Carl Trueman has some provocative thoughts on the difference between American and British evangelicalism and the conferences that sustain them. He was speaking at an event in Wales:
First, the conference was built around content not speakers. In fact, I was almost refused entry to my own final seminar because I could not find my armband. I was unrecognized by the steward even after speaking three times. Fantastic. In the UK, people come to hear what is said; they do not particularly care for who is saying it. This is subtly evident in the way events are marketed in the two countries. It also points to a major cultural difference. In the US in general, there is great suspicion of institutions yet huge and often naïve confidence placed in individuals. This is part of what makes celebrity culture so important, from politics to the church. In the UK, there is an often naïve trust in institutions but far more suspicion of individuals. I make this point as an observation; but also to flag the fact that US culture lends itself more readily to the problems Paul highlights in 1 Corinthians.
That would seem like a point that folks at the Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, RCA Annual Integrity Leadership Conference organizers, and even the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals might want to consider.
And it may point to another difference between American and British evangelicals: born-again Americans are suckers for an English accent, even if it expresses thoughts disagreeable.
Old Life 
Amen. Why is it that lots of folks in my PCA congregation turn to John Piper and John MacArthur whenever there is a question over doctrine or interpretation of Scripture? Probably because they’re famous.
LikeLike
Carl Trueman has some provocative thoughts
Darryl, sorry to nit-pick, but this is redundant.
LikeLike
Thanks for this Darryl. Carl “freed” me from some of this when I read an article a few months ago. He said something to the effect that the pastor of a church of more than 300 members really has nothing to say to the pastor of a smaller church. They dynamics of a megachurch, or even just a fairly large church are too different from the average church. I’m sure there was some hyperbole there (or maybe I’m remembering wrong) but that got me to thinking seriously about why I pay so much attention to what the big names say. And that’s not to criticize the pastors of large churches, God bless ’em if He has given them a large flock (which is not the same as large crowd attained through the clever use of management and marketing). But we tend to listen to them simply because they pastor a large flock and are celebrities.
On the same subject – I’m reading “Life the Movie” by Gabler and he made an offhand comment to the effect that the Christian church had developed a celebrity system before Hollywood did. I think he pointed to Richard Hofstadter as the source. Are you familiar with any of that. I wonder if such a phenomenon could be traced back revivalism?
And one more thing – why the Gekko? Does he remind you of one or more of our current celebrities? Should we make guesses as to which one?
LikeLike
David, the Gekko is one more of those British accents that Americans love, which explains in part why Carl gets away with what he says and maintains his status among the celebrities.
Speaking of which, colonial historians contend plausibly that George Whitefield was the first household name in British North America.
LikeLike
In the US in general, there is great suspicion of institutions yet huge and often naïve confidence placed in individuals. This is part of what makes celebrity culture so important, from politics to the church. In the UK, there is an often naïve trust in institutions but far more suspicion of individuals.
This seems different from the stylized narrative we grew up with. We were taught that “checks and balances” were put in our system of government because of deep skepticism about placing too much power in the hand of any one individual. The institutional structure was supposed to save us. The English were supposed to be happy monarchists, with utter faith in the Queen/King, not needing a written constitution or an elaborate institutional system. So if Carl is right, then either we were taught wrong or times have changed.
LikeLike
“So if Carl is right, then either we were taught wrong or times have changed.”
Both. The motives of the Revolutionaries have been simplified and idealised (“taught wrong”), and the British crown in 1776 as it exercised its powers in the colonies is not the same thing as the British crown in 2011 as it exercises its powers in merrie England (“times have changed”).
LikeLike
Nate,
It strikes me as odd that your PCA congregation would look for theological guidance to two Baptist pastors whose theology is generally ambivalent to, if not hostile to, covenant theology. What is your church doing to counteract this inauspicious situation?
I’ve listened to about half of a sermon by Piper and MacArthur, and had no desire to keep listening. Both remind me of carnival barkers.
LikeLike
Nate & Bob,
In regards to Bob’s thought in which he says……….
“It strikes me as odd that your PCA congregation would look for theological guidance to two Baptist pastors whose theology is generally ambivalent to, if not hostile to, covenant theology.”
Welcome to the PCA party pal! 😉
“What is your church doing to counteract this inauspicious situation?”
