Mike Horton often laments that the evangelicals who become excited about confessional Protestant theology often do not realize that the new teachings and practices they adopt are at odds with older parts of their born-again devotion and conviction. Mike likens this to a notebook in which the student puts in new pages but neglects to take out the old and erroneous pages. In which case, someone might insert a page for worship that is formal, liturgical, and reverent, and fail to remove the page that says it’s okay to go home after the service and watch professional football.
To Rabbi Bret’s credit, his intellect is keen enough to see the tensions among pages in his notebook. He recently posted his disagreement with J. Gresham Machen on the pastor’s responsibility to master and minister the Word of God. In his convocation address for Westminster Seminary, Machen asserted:
We are living in an age of specialization. There are specialists on eyes and specialists on noses, and throats, and stomachs, and feet, and skin; there are specialists on teeth—one set of specialists on putting teeth in, and another set of specialists on pulling teeth out—there are specialists on Shakespeare and specialists on electric wires; there are specialists on Plato and specialists on pipes. Amid all these specialties, we at Westminster Seminary have a specialty which we think, in comparison with these others, is not so very small. Our specialty is found in the Word of God. Specialists in the Bible—that is what Westminster Seminary will endeavor to produce.
But Bret thinks this is too narrow a reading of Scripture or the work of ministers.
The idea that being alone a specialist on what is in the Bible is enough to successfully minister in our current culture is just not true unless included in that idea of Bible specialty is also the ability to take what’s in the Bible and apply it every area of life.
For example, what’s in the Bible will never tell us about existentialism or post-modernism, or communism but can any minister really be of any value if they have no understanding of how these philosophies are impacting the people he is seeking to minister God’s word from?
If ministers are to specialize what ministers need to specialize in is integration, or inter-disciplinary studies. Is a minister prepared if he specializes on what is in the Bible, while along the way, discovering that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, if the minister doesn’t know what that might begin to look like in family life, the law realm, or the educational realm?
Ministers simply have to understand that Christian theology is the integrating point that gives unity to all the differing specialties. The Bible is that integrating point and because it is that integrating point what the Bible has to say between its covers, covers all areas that aren’t explicitly between its covers. If we do not believe that God’s word is the integrating point that gives unity to diversity then the world we live in will not be a Universe but a Multi-verse where all the particulars (specialties) can find no relation to one another.
So again, to Bret’s credit, he sees that he needs to take the Machen page out of his notebook to accommodate his biblicism and world-view pages. We appreciate the clarity and honesty.
What deserves attention, though, is that the Bible nowhere says that the ministry needs to be the integration point for all specialties. Somehow I missed that in Paul’s instructions to Timothy on ministering the word (2 Tim 3:14-4:4). Paul is fairly clear about ministering the word and the sufficiency of Scripture. The apostle himself knew a thing or two about Greek philosophy but he doesn’t tell Timothy to master Epicureanism or Stoicism – as if your average first-century or twenty-first Christian is trying to implement the ‘ism’s of the mind in his everyday activities; even the mental people – academics or pastors – are never so self-conscious.
Also questionable is Bret’s belief that someone could actual be the master of all specialties in order to integrate them. Given Bret’s own reading of economics, politics, or history, I’d say he might spend a little more time with the experts before thinking that he is the master of all intellectual insights and capable of definitive judgments. Ironically, it seems that Bret follows Machen in thinking he is an expert on the Bible and because the Bible speaks to all of life, the good Rabbi is an expert on all of life. Again I say, huh?
Bret’s comments are another important reason for 2k – which is to reign in excessive interpretations of the religious meanings of culture, not to mention the pride that generally comes with such assessments.
But to Bret’s credit, he does sense that he needs to give up Machen to retain Rushdoony. We continue to be amazed and amused that he keeps the CRC page.
Old Life 
Sphere sovereignty is the answer here too. Of course, the minister/pastor is not and cannot be the master of all specialties. And neither is the church qua church. But, alas, even the OPC believes that its ministers and elders are able to decide what is and is not good science. The Kuyperian view says that it’s the Christian in the discipline (not the minister) who is to do the “integration” (I don’t really think that’s the right word, but it’s what we all use here).
