I have recently been wondering what a dinner that included Tim Keller, John Piper, and Woody Allen might look like. This is not a major stretch since my apologetics paper for John Frame as a junior at Westminster was a dialogue between Woody and Corny (as in Cornelius Van Til). I can imagine that Keller would prepare by watching many of Allen’s movies so that he could present reasons for God. Piper might prepare by finding a way to confront Allen about his affairs with women and his current relationship with the daughter (adopted) of Allen’s ex-lover.
But what is most intriguing in this scenario (to me) is the possible interaction between Keller and Piper. Would the New York pastor feel awkward acknowledging to Piper his knowledge of Allen’s movies and their sexual content? Would Keller even have a glass of wine with the meal? And would Piper restrain some of his words to Allen because of Keller’s interest in reaching New Yorkers? Would Piper recommend that the three diners go to a cheaper restaurant to save money and avoid ostentation?
Piper’s recent remarks about what could break the “Gospel-Centered Movement†apart are partly responsible for these wonders about “Their Dinner with Woody.†As our New England correspondent usefully summarized the Minneapolis pastor’s remarks, five behaviors could undermine the Young Calvinist revival of the awe and majesty of God. They are:
1. The movies we watch
2. Big appetites for beer
3. The lure of pornography
4. The carelessly attended, weekend, default movie
5. Hip-huggers and plunging necklines
Justin Taylor, who posted the clip at his Gospel Coaltion blog, warned about rushing to judge Piper for his implicit judgmentalism. That warning is an indication itself that the Piper’s words could easily be misinterpreted and twisted, such as the idea that pornography and beer are equally threatening to holiness. But even with Taylor’s warning in mind, three anomalies haunt Piper’s remarks and Taylor’s publicizing of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6bn-MrjdQ
First, Piper is clear that the majesty of God is at the heart of genuine Christian piety. Piper says around 2:30 of the clip that he is concerned about the disconnect between the majesty of God sung about in contemporary Christian music (I suppose much of it coming from Sovereign Grace sources), “that causes people to soar with an emotional euphoria about the greatness of God and the wires of the details of our practical daily lives.†That way of putting it implies that the problem is not simply the disconnect between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of his saints, but also the difference between an evangelical-styled beatific vision of God and human life on planet earth. Now Piper does go on to contrast holiness and wickedness. But he started that set of contrasts with one between a spiritual high of experiencing God’s majesty and the low of living with the ordinary aspects of human existence, an existence that even after the fall is not inherently wicked.
What makes this point potentially faulty – that is, the contrast between “desiring God†and “living an earthly existence†– is that the Bible itself does not necessarily cultivate an appetite for the kind of experience lauded by Piper. The saints of the Old Testament were not the most virtuous; not even the great King David could keep his hormones in the Bible. And yet God not only chose to include these strange bits of ancient near eastern culture in Scripture, but also to reveal himself and his salvation through them. Mind you, David is not an example of Christian living. But neither did the final editors of holy writ (whether Israelite redactors or the Holy Trinity) decide to remove him from the canon for fear of distracting believers from a vision and experience of the supremacy of God. Even in the New Testament, the stories of Jesus do not end with him leaving lasting impressions on people who in turn go off in search of soul-wrenching encounters with divine majesty. Instead, the gospels are filled with earthy stories about real life encounters between people who lived in ordinary circumstances under not so savory rulers and earthly powers. In which case, I wonder if Piper’s desire for God cultivates an appetite that even Scripture cannot fulfill because the contents of the Bible are more like Woody Allen’s movies than the worship songs Piper admires.
Second, I wonder if Piper’s concerns about beer and movies make the saints at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City uncomfortable. As reported in the Nicotine Theological Journal (July 2008), Redeemer Church has sponsored an adult version of Vacation Bible School that featured courses in wine tasting, New York Yankees baseball, and even Wagner’s operas. I myself am not sure why a church needs to sponsor such forms of continuing education. But Redeemer and Keller are on record about wanting to cultivate the arts and culture, which is why Keller would likely gear up for and enjoy a dinner with Woody Allen. That also means that the saints at Redeemer church would not necessarily be comfortable with the cultural horizons of the Gospel Coalition if Piper were in charge of setting its event calendar. That also means that culture, engaging it, transforming it, and redeeming it, is a potentially divisive topic for two of the top allies in the Gospel Coalition. In which case, it’s not hip huggers or plunging necklines but rival forms of experimental Calvinism that could split the Gospel Coalition portion of the Gospel-Centered movement.
Third, I wonder why beer, movies, or piety would be more divisive for gospel believers than the sacraments. I may sound like a broken record, but the Gospel Coalition is comprised at least of Baptists and Presbyterians. Some of the Coalition’s Baptists have even said that the practice of infant baptism is a sin. This reaction to differences over baptism seem to be much more honorable and honest than simply ignoring the teachings and practices of the communions from which the Co-Allies come for the sake of a gospel-centered movement. After all, Lutherans and Reformed Protestants are in different communions precisely because Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli believed that a Gospel-Centered movement like the Reformation extended to the means of grace, those very ordinances by which God confirms and seals the gospel.