There are of course wonderful exceptions in pockets, but for the most part, in general, best I can tell here is what is being done…………The strategic plan, FV sympathies, Tim Keller minstry philoshopy and his books in small groups, anabaptist flavors here and a anabapatist amen there, Bill Hybels books and generally a over emphasis on “doing the gospel.”
Again, I say in general. In other words nothing of big “influence” is being done to counteract this inauspicious situation .
LikeLike
……………….In the PCA in general
LikeLike
Maybe the British accent also obscured that in his dim missive he basically did the same thing he accuses others of, i.e. “bragging about his wife.” The UK gets it right when it comes to conference ethos, and their evangelicals aren’t tacky in the same way? Who’d have guessed that a Brit would have a superiority complex over Americans?! Boring.
LikeLike
E. Burns, you really know how to bring a guy down.
LikeLike
As a ‘Brit’ (to be precise a Northern Lancashire lad) I note with interest the comments made by my American friends about us in this Trueman flavoured post. Carl writes that “In the UK, there is an often naïve trust in institutions but far more suspicion of individuals”. It could also be said that the situation is very much the other way round – the UK has a fawning love of individuals which are known as celebrities, and a growing anarchic dislike of institutions. Allow me to elaborate.
In politics here actors/celebrities are given great attention for their opinions, especially in the current debate over the voting system. On TV the thoughts of individual stars are given by the socialist BBC an almost hushed reverence, while it reserves a weird but deliberate and negative fascination with the USA institution of it’s military and any mistakes it may have made. We run down, critique, analyse, and question our institutions to death – if the police make a mistake then it’s national news, depending on what they may have done. We love, it seems, to ‘put the boot in’ and give institutions a good kicking, although our health service institution (NHS) is deeply appreciated and perhaps our finest institution. And this brings me to a point which may, or may not, relate to our friend Carl. His incisive wit, acerbic insights and humour inadvertently somehow reminds me of one of this nation’s worst recent adopted attitudes – to have an innate hint or thick coating of cynicism which can leave a bad taste, as it where, in the mouth. I admit I am not free from showing this also.
In Britain evangelical conferences are very much weighted to the thoughts and opinions of individuals very much like those in the USA but on a much smaller scale numerically. In fact, the sheeplike British evangelicals take their cues, direction and ideas from celebrity speakers and writers. It may surprise our American friends, but where ever such conferences are held in the UK, then more often than not Wayne Grudem, Don Carson, Tim Keller, John Piper (less so recently), Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney headline and are major crowd pullers. The only Brits I can think of right now who headline and are big crowd pullers are singer musicians like Stuart Townsend and his pastor/apostle Terry Virgo. Heck, come to think of it, CJ was here way back in 1983 with his erstwhile co worker Larry Tomczak at Dales Bible week, and has gone on to even bigger things since he adopted ‘calvinism’.
The point I am making is that I find Carl’s points rich in generalisations about the UK. Here is another example: go to most evangelical churches in the UK and the USA speakers/individuals/celebrities I have mentioned will be often having a decisive and shaping influence on the pastors whose reading and study material can be more USA informed than by the UK scene now. British evangelicals have always loved their leaders and celebrities – folks here still talk with near adulation about “the Doctor”, Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, nearly 30 years after the doughty preacher died, and it’s a brave person who says to his admirers that he may have been at least occasionally wrong.
I note Carl is back home in the UK speaking at the charismatic flavoured conference Word Alive this year, joint hosted by Terry Virgo of New Frontiers and like minded ‘Reformed’ charismatics, Anglicans and free church evangelicals. It makes me wonder if Carl’s Presbyterian theology and practise is tilting in a different direction and I do wonder if, nearly thirty years after the Dales Bible Weeks I was at, folks are still being attracted to such UK conferences by the fact that men/celebrities/’apostles’ like Terry Virgo and possible sympathisers like Carl will be there also.
LikeLike
I have to say, I agree with Paul. There is a huge celebrity culture here too. Although, in Scotland, English accents are distrusted!
LikeLike
Paul, looks like another difference may be that in the US Carl is a celebrity and in the UK not.
LikeLike
Thanks, Paul UK. I appreciate your insight. May I ask if you are seeing a suffocating niceness (for lack of a better way of putting it) in these gatherings too? Perhaps I’m being harsh, but it seem like one of the expectations or byproducts of American evangelicalism is an “I’d rather be nice than good” mentality?