Again, modern expressions of these Kuyperian ideas seem to have a more theonomic bent to them. I.e. the church qua church (and it’s ministers) is the arbiter of all truth and justice in society. I say, let the minister be the specialist in the Word of God and in proclaiming the gospel and ordering public worship. But don’t think that that’s the end of the application of Biblical truth in the world. Let the artist, the professional, the scientist, the tradesman, the statesman, the counselor (all who are masters of their specialties) do the work of applying Biblical truth and principles to their specialties. Let the church call its people into faithful, thoughtful, Biblically-informed service into all aspects of Creational reality. But let the church qua church and its ministers recognize their own limits and listen especially to its own who are in the disciplines.
A caveat here, to acknowledge something that DGH has said before, is that this does not guarantee the right answer. The “thus saith the Lord” is much more clear in scripture than in the disciplines (or in Creational revelation itself).
Finally, I do want to suggest that we want an educated ministry–educated “beyond” the Word of God. I have always thought that that was why seminary was a graduate degree. The undergraduate university/college experience required by most seminaries leads to a breadth of training in the disciplines (and even a single discipline) that provides for some understanding of this integration process. No one can master everything, but as one sees how it works in one area, one can apply it elsewhere.
LikeLike
Machen was the author of Christianity and Liberalism, which is about Christianity vs. liberalism. Machen was the “founder” of WTS, as the successor-continuation of Old Princeton. Both delivered a full-orbed theological curriculum to the ministerial student: OT, NT, Church History, Theology and Apologetics. Machen was responsible for securing Cornelius Van Til for Apologetics at WTS. Machen knew what he was doing in hiring CVT.
There is a breadth, a majestic breadth to what is meant by Machen’s phrase “specialists in the Bible.” It is not a narrow knowledge of contents of the English Bible only. It is all about knowing the word and the Westminster Stds that uphold that word; and communicating the claims of Christ, the full counsel of God to unbelievers for their salvation and to the Church for its edification. But that is not the same thing as Bret’s all-embracing integration punkt.
Might be said that it is ironic, as WTS sought to beef up it’s practical side (allegedly the idea of improving the ability to preach/communicate the Gospel) it was sometimes the “practical” profs who confused the theological/biblical message of WTS.
LikeLike
Cris,
That being said, the WTS curriculum did not include training in economics, physics, medicine, law, etc. So, while Machen may have advocated for more breadth than a narrow focus on the Bible, he did not intend that WTS train men on how to preach authoritatively on a wide range of “cultural” issues. In contrast, the Baylys, Bret, and their ilk suggest that the preacher ought to stand in the pulpit and–in addition to binding the conscience of his congregation to the Word–bind folks conscience on issues that lie far afield of the gospel, such as economics, social policy, archaeology, and medical ethics. I’ve observed a few pastors attempt to preach in such a way. The result is the departure of most of the church’s economists, bankers, lawyers, scientists, and physicians. And they’re not leaving because they feel that the minister is intruding into their specialty. No, they’re leaving because the minister is speaking in ignorance and making a mockery (or straw man) out of the decisions that these professionals make in their jobs.
LikeLike
Bob;
Thanks for the amplification of my observation. I have not thought about (or observed) the effect of ministers usurping other disciplines as driving folks away from the Church.
LikeLike
Speaking of football- the stubborn ferocity of the Bears defense is up against the high flying Eagle offense led by the charismatic and highly talented Michael Vick who seems to have found some character on the heels of Tony Dungy’s Christian counseling. I was wondering if Darryl’s Sabbatarian convictions allow him to tape the game and watch it tomorrow or does he have a total ban on the NFL because they work on the Sabbath?
I bet over 50% of the players in the NFL hold to some form of Christian conviction. Would it be appropriate for the players who have Sabbatarian convictions to strike in order to play their games on another day? And what are we to make of the Christian influence on NFL policy and proceedures? I am also wondering what different responses you would get from an R2ker and cultural transforming Neo-Cal. After all, Scott Clark stated that the Reformed Confessions speak to football but not of football. Does he wish he had not made that statement and would like to take it back or does he hold firm to what he said? And how does it apply to the scenario I have painted? Should Christians shut up about their faith while at work in the NFL or do they bring their world and life view with them to work and become verbal about it?
LikeLike
Become verbal about it in the hopes of transforming the NFL to a micro-Christiandom?