Piper’s remarks are several years old and so passed without breaking up the Gospel Coalition. But they do suggest that the Coalition’s unity could unravel as quickly as the Dude can mix a Caucasian or in the time it takes young Calvinists to discover the delights of the Coen Brothers.
Old Life 
I got a good belly laugh out of that one. You missed your calling as a stand up Calvinist comedian.
LikeLike
It brought back memories of my days at Charismatic Churches- I used to have to hide the fact that I indulged in Woody Allen movies (even Francis Schaeffer admitted that Allen was able to bring humor to some very serious issues that he struggled with). Sometimes the best thing we can do is laugh.
LikeLike
Deconstructing Harry is one of my favorites.
LikeLike
John, careful about Deconstructing H. Some might think you a mysogynist. But I agree.
LikeLike
John, careful about Deconstructing H. Some might think you a mysogynist. But I agree. Christie Ally’s performance was great.
LikeLike
Darryl, I want to make some more comments about the movie but am reluctant to because it is a public site. Deconstructing can sometimes be a good thing.
LikeLike
And no, I am not a mysogynist.
LikeLike
Although I have some pretty good reasons of why I could become one.
LikeLike
It may stem from my Mom’s hyper-criticism and my Dad’s functional alcoholism. But hey, I am still working through my issues.
LikeLike
“the contents of the Bible are more like Woody Allen’s movies than the worship songs Piper admires.”
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. By the way, that’s a large of why I accept the Bible’s authority. It rings so true. It “knows” me. And I say that as someone who has been blessed by Piper’s ministry for years, though I’m no longer quite on the same page.
My own reading of the scripture leads me to being baptistic (gasp!) in my understanding. Yet I’ve never been a part of a “Baptist” congregation, primarily b/c of the constant legalism every-single-time. I guess I’ll hafta continue being the black sheep among the OPC.
LikeLike
Phenomenal article. The disconnect between real life and evangelical rhetoric that Piper mentions is real, but it seems as good of a reason to reject pietism as irresolvable than to enforce whatever we’re supposed to be doing more of as true Christians. As long as there’s (yet) another list of pitfalls, where’s the article warning against resting in one’s self-examination instead of Christ?
I’m perplexed why film gets two of the five slots (beside porn, no less). I think the time I spent trying to follow Scougal and Payson was of much less profit – and much more costly – than that spent on Bergman.
Trueman’s “The True Repentance of an Inconvenient Jester” and your own “Keep Your Balance” offer a refreshing, desperately needed alternative to both issuing idolatry warnings for everything and offering ecclesiastically-funded clarinet lessons.
LikeLike
Oh, and by the way, I would totally pay a pretty penny to see Keller, Piper, and Allen in a theological debate. Have you ever seen the conversation Woody had with Billy Graham? Absolutely fascinating. I suspect Woody would do a decent job of holding up his own nihilistic views quite well. The absurdist perspective is not that far off of the gospel perspective, even if it’s an eternity away.
LikeLike
Mike K. says: “As long as there’s (yet) another list of pitfalls, where’s the article warning against resting in one’s self-examination instead of Christ?”
John B. says: “I suspect Woody would do a decent job of holding up his own nihilistic views quite well. The absurdist perspective is not that far off of the gospel perspective, even if it’s an eternity away”
There’s some good insight in those comments. This is getting interesting.
LikeLike
A paraphrase of a scene in Broadway Danny Rose:
Mia Farrow: My philosophy is “everyone’s out for himself, screw the other guy before he screws you.”
Woody Allen/BDR: Philosophy? That’s a philosophy? Don’t you feel guilty about doing things like that?
MF: Guilt is for losers. I don’t feel guilty about nuthin.
WA: What? No,no… guilt is important. Guilt keeps us from doing all kinds of horrible things. Like my uncle Malachi used to say, “before God, we’re all guilty.â€
MF: Do you believe in God?
WA: No…but I feel guilty about it.
Then there’s a chase in a factory full of inflatable parade floats like Underdog. Helium is soon in the air; Woody Allen and the hit man yell at each other with high-pitched, cartoony voices.
I think I’ll watch BDR again.
LikeLike
Michael,
That was funny. One of my favorite lines comes from the movie Hannah and Her Sisters where one of Hannah’s sister is in a relationship with the big German guy (I forget his name). I cannot remember the exact wording but they were discussing the Holocaust and this guy stated with great vehemence, anger and authority in his voice: What, you think the Holocaust will never happen again, I am shocked that it has not.