LikeLike
Hi Bob and E. Burns,
Maybe this is proof positive of the problem with American Presbyterian subscription? 😉
Our pastor has said some things against dispensationalism before (contra MacArthur), and he has said that Reformed means more than predestination (contra Piper). But, other than that, I don’t know of anything being done to counteract the influence of these guys. The pull of celebrity seems fairly strong.
I tend to agree with E. Burns, that the PCA seems (at times) to be indistinguishable from the SBC. Like he said, I think there are some churches who are trying to be Reformed. But, some of those don’t even have a confession of sin or absolution in their liturgy. What’s up with that?
LikeLike
“Folks are still being attracted to such UK conferences by the fact that men/celebrities/’apostles’ like Terry Virgo and possible sympathisers like Carl will be there also.”
This is a little overblown; once you have conferences, you end up with celebrities however minor, people will come more readily to see a known quantity.
LikeLike
It all makes me wanna become lutheran. Course there’s the LCMS, down the road giving away cars from the local dealership before service and building a sprawling “family” campus…. So, they aren’t exactly immune from “new measures”. Course they’re not very lutheran either as a result. And then there’s the West West graduates who are loathe to venture too far off the PCH(pacific coast highway). Oh well most of us have been shepherding our own souls most of our life, but it’s a crappy substitute. It’s hard to speak absolution to yourself. Then after being conditioned to do this for yourself most of your adult life, you’re asked to keep that anti-clerical disposition in check. Sure is asking a lot of the pew-sitter.
LikeLike
Re: I don’t know of anything being done to counteract the influence of these guys
FWIW. Isn’t that the problem created when doctrinal boundaries are changed or removed? When I see a name like Trueman’s as a speaker at a GC conference, I recognize the danger of laity and pastors seeing it as a blanket endorsement of GC. Participation in these events seems to open the door to all kinds of things that should not be accepted coming into the churches. Once those things get into the churches, it seems like an almost Herculean task to get them out.
I understand the mentality that wants to reach out to GC, to be a good influence on them, and to help them move towards an orthodox Reformed faith, but I truly wonder if these men have counted the cost of changing the boundaries. The refrain that keeps ringing in my ears is: good fences make good neighbors. If our institutions (our seminaries and their theologians, or our denominations and their leaders) which should be bastions of orthodoxy no longer guard the boundaries, what are the churches to do? It’s darn near impossible to fight the rip tide of American evangelicalism as lone swimmers.
We had a past synod president who spent over a decade tearing down our confession’s boundaries by belittling and dismissing the need for doctrinal precision/purity, polemics, and other such good and necessary things as being outdated, hateful, and other such things. Our denomination is paying a heavy price for it and it has been in the strength of our confessional churches and confessional laity banding together that is helping us press on against the tide.
Another problem I see with taking down the boundaries is that the markers for those finding their way out of American evangelicalism are gone. It makes it harder for those who know something is wrong to not give up because no one is affirming their discomfort and confirming the need for purity of doctrine for them. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Sean,
Re: there’s the LCMS, down the road giving away cars from the local dealership before service and building a sprawling “family” campus…. So, they aren’t exactly immune from “new measures”. Course they’re not very lutheran either as a result.
I wish that wasn’t a typical example of what happened in my denomination after the boundaries of our confession were belittled and removed.
LikeLike
That makes perfect sense to me Lily.
I seem to remember reading something by Zrim once where he opined the fact that just as he was leaving broad evangelicalism for the Reformed world, most of the Reformed were headed down the street to the evangelical fiesta (or something like that). I’m fairly certain I’m not doing his comment justice.
I think that coalitions like the GC do play a part in blurring the doctrinal boundaries. But, I think that the way American Presbyterians handle subscription also plays a role. Someone joining the PCA, for example, doesn’t have to believe anything taught in the Westminster Standards except the Gospel. As long as someone professes Christ, they can join. I think lots of the laity in the PCA are actually Baptist, hence the reason they turn to Baptist pastors when studying Scripture.
LikeLike
Re: I don’t know of anything being done to counteract the influence of these guys
Lily & Nate, (All)
Bingo! Spot on! Not trying to bring anybody down as much as trying to sound a legit alarm.
As Christians we can all no doubt agree that we want to be a positive influence. But there is a myth of influence as well. This truth is outlined with sound Biblical wisdom here in this audio program below. To think that once upon a time Princeton University was Biblical and theologically conservative then they decided to be more “influential” instead of faithful.
Hope you are edified by it.