LikeLike
Yes and yes. I don’t watch and I don’t tape (any more). The great thing about baseball is you can watch or listen six days out of the week.
I think a neo-Cal might comment on redemption smelling like the ointments players use to loosen up their joints.
My sense is the Bears are overrated. But they dodged a bullet not acquiring McNabb.
LikeLike
I’m impressed- you do live out your Sabbatarian convictions. I’m working on that but I think the Lutherans do not have the same convictions about the Sabbath as the Calvinist wings of the Church. If I am not mistaken the witness of Sabbath observance is about the most powerful collective thing the Church can do in regards to its witness against the world and worldliness. And that is one of the reasons for observing it- along with obedience. Am I mistaken about that?
LikeLike
No, you’re completely right.
Fly, Eagles, fly.
LikeLike
Sorry Darryl, your Eagles are getting clobbered by the overrated Bears: 31 to 13 as we speak at the end of the 3rd quarter.
LikeLike
Bare down Chicago Bears- you have clipped the Eagles wings. I’m choking on the worldliness and shallowness of it all. Something is causing me to be drawn to the idea of a long Sabbath day with two services and good reflection on why this world is so fleeting and its pleasures so unappealing. I think I am ready to take the fetters and shackles of this world off and prepare myself for the age to come- no matter how much suffering it may entail.
LikeLike
That was a last good binge and fling though. Not sure it will be that fulfilling in the morning though.
LikeLike
John, I’m certainly feeling superior for having avoided news of defeat until this morning. I fear the NFL is to football what Willow Creek is to church.
LikeLike
“I fear the NFL is to football what Willow Creek is to church.” Keemosabee- you often speak in cryptic tongue and play with people’s minds. Not sure what this means; maybe the job description that the NFL puts on football and Willow Creek puts on Church screws up the intention of the Creator of the Universe and puts man in charge instead of God, or, something similar to that. Anyways, the NFL and Willow Creek become the financial beneficiaries. Along with those who play the game according to their rules.
So, what’s up with amil only being around since the mid 1900’s? I thought that was premil; in my mind both Luther and Calvin were amil. Woops that was on another post.
LikeLike
If my interpretation is within the ballpark of being correct then that is good news to me since my brother may be getting rewards in this life but not so much in the life to come. I better be careful though I may be slipping into a self-righteous mode. I often mis-interpret things though.
LikeLike
John,
Overall, I think television has ruined sports. Too many time outs, too much money, too much razzle-dazzle. I’ll let you connect the dots to Willow Creek.
LikeLike
I find nothing about Willow Creek Church services worthwhile to my spiritual life and growth except perhaps to stay abreast of some current thinking and the zeitgeist of the times. Good cultural critics are better sources even for this. I do not understand what my brother finds attractive about his membership at Willow Creek and I do not even enter into petty arguments about it with him anymore. I’m just talking to myself out loud.
My interpretation was a bit off but within the ball park I would say. It’s all about the money and wowing the crowd in order to keep the revenue streams coming in order to support the colossal structure and huge ego’s that has evolved and developed.
Word and Sacrament are much more efficient and effective means of feeding the sheep. Plus it is more prone to keep everyone in the sheep mode rather than developing delusions of grandeur about yourself.
LikeLike
I am confused about the Sabbath. Can anyone direct me to something good to read here. It seems that the Sabbath is of more importance than the arguments about culture and how much the Bible has to do with culture transformation. Just what are our duties, obligations and responsibilities regarding the Sabbath. What are the continuities and discontinuities in regards to the Old Testament and New Testament? How does Sabbath keeping pertain to the Law and how does it pertain to the Gospel? How do we keep from having a Pharisaical attitude towards the Sabbath? What should we avoid doing on the Sabbath? What activities are out of bounds? Why is it not a good thing to watch football games on the Sabbath? I hear an abundance of differing teachings about this complex subject. I do not think as much attention is giving to this subject as is warranted and, as I said before, I am very confused about it. Someone help this poor and confused soul to come to clarity on the matter.
LikeLike
John, I think John Murray on the Sabbath, I think it’s in volume 1 of his collected works, is as good a place to go as any.
LikeLike
Thanks, I appreciate it; I will look into it
LikeLike