LikeLike
DGH, this is simply a brilliant piece of writing. Through your works the Lord is certainly using you, at least in my life, to liberate the Christian faith of it’s pietistic baggage. Your book on Nevin is blowing my mind. Almost every page I’ve read is marked with a “JEEPERS BATMAN” sort of exclamation.
LikeLike
Speaking of Nevin- I am trying to increase my understanding of Machen and Nevin,ie., their theology, the controversies they faced and how they went about dealing with these controversies in their polemics, etc. Can anyone guide me in the best way to go about this? What books, articles or other resources to tackle and the sequence and order of doing so.
I would also like to know the thoughts of those who read the posts on this site as to what they think are the area’s that need further research and thinking in regards to the controversies confessionalists are facing with those who oppose them. And, with those who are opposing R2K and confessionalism, why they are so vehemently opposed. A lot of the opposition does seem like hysteria to me.
LikeLike
I am talking about the opposition to the type of R2K and confessionalism that comes out of those who are affiliated or linked with Westminster West. I am sure that everyone who is affiliated with Westminster West does not agree with each other on everything but they do seem to have a united front about a lot of the main issues.
I am asking these questions because I have a lot of time to reflect on things right now and I seem to do best in my life when I have big projects I am working on. I am trying to get my job back with my brother (he did have the graciousness to hire my two boys so I am basically waiting for my brother to retire). In the meantime, I have enough to get by for awhile and I am able to work at some low paying manufacturing jobs on occasion which helps (there is not a lot of demand right now for those in their mid 50’s who ran family manufacturing businesses). Anyways, I like reading, writing and doing research on issues that come up on this web site so let the books, articles, etc. come my way. Thanks ahead of time for anyone who responds.
LikeLike
Hi John. I knew nothing of Nevin until I started reading DGH’s book. If you’ve yet to read it, that would be a great place to start. What struck me most about Nevin was his ability to diagnose and articulate those aspects which have crept into reformed theology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc which infect and undermine true biblical piety. Those aspects have been passed onto some of us as if they were THE distinguishing marks of true Protestantism (e.g. a low view of church and sacraments).
An area for further research, at least for me, is the relation of historical theology and sola Scriptura. It seems Nevin struggled to come to terms with a Protestantism that placed too heavy an emphasis on the latter.
LikeLike
Thanks Nick,
Hart’s book on Nevin was a place I was going to start and I will keep in mind your comment about historical theology and sola Scriptura. In the meantime, I have been reading the Kerux article that DGH linked with the hysteria post and am taking notes on it and outlining it to extract the main issues which the folks at that seminary think are critical. So far I think it is a lot of hysteria or as Faulkner said, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.”
LikeLike
I have also been reflecting on whether Harry, in Deconstructing Harry, could be considered a misogynist. I think he was functioning under the philosophy of you had better depart out of the relationship before they screw you. I think he had the tendency to project bad scenarios in his mind before they happened. I guess you can call that paranoia. Relationships tend to be complicated like that. At least they have been in my experience and I think in Harry’s too. And woman get away with murder in relationships. There are so good at portraying innocence and know how to manipulate men. It all goes back to that complicated relationship in the Garden of Eden. Perhaps I have revealed too much here.
LikeLike
John,
afaict the consensus from Nevin’s Reformed sympathizers is that he went too far, which might be something to keep in mind when teaming him with Machen. That said, Hart’s bio is gripping and sympathetic. Nevin’s own work is available from Amazon, and Jonathan Bonomo’s “Incarnation and Sacrament” also looks interesting.
Machen’s “Selected Shorter Writings” is almost worth buying for the introduction alone. “Defending the Faith” is the obvious recommendation as a biography. Personally, it’s hard to remember; I’m sure it was really good, but it takes about three Hart books before one understands how deep he’s actually aiming, and that was only my first or second.
LikeLike
I do hold in high esteem those who are able to forge good and healthy marriages. It is probably the toughest thing we do as men. It is worth fighting for and making a top priority. Wives, and woman in general I have found to be very taxing and difficult. That is probably why I am still single after my divorce in 1995. I did date a couple of pretty complex women after my divorce for extended periods of time so my experience is probably out of the ordinary. Neither of them worked out very good. Sorry about going into my own experience but I am sure other men can relate to what I am saying. It brings out some good conversation on blog sites too.
LikeLike
John, on the opposition to 2k it is an odd mix of prejudices:
1) There is the resentment for some at WSC’s opposition to Norman Shepherd during the controversy over justification. Shepherd tried to make faith into obedient faith so that faith and works would go together always. That means that the justification priority position of WSC receives the charge of Lutheran — i.e. antinomian.
2) There is the resentment over Lee Irons, a graduate of WSC, who was part of the biblical-theology, Vossian group that reads Kerux. He took some views about the law that seemed to deny the third use. (His wife compounded Lee’s problems by writing empathetically about the gays and discrimination against them.) Ball this up and you have more charges of antinomianism, even though Irons’ views were never held by faculty at WSC.