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-myth-of-influence1
“What we win them with we win them to.” –James M. Boice (PCA pastor)
DING DING DING!
LikeLike
Nate et al, I’m not sure anyone in the OPC is critiquing Piper and Keller explicitly either. I do think OP’s have a better sense not to commend these guys. But it’s not as if the OPC is immune from an evangelicalism that uses Reformed language occasionally. Subscription may be an issue, but I think it goes back to the colonial awakenings and how American Presbyterians accommodated revivalism. I know, one note Johnny. But why are Anglo-American Reformed so deaf on revivalism’s problems?
LikeLike
I’m with you E. Burns. That program with Dr. Godfrey was great.
Dr. Hart, sad to hear that. I’m with you on revivalism, but isn’t there a connection there (i.e. revivalism and relaxed subscription)? I’d love to hear your take on that.
LikeLike
Nate, re the fiesta comment, justice done. (The more cynical version has the ostensibly Reformed sneaking out the back door and down the street to the party.)
But I also think you put your finger on it with your subscription point to possibly explain the abiding “Bapterianism.” RSC helpfully elaborates here:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/is-the-reformed-faith-a-second-blessing/
The argument has been made that, in American Presbyterian churches, the tradition has been, since the 19th century, that it is not necessary for lay members to affirm the confessional standards as a condition of membership. The slogan has sometimes been used, “the doors of the church should be as wide open as the doors of the kingdom.” I doubt the wisdom of this approach.
The original British (i.e., English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh) Presbyterian approach to lay membership was no different than that of the Reformed churches on the continent. I doubt that the Old Side churches in the New World practiced two levels of membership (but I am not certain about this). I suspect that the notion that there are two levels of membership, confessional and non-confessional is of relatively recent vintage.
Whatever the historical facts as matter of theology, piety, and practice, I’m a little surprised at how blithely some American Presbyterian (and now some URC) folk accept the notion of two classes of church members: those who confess the Reformed faith and those who do not. I am thankful that, in my experience at least, few NAPARC congregations actually practice two levels of membership, that it remains more theoretical than actual. In practice, it seems to me that where the elders and ministers are committed to being confessional there is at least an unstated assumption that members will also confess the Reformed faith. Where the elders and ministers (or TEs and REs) aren’t much concerned about being confessional then the congregation also tends to have a certain unfortunate uniformity.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Ah good, I’m glad I got it at least partially right. I remember laughing pretty hard when I read it.
On the subscription point, coming from my background (Seventh-day Adventist), it might have been a little scarier coming into the Reformed churches with full subscription in force. But that’s what adult catechesis and membership classes are supposed to be for, right?
LikeLike
As I am making the move to the Reformed faith (from YRR – finally getting covenant theology!), considering the PCA just sends chills down my spine for some reason. Maybe because I just don’t see much of a difference (as some have duly noted) between them and many other evangelical churches? That’s why the OPC has my eye and I have already visited a local congregation last Sun night.
LikeLike
Having only weeks ago been admitted to the OPC I am reading wide-eyed as I had come with much help from WHI, WSC, RRC, OTS, etc. The WCF was not mentioned in the pre-examination by the pastor nor in the examination by the elders. You detect a bit of disappointment. –My aha! moment was to realize I can pray heartily for my pastor and elders. Here in this church I can roll up my sleeves. The OPC is good ground. — Thank you, Dr. Hart, for your insights, concerns, prayer, and hard work that make people like me more than just think about these things. I would that my church (and all of NAPARC) take great confidence in the distinction of being confessional. I mean how about being robustly so?! Okay, I’m with Nate on seeing the “scarier” side of member subscription AND the need for adult catechesis.
LikeLike
I’m a PCA pastor who came this way after beginning in the SBC. I truly do love my denomination and since I spent many years in the SBC I can see some pretty sharp distinctions and appreciate what distinctives we PCA’ers do hold on to.
