that when our confessional churches are gifted with charismatic speakers and teachers, they stay true to their callings, and we don’t encourage them to cave to celebrity.”
I agree, but can we be just as ruthless on the other side in ordaining men who are truly gifted, and really putting in the work. It doesn’t have to filet mignon every week and everywhere, but Gordon’s, “Johnny Can’t Preach” was no strawman. The balanced and effective pastor, much less gifted, can not be considered commonplace much less normative in our scene. Maybe it’s always been that way, but man a number of us have been forced to shepherd our own souls for a long time. I for one, wish that weren’t the case.