3) There is resentment against Meredith Kline for his opposition to Shepherd and John Murray on covenant theology. Because Kline takes Vos in a 2k direction, and many would rather have Vos go in a Kuyperian direction, and because Kline taught for many years at WSC, the resentments against Kline extend to WSC.
4) John Frame used to teach at WSC and he and Mike Horton had some disagreements. Frame’s views have cultivate further opposition to WSC.
5) Certain faculty at WSC have challenged the Holy Grail of Kuyperianism. The school itself has both Kuyperians and 2k advocates. But in these times, to challenge the Dutch hegemony is to abandon the Reformed faith for Lutheranism.
6) WSC also has a high view of the church and a traditional view of worship. This means that for many at the seminary, the church is not responsible for reforming society or for social justice. It also means that not every member of the church is a minister. So questions about kingdom, culture, church authority, sacred and secular are bound up with doctrines of the church and worship.
What’s odd about the opposition to WSC is that seminary is sound on the three aspects of Reformed Protestantism that characterized the tradition; soteriology, worship, and Scripture. But in some circles, that’s not enough. What have you done for us lately?
LikeLike
DGH: This reaction to differences over baptism seem to be much more honorable and honest than simply ignoring the teachings and practices of the communions from which the Co-Allies come for the sake of a gospel-centered movement. After all, Lutherans and Reformed Protestants are in different communions precisely because Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli believed that a Gospel-Centered movement like the Reformation extended to the means of grace, those very ordinances by which God confirms and seals the gospel.
So … there are two facts on the table.
(1) Piper and Keller each believe that the other’s view of baptism is sinful, or at least in error. DGH is on Keller’s side in this argument.
(2) Piper and Keller are, apparently, both members of the visible church.
Which fact is more fundamental?
LikeLike
DGH,
I appreciate you taking the time to write down your thoughts about the opposition to R2K. I had almost come to the conclusion that most of the opposition was more from emotionally charged relationships that were never dealt with properly than anything of important theological error or major theological differences over critical theological issues. This is the same type of thing that happened between Luther and Carlsdadt and Luther and Zwingli. They did not like each other very much and the theological differences then got magnified. Others then sided with personalities and the rifts became deeper and minor differences then never get resolved. That seems to be the way things go this side of paradise.
It is not an easy thing to stay centered and focused on the pursuit of biblical and theological truth, piety and practice. The distractions, pitfalls and more easier routes to take are a less contentious way to go. We easily seem to lose our resolve to fight through the issues.
LikeLike
Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions.
LikeLike
Jeff, if I were on Keller’s side then I’d be a member of GC.
I believe several other facts are relevant, but one you neglect is that both are ministers who have taken vows, and I have a good idea of what Keller’s vows include.
LikeLike
Jeff, to the extent that Lutherans are much closer to Protestant definitions of trueness, I’ve always thought the fundamental fact that there are no Lutherans in the GC should be the most important one for P&R’s. But the fact that P&R’s join the GC seems to suggest the relative victory of the Radical Reformation amongst the confessing heirs of the Protestant Reformation.
LikeLike
Jeff,
After listening to you, Darryl and Zrim go at it the last 3 or 4 months I think you are a lot like Melancthon. Luther, one day in a lecture I believe, with Melanchthon in attendance and asking his usual questions about piety turned to him and said Melancthon, go out and sin boldly and then come back and boldly confess your sin to God- the Gospel is entirely outside of you.
Probably a lot of the accusations of Luther being an anti-nomian are directly related to this quote. But Luther was not an anti-nomian as can be easily proved through many of his writings. Luther knew the importance of distinguishing the Law and the Gospel and how prone we are to confuse them in our thinking and how we work it out in our daily lives. From what happened after Luther’s death Melanchthon was never able to resolve the issue and it split the Lutherans apart.
LikeLike
If anyone comes across any papers, books, downloadable articles, etc., on the questions I asked you can forward them to my email address: johny382100@yahoo.com
LikeLike
DGH, how strange. So you wouldn’t agree with Keller that Piper’s view on baptism is a sin, or at least an error?
Or did you read “this argument” as being broader than (1)?
So neither of you have really answered the question, so let me simplify it:
(1) Piper’s view on baptism is a sin or at least an error (which would get him removed from ministry),
(2) Piper is, apparently, a member of the visible church.
Which fact is more fundamental?
LikeLike
These video’s are presented in the spirit of John B’s post: “I suspect Woody would do a decent job of holding up his own nihilistic views quite well. The absurdist perspective is not that far off of the gospel perspective, even if it’s an eternity awayâ€
http://www.theonion.com/video/oprah-invites-hundreds-of-lucky-fans-to-be-buried,18443/
Italian_President.wmv (4305KB)
LikeLike
Fw: If we had an Italian President
…
From:
John Dodge [Chat now]
…
View Contact
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@yahoo.com
Italian_President.wmv (4305KB)
Some things are too good not to forward, enjoy.