Having said that, many of the comments here are right on. I do believe we have the responsibility to be “good neighbors” and applaud a cooperative spirit, but I think Lily had it right in her comment about good fences making good neighbors. As a broad evangelical I’ve had a long road but continue to move away from pietism into confessionalism, but I do think the PCA is, by and large, broadly evangelical and pietistic. I have even heard some say that the PCA has always basically been a place for baptists who believe in predestination. In the church I pastor now I have heard comments from and attributed to many founding members that “we aren’t presbyterian, we just go to that church.” A good many of our folks, maybe even most, resist infant baptism. As I have pulled away from pietism in a more confessional direction we’ve lost a good many folks. I find many folks in the PCA are attracted to it mainly because we seem to have held a tighter line on inerrancy than the baptists did, at least until Mohler and others rose to power. And many folks are attracted to a minimalistic 5 point calvinism that they find in PCA churches. So, lots of folks think to themselves that the PCA seems fairly mission minded, holds to inerrancy and believes in predestination, so they’ll come with us and put up with infant baptism and a bit of the covenant theology, just as long as we don’t make too big a deal of that stuff.
LikeLike
Thanks, Nate, I appreciate knowing it made sense. I am thankful Zrim found his home in a good church.
Re: Someone joining the PCA, for example, doesn’t have to believe anything taught in the Westminster Standards except the Gospel.
Big ouch! Talk about giving away the farm and abdicating responsibility to catechize the laity. It hurts to no end that people have not been given the basics of what it means to be Reformed, Lutheran, or Anglican in their respective traditions. Even more so that they lack an education in the 10 commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creeds, the liturgy – well, I guess I’m singing/whining to the choir – ya suppose?
LikeLike
E Burns,
Thanks for the link. I love it when the Reformed and Lutherans sing in harmony. 🙂
I would love to see the confessional churches strengthened. I love interacting with believers from other confessions because we seem to know and respect our boundaries and appreciate our differences and the treasures each tradition has to offer each other.
LikeLike
Dr. One-Note-Johnny,
But it’s the right note in the right key with the rest of us singing harmony? 😉
Re: But it’s not as if the OPC is immune from an evangelicalism that uses Reformed language occasionally.
If you don’t mind me emphasizing this point – no one’s tradition is immune from evangelicalism or the redefinition of their language. American evangelicalism feels almost like dealing with a Borg attitude that wants to consume everything in it’s path. It swept through our denomination and we are beginning to look at how to recover our denomination, the Anglicans are trying to pick up the pieces in their tradition – plus there are others that have fallen (eg: ELCA) and the collateral damage done to parishioners.
I may be all wet in this, but I am beginning to think that when one tradition doesn’t hold the lines, all of us are affected negatively in one way or another, but when we hold the lines in our own tradition it affects the others positively? I haven’t a clue how to defend the lines, in the sense that I do not want any wheat torn up with tares, I don’t want to be doctrinaire, and other such concerns, but somehow, the lines need to held and a clear gospel needs to be preached by all of us. I don’t know if I’m being too idealistic, since the reality is that church history is messy, or is the intensity of our times unusual?
LikeLike
P.S. I would offer the Roman Catholics as an example of doing a good job holding the lines on a male priesthood and so forth that is beneficial to the rest of us – if that makes sense.
LikeLike
Hi Barbara,
I don’t want to make it seem like I think our subscription practice is where it should be, but I know it made things easier for me to join the camp. I’m sure it did for you too. Although, it was confusing going to a membership interview expecting to talk Westminster Standards stuff, only to be (basically) asked for a “testimony.”
Lily,
You’re definitely singing to the choir. I wish it wasn’t the way it is, but I suppose the continual need for reform is part of being the Church militant. Just to clarify, all members in the LCMS are taught and must agree to the BOC right?
LikeLike
Nate, you seem to favor strict subscription to the WS in order to qualify for membership. No? Also, is that actually the position that the OP takes?
LikeLike
Hi Joseph,
Yes, I favor full subscription by all members. I didn’t come to that conclusion on my own though. I was influenced by reading RRC. Dr. Hart or someone else from the OPC will have to answer about them to be certain, but I don’t believe the OPC practices full subscription. I think it’s just officers for them as well.
LikeLike
Nate, thanks. Full subscription is attractive to me because it would really lite a fire under folks to grown in their doctrinal understanding, but I struggle to understand how it’s permitted (let alone mandated by Scripture). There are a few arguments to which I’d love to hear responses:
(1) The Lord did not bar the disciples from the Last Supper at a time when they were likely pretty clueless doctrinally. I can imagine certain responses to this argument, but it doesn’t end there.
(2) What’s the argument for barring a young believer from some of the most important means of grace the Lord instituted (Church discipline and the Lord’s Supper). Or do you think non-members can be subject to Church discipline?
(3) And then, what is the argument for making the gate through which one passes into Christ’s visible Church far narrower than the gate by which one passes into the invisible Church?