Had to relink it- may have to do it again
LikeLike
http://67.195.13.132/us.f1125.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?mid=1_9407_AJIaiWIAAP0QTNybuw4mTU6930Y&fid=Inbox&pid=2&tnef=&clean=0&redirectURL=http%3A%2F%2Fus.mg4.mail.yahoo.com%2Fdc%2Fvirusresults.html%3Ffrom%3Ddownload_response%26default_file_name%3DItalian_President.wmv%26ui%3Diframe%26YY%3D1289835831220%26&cred=jPU2VfMf4oCXLy3ktC.TSiUlYFPUpHA6isTABMx1HtitJxPAkUVQZhmHvJQr3fX5g6Yhw_jDq.4f.l9zlyurmRjfuYU4J0wd0F315VSmdT91m7M-&ts=1289835817&partner=ymail&sig=fMfyd3bsp_nDFYYOqkZJpQ–
Maybe this one will work
LikeLike
Jeff,
Do you really think Keller believes Piper’s view of baptism is either erroneous or sinful? If he did, wouldn’t he resist joining a Coalition that is going to engage in word and sacrament?
I’m not trying to be evasive, but I don’t understand your question about which is more fundamental? Fundamental to what? Evaluating the Gospel Coalition? Evaluating Piper? Who gets invited to dinner with Woody?
LikeLike
[Mike Marino] 1:35 Add to Added to queue
Mike Marino
I think we should have an Italian president from New Jersey! … Mike Marino Italian Comedian Mycomedytv Comedy Comics Unleashed Byron Allen Joke …
by mycomedytv | 3 months ago | 2,093,600 views
If this one does not work you can go to youtube and search The Italian President (Mike Marino). Or, you can just tell me to shut up
LikeLike
Remove Woody from the equation and you’d have My Dinner with Andre with Pastor Keller as a taller version of Wallace Shawn.
LikeLike
DGH: Do you really think Keller believes Piper’s view of baptism is either erroneous or sinful?
I would imagine so. The PCA has been fairly clear (from a case dating back before my time) that credobaptism is not an acceptable exception to the Confession. I would be surprised if Keller disagrees.
I could be wrong.
If he did, wouldn’t he resist joining a Coalition that is going to engage in word and sacrament? I’m not trying to be evasive, but I don’t understand your question about which is more fundamental? Fundamental to what? Evaluating the Gospel Coalition?
No, you’re not being evasive — it was an off-the-wall question. But a question with a point:
If Keller perceives Piper as a brother who is also in sin, then the brother part might be more fundamental than the sin part.
In your own family, you might well have family members who are in sin — and yet remain family.
And if so, then something like the Gospel Coalition makes some kind of sense: family first. It presents, of course, a danger — the danger of placing family ties over truth. But if “being family” is part of the truth, then …
I think that’s why the Confession hedges on the boundaries of the visible church: “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.” At the time, of course, it was the RCC in view. But in our day, I think these words fit the evangelical situation rather well, no?
LikeLike
Jeff, since Redeemer NYC cooperates with non-Reformed churches in planting churches in NYC, I can’t imagine Keller is all that squeamish about non-Reformed views of baptism.
But I am amazed that you would liken the GC to family. The point of GC is united not by legal or biological ties, but by the Gospel itself. In which case, the basis for the tie should be the claims of the Gospel, which also brings with it some rejection of views that don’t conform to Scripture.
The idea of Christianity being a bond akin to the family and abstracted from the church is precisely what Old Life opposes.
LikeLike
Jeff, something like the GC doesn’t make sense if you’re coming at it from an ecclesiastical point of view instead of a movement orientation, which is to say why start a movement when you have a church? Why make a movement do what a church already sorts out? And this is why I think there is an irony that comes with the sort of ecumenism we find amongst the historical Lutherans and Reformed: they stayed in their respective communions yet found more fraternity than those these days who diminish what distinguishes.
I’d also suggest that confessional statements which speak of mixture and denegration had not only Rome in mind but also Muenster (the errors of both are pointed out in the 3FU). The Reformation was a battle on two fronts, according to Calvin. And evangelicalism descends more or less from the Radical Reformation, and the GC represents the more evangelically Reformed than the confessionally Reformed. I’ll leave it to you to add those numbers up, but by my order of operations that means the GC still doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
DGH: The idea of Christianity being a bond akin to the family and abstracted from the church…
No, now read me in context. I clearly located Piper within the visible church to begin with.
And that means that what I have in mind is:
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Now, perhaps you think Piper outside the visible church because of his baptismal view. I assume you would carry that to its conclusion and say that he has no ordinary possibility of salvation, along with Mark Dever.
Or perhaps you think that Piper is in fact inside the visible church, in which case he’s family.
No?
LikeLike
Zrim: I’d also suggest that confessional statements which speak of mixture and denegration had not only Rome in mind but also Muenster (the errors of both are pointed out in the 3FU).
Yes, I agree; my original statement was incomplete.
Zrim: And evangelicalism descends more or less from the Radical Reformation, and the GC represents the more evangelically Reformed than the confessionally Reformed.
It’s the “more or less” that’s at issue. How much more? How much less?
Are you willing to say that Piper is not a part of the visible church?
LikeLike
DGH, for the record: when I drew up interchurch cooperation guidelines for our church, it was made clear that we can only participate in evangelistic or outreach ministries with fellow Reformed churches. I think Keller has been a little overbroad on that front.
My point is that, taking the visible church seriously may mean more than one thing. Yes: it might mean preserving its boundaries; but also, it might mean taking seriously the unity implied in it. Our family doesn’t have to be perfect to remain family.
LikeLike
Jeff, evangelicalism descends more from the Radical Reformation and less from the Protestant Reformation. And I’m much less for making pronouncements about individuals (seems more evangelical than confessional), but more for repeating the confessional formulations for what marks the true church a la Begic 29, which says in part:
“The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults.”
Pious souls have a duty to adhere themselves to a church that bears those marks, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. There are no grandfather clauses for religious celebrity.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The point is not Piper’s celebrity, nor one’s judgment of his individual salvation. That would be “invisible church” stuff.
The point is that Baptist churches — especially of the TULIP variety — are usually held to be gospel-preaching churches and therefore a part of the visible church under the gospel.
Now, perhaps their administration of the sacraments is sufficiently deficient that you would want to put Baptist churches outside the circle of salvation. Am I perceiving your argument about the Radical Ref and Belgic 29 correctly?
If so, well, I can understand — except that you also seem eager to admit Lutherans into that visible church, despite their deficiencies on both sacraments. In fact, consubstantiation has been criticized as confusing the divine and human natures of Christ and thus contrary to Chalcedon. So it’s puzzling that you expect purity in some parts of Minnesota but not others.
But also: Is your stance on Baptists a part of your denominational teaching? Or is it your own private opinion? For in the PCA, at least, they are admitted to the Lord’s Table.
LikeLike
Jeff, the way to put Piper and Keller in the church is to go to the invisible church. In visible church categories, they are in different churches, neither of which has fraternal relations with the other. Both are in “a” visible church. But that doesn’t make them part of “a” family.
LikeLike
Jeff, the analogy of the family may be helpful. Keller belongs to the Kellers. Piper to the Pipers. They are both in families but the families are not related. There is the invisible family, and the visible one. And the visible ones count, otherwise plural marriage or other such oddities might be acceptable.
LikeLike
DGH, I’ve never read the Confession that way. Doesn’t it speak of the visible church, which is universal or catholic under the Gospel…?
And it consists of all those who profess the true religion and their children.
And it is the house and family of God.
All of those are singular, not plural, in nature. No? Don’t we push hard on the point that God has one family and not two when speaking with dispensationalists? (“You are all children of Abraham…”)
LikeLike
DGH
Do you remember the late Harvey Conn’s movie review column in the old ‘Eternity’ magazine ? He did one on one of Woody Allen’s movies that closed with an appeal to pray for Woody Allen.
LikeLike
Just for further meditation on this: WLC 62 seems also to indicate a singular, universal visible church.
LikeLike
Jeff, instead of “outside the circle of salvation” I’m more comfortable saying TULIP Baptist churches, by virtue of their error on the second mark, are one giant step away from true and closer to false.
As for fraternity with Lutherans, first, it’s interesting that nobody has to qualify between TULIP/non-TULIP Lutherans; second, our language speaks of the correct administration of the sacraments, not the correct understanding of them. Yes, there are significant differences in understanding them, which is why we stay in our respective communions instead of inventing movements, but at least Lutherans don’t actually withhold baptism from covenant children.
And the in/visible church point is helpful. It seems like trying to do the work of putting individuals into the true church is a way of doing the invisible during the visible age or peer into things forbidden. Again, let’s describe the marks of the true church and bid pious souls to adhere to her.
LikeLike
Jeff, here’s the plural: ” And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” WCF 25.4.
LikeLike
DGH: Yes, there is a plural there. But those are plural “particular churches”, not plural “visible churches.” Those refer to individual churches which are members of the visible church, not denominations. Under most cases, that would simply be a pedantic point; but here, you seem to want to kick Piper out of the “family” because he’s not a part of your “particular church.”
But the Confession is clear: the one visible church is the family of God.
So your choice is either
(a) Piper (or Dever, or Marva Dawn) is not a part of the family because he is not a part of the one, universal visible church under the Gospel, OR
(b) Piper is a part of the family because he is a part of the one, universal visible church under the Gospel.