Everyone, I’d love to hear more on this. Thoughts? Arguments?
LikeLike
Many thanks for your insights, David Wayne. You’ve had an interesting journey – may God richly bless you in the years ahead.
LikeLike
I don’t get the sense that the OPC is any better at catechizing its members than the PCA. One may note that the publication that the OPC puts out for communicant membership classes, “Confessing Christ,” by C. K. Cummings admits that it only touches the barest essentials. So bare in fact that it neglects any mention of the Holy Trinity or any notion of covenant, and it only occasionally references the Westminster Standards. It does find space, however, to define a true church by the 5 points of Calvinism.
LikeLike
Since Godfrey’s audio is on this chain, I don’t think it is too far afield to urge that we don’t forget the United Reformed Churches (his denomination and mine) in this mix. For those exploring OPC / PCA, the Dutch Reformed in the URC offer an interesting alternative. We too are a mixed bag, but our history of catechism preaching and teaching each Lord’s Day has kept the confessions, and particularly the Heidelberg Catechism, front and center. And given our size, struggles with celebrity are practically non-existent.
FYI, our church plant in DC launches our catechism service the week after Easter. Come visit us if you’re in the Capitol.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reminder about the URCs Dr. Lee. My wife and I might be moving to the area later this year. We’ll definitely be in touch if we do.
Joseph,
I would definitely recommend reading Recovering the Reformed Confession. Apparently David W. Hall’s book on confessional subscription is the best, although I have not read it.
LikeLike
Brian Lee, that’s interesting. I used to attend a PCA that had a Sunday evening service in which we sang and had a lesson from the catechism. In our catechism services though, there was generally no Scripture use and I wonder how well that meshes with the Regulative Principal (a worship service without a Scripture reading or preaching). The catechism is a good summary of the faith, but I wonder is it appropriate to give it the central role as the teaching text in Lord’s Day worship?
LikeLike
Nate, thanks for the recommendations.
LikeLike
Brain – I would consider a URC church as I have cut my teeth with Riddlebarger, Horton and Hyde. But, there isn’t one anywhere close to where I am in TN.
LikeLike
Nate,
LCMS pastors’ ordination vows bind them to the BOC, but different churches handle the content of what they teach in new adult members classes differently and last 10-12 weeks. If I remember correctly, new members do need to subscribe the Augsburg confession. I wish I could remember where I read this, but if I remember – which I think I do because my eyes almost bugged out – there are churches in Africa that make prospective members go to classes for 3 years before they are accepted into the church and receive the Lord’s Supper. Whew! Makes us looks like the American whiny wimps we are!
John Yeazel,
Do you remember what you did for adult membership?
LikeLike
Lily, I’ll praise and criticize your comments here. I do think that we stand and fall together as confessional churches. If one wobbles, so do the others. But here I’ll take issue with your estimate of Rome. My own sense is that Vatican 2 and its liturgical renewal was an important inspiration for the charismatically inspired praise and lite worship of the 1970s among Protestants.
LikeLike
Thanks, Dr. Hart,
I appreciate knowing I’m not crazy thinking we’re all in this together. I wasn’t thinking about the RC from the same angle and appreciate the correction – it would not have dawned on me that Vatican II would have affected protestant worship. I was merely thinking about all of the different ways they take the heat and brunt of public criticism for orthodox positions that we all share. I have greatly appreciated their rock solid stand at times.
If I may, I would re-ask a question: “I don’t know if I’m being too idealistic, since the reality is that church history is messy, or is the intensity of our times unusual?” I’m not exactly sure how to best put the question, but since you’re the professor, I’m trusting you know how to deal with odd student questions?
LikeLike
Joseph: in catechetical preaching as practiced, for instance, in the Canadian & American Reformed Churches (canrc.org) and the URC, the LD divisions of the Heidelberg simply serve to focus the schedule of the evening service. If things are being done well, there is Scripture a plenty being expounded, the Church is simply spared being at the mercy of any one man’s hobby horses (Or even the hobby horses of a unified consistory or plurality of elders).
So there a consistent, repeated pattern of speaking to the main points of the faith, which brings the whole counsel of God before the Congregation, year in and year out.
Preaching from the Heidelberg should not be a lecture expositing the Catechism in and of itself, it’s not the text in that sense. Nor is it (nor should it be) a theological lecture taking the Catechism question as a topic. The Westminster Shorter lends itself to that a little more easily that the Heidelberg, because it’s more “definitional” in its questions and answers, but some make too big a deal of that kind of observation.