But halfway won’t work. Chucking Piper from the family while saying that he’s part of a different visible church is simply contraConfessional.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, instead of “outside the circle of salvation†I’m more comfortable saying TULIP Baptist churches, by virtue of their error on the second mark, are one giant step away from true and closer to false.
I completely agree. And then, by extension, Baptists are one giant step closer to not belonging to the family anymore. But they still belong.
Zrim: As for fraternity with Lutherans, first, it’s interesting that nobody has to qualify between TULIP/non-TULIP Lutherans
That’s because they’re all non-.
Well, OK, maybe not all. But a good Book of Concord boy will choke on the petals of the TULIP.
And anyways, isn’t there a pretty large distinction in your mind between Missouri Synod and ELCA?
Zrim: Again, let’s describe the marks of the true church and bid pious souls to adhere to her.
Full agreement here. Let’s quit while we’re ahead.
LikeLike
So, Jeff, all that said and with some apparent measure of agreement, does something like the GC still make as much sense to you as it doesn’t to me?
LikeLike
It does, though I would be critical of the mission statement.
It makes sense to affirm familial ties. It just does; not to do so is to suggest by silence that there are none.
It also makes boat-loads of sense to locate justification at the center of those familial ties (wait, did I just make a justification-centrality comment?)
I can see why you might find this more threatening than I:
GC About: These movements have led to the easy abandonment of both biblical truth and the transformed living mandated by our historic faith.
That last clause seems to assume that transformationalism is an integral part of Christianity, and unless properly nuanced in terms of sanctification, I would have to reject it. I’m sure than you’re even more allergic than I.
I find this pair of statements to be in tension with one another:
GC About: Yet we often see the celebration of our union with Christ replaced … by monastic retreats into ritual, liturgy, and sacrament.
ibid: We intend to do this through the ordinary means of his grace: prayer, the ministry of the Word, baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the fellowship of the saints.
It’s unclear here what the difference is between a “monastic retreat into the sacrament” and use of the means of grace.
But the really interesting question is, does it or does it not matter that the semantic content of baptism and the Lord’s supper differs from coalition member to coalition member?
I argue that the ambiguity here carries a strength and a weakness.
Strength: The ambiguity raises the potential for cross-denominational discussions about the sacraments that do not begin with the premise, “Here’s why we’re in different churches.”
The only discussions about sacraments I’ve seen, such as the Sproul-MacArthur debate on baptism, have had denominational difference as the premise, with unlistening argument as the outcome.
Here, since the framework includes the premise that we are part of the same kingdom of Christ, there is potential for discussion that could include (*gasp*) listening and even change of mind on the part of participants.
That’s a really unique positive feature, especially if one is convinced (as I am) of the power of Scripture to persuade one to the truth.
Weakness: The flip side of the strength is that the Gospel Coalition will therefore necessarily expose folk to ideas outside their denominational teaching. This is not-so-good if the teachers are unprincipled and aim at making partisan arguments instead of laying forth the Scriptures.
Other Weakness: Many may fear rupturing the coalition with honest discussion (as DGH suggests in his article), so that the real discussions might not materialize.
Overall, though, I’m hopeful. We see here a movement within the visible church to affirm unity on the central point: the Gospel. That movement appears to have learned the necessary hard lesson from the evangelical entanglement with politics. It appears to value word and sacrament.
If those fundamentals are genuine, I think they will move the participants along in a positive direction.
LikeLike
One more criticism of the GC. Over in the Theological Vision for Ministry document, the authors take a firm stance on epistemology: Truth equals Correspondence to Reality. This they perceive to be in opposition to postmodernism.
While I’m not utterly opposed to “Truth equals Correspondence to Reality”, I would also want to qualify (following van Til) that Reality equals God’s Point of View.
That is, I see a potential danger in their epistemological stance of recapitulating the very errors that led to the PoMo revolution in the first place: namely, of decoupling Truth from points of view, so that the distinction between “my understanding of truth” and “genuine truth” is lost; and so that the positive features of PoMo (such as a rediscovery of narrative, a critique of power structures, and a clearer vision of the creature/Creator distinction) are lost.
Some of the subpoints 1-4 allay my concerns, but I would have been happier with this:
Truth equals Seeing Things the way God Sees Them.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks.
Still, if you’ve accurately captured the mission of the GC then the reason I don’t think it makes much sense is that it seems to do what churches already do: affirm unity on the central point, the gospel. And if it’s a concern for having free and profitable cross-denominational discussion then something like Horton’s “Village Green” notion makes sense and takes care of all that.
But if it’s a matter of affirming familial ties, and I think that it is, then inventing a special conventicle outside of familial bonds is just plain odd. Isn’t that like employing a harem to affirm your marriage? (Easy, easy, I’m just over-analoging to make the point.) And this is why I detect more evangelicalism than Protestantism: it seems to track with the ways the Methodists invented the conventicle in the midst of the Church of England, as if the church wasn’t enough to do what she was ordained to do. It’s “small groups” for the denominations not content with their church, sort of like “small groups” for individuals not content with Word and sacrament.
LikeLike
Zrim: Isn’t that like employing a harem to affirm your marriage? (Easy, easy, I’m just over-analoging to make the point.)
Yes, but now I have coffee on my keyboard.
I see your point about GC creating a para-church. Whether it pans out that way or as a village green remains to be seen. It really could go either way.
LikeLike
Jeff, if you studied history for a living you would not be so hopeful. And if you had 2k convictions, you would not be so inclined to the GC view of the ministry.
LikeLike
DGH: And if you had 2k convictions, you would not be so inclined to the GC view of the ministry.
Oh but I do … sadly, not the same 2k convictions as yours.
LikeLike
Jeff, Zrim and DGH,
That was a good example of how a good reasoned internet discussion should transpire. It took awhile to get there but everyone seems to have arrived at conclusions that they can live with. So, time will tell whether GC turns into a para-church movement that seeks unity around issues other than true confessional doctrine (worldviewism and cultural transformation) or is just kind of a village green where those of different theological persuasions seek to hash things out with a bit more understanding. I guess the same could be said for Modern Reformation Magazine.
LikeLike
I should have said true confessional doctrine, piety and practice.
LikeLike
I do not see how the discussion can go further except by trying to get at the bottom of why each others 2K convictions are different. So, what is the ground for your differences?
LikeLike
Let me throw out a few suggestions that not only have to do with 2K but with eclessiology and beliefs on how the Spirit accomplishes God’s eternal decree and purposes in both the culture and the Church.
There are some good articles in the book Always Reformed which go into these issues. My thoughts have not totally coalesced on the matters but they are getting clearer.
One of the issues is the matter of the third use of the Law and the various degrees of understanding in its applications. Also, what are the implications for Church discipline. There are a wide variety of views expressed here and confessionalists and worldviewers seem to be talking a different language on the subject. Why this is I have not quite figured out.
Worldviewers and cultural transformers also seem to have the attitude that confessions are good broad guides to be respected but the Spirit is better at providing applications to certain situations in the Church and the culture rather than trying to get specific doctrinally in confessional statements. Confessionalists end up following the dead letter of the Law rather than the life giving Spirit. Bryan Glomsrud in his article on Barth claims that this was Barth’s attitude too. He was a functional Anabaptist who had some respect for Calvin and the confessional Reformed statements. This then leads to a Hegelian and Kantian view of reality which is what the R2kers have a hard time with.
Events going on in Africa, Asia and Latin America are also causing people to have adverse reactions to the views of confessionalists and R2kers. The GC folks seem to be more open to a revivalist perspective and to the happenings going on in these countries. I think David Wells article on Africa in a recent Modern Reformation magazine touches in a general way on this subject but a much more detailed analysis needs to take place.
To give an example of this my youngest son is engaged to a girl from a tribal village in Zimbabwe, Africa. Her father got a scholarship to study physics at Ball State University and finished his Phd here while in his late 30’s. She came here when she was 18 and then attended Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Her father went back to Zimbabwe and got involved with a political party and some big business ventures. He was murdered 2 years ago and the kids who remained in the U.S. were cut off from all his financial support and inheritance. They are working on getting it back but it is slow going.
The religion of the tribal village she lived in was revivalistic and when here Father got involved in the political structure of the country and earned a lot of money in his business ventures he started running into problems with the tribal Church members in the village.
She claims she was healed of a uterine disease which the Dr.’s told her caused her to never be able to have any kids. This happened to her while attending a revivalistic faith type Church in the downtown Chicago area which is mostly a mix of Latin Americans and Blacks. Supposedly she prayed for 6 months about the issue. It happened around the same time her father died. I am leery of my son marrying her because of her theological beliefs but they are not listening to me right now. I have had talks with her about my problems with her theology and she has a hard time listening to anyone who mentions Calvin and the Calvinists because of their association with oppressing the black community in Africa. So, there are deep problems in people’s minds in these countries with a confessionalist and R2k perspective of theology. It takes a lot of work to repair these rifts in people’s understanding.
LikeLike
It boils down to trusting God’s Ways and Means of accomplishing HIs eternal decree in the Church and the culture or adding our human interpretations to the matter which fly against what the Reformers fought for. Our misinterpretations will be argued until the Fat Lady starts singing.
LikeLike
Hello, this weekend is fastidious in favor of me, for the reason that this point in time i am reading this fantastic educational piece of writing here at my home.
LikeLike
wine cooler, who cares? Choose a drink less anemic.
LikeLike