When I was in a Canadian (& American) Reformed Church we quite plainly stated that “the text for this afternoon’s sermon is the truth of God’s Word as it has been summarized in the HC at LD nn.” We always had an OT & NT Passage to read as well, and my pastor would largely build off either that NT or that OT passage.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Lily,
I went through 8 weeks of one on one sessions with my Pastor where we went over Luther’s small catechism and Gene Veith’s book entitled The Spirituality of the Cross,I believe. He made sure I had been baptized (I had already been at a non-denominational church when I was 18) and when he was sure I had completed, understood, consented and determined as best he could that I believed what what we had studied together, I went up front during a Sunday service and he read the membership vows from the Lutheran hymnal and I consented and so did the congregation. I was then allowed to take communion that Sunday. I also participate in the Sunday morning Bible study and am now going over the BOC with him one on one on a weekly basis (I’m a problem child). We have a monthly study of the BOC which about 5 to 8 of us show up on a monthly basis. It is a small congregation- between 45 to 65 show up on any given Sunday.
LikeLike
Thanks, John,
The reason I asked was because Nate asked about it and I wasn’t sure if the churches still had new members subscribe to the Augsburg confession and I know different churches handle things differently. I sincerely doubt that you are a problem child – you are much too good of a student! I admire your tenacity with the BOC – it’s more than a lot to go through! Issues Etc. has done a couple of series on few parts of it (Smalcald Articles, Saxon Visitation) – you can check their archives if you’re interested. It’s wonderful that you have a small church with close contact with your pastor. I have minimal participation in my church anymore – so I’m a tad jealous that you have a wonderful, traditional, confessional church. 😉
LikeLike
I think the longtime faithful witness of the RPCNA should be recognized. Like all the denominations mentioned they are not perfect, but have remained consistently confessional. Also, unlike the PCA, their up & coming leaders (trained from their seminary) tend to be more and more confessional and theologically conservative. Plus they sure have not bought into the ministry philosophy of Pragmatism.
Here is their site.
http://reformedpresbyterian.org/
LikeLike
Lily, I don’t think these times are all that different from earlier eras. The 1650s in England was a complete mess, running from prayer book Anglicans to Quakers (and even worse). What is different today is how visible the “felt” piety is. Thanks to modern technology and forms of communication, we can see these feelings everywhere we turn. It is much harder to see confessional piety. Plus, when you do, it’s not very telegenic. Have you ever watched a Roman Catholic mass on tv?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Please define “prayer book Anglicans”. Also please give links & source material on Anglican theology. Thanks!
LikeLike
Lily,
Thanks for your questions about ‘niceness’ being a driving factor in the evangelical scene. My experience is that indeed being nice will keep you in the evangelical fold, but beware if you step outside of it and move to the Presbyterian way – you will get bullets in the back as the niceness melts away and nasty words ensue. Evangelicalism has a glue to keep it together, including a fawning niceness, but the narrative of this movement is highly selective when it comes to history; it is still dominated by Wesley/Whitfield in the UK at least in free church circles, and can’t stand thinking of the Reformation teaching on fundamental issues like baptism and how one is defined as a Christian in Reformed history as opposed to some kind of born again experience which defines much evangelicalism.
BTW, I was baffled by Carl Trueman’s lack of specifics when he wrote that the UK loves institutions and does not trust individuals. That’s why I wrote at some length, admittedly in a rambling fashion, with some personal detail which would be lost on many of American readers not familiar with the UK scene.
LikeLike
Dr Hart,
Thanks for your comments that Carl is ‘celebrity’ in the USA scene but not maybe in the UK, with his forthcoming appearance at a GC Conference. I could see him though becoming a notable figure in the evangelical scene back home in the UK if he returned from WS, as he is known in certain theological circles over here, for example at Oak Hill College where he spoke last year.
Somehow he reminds me of Packer or indeed “the Doctor” (DMLJ) who both in later years adopted a more accommodating position with all sorts of groups like pentecostals and gained another audience but compromised sadly certain key fundamental distinctives in Packer’s case. “The Doctor” was always a revivalist and loved a second blessing theology which led him into (surprise, surprise) agreement with at least one notable charismatic leader.
On a completely different matter altogether I would love to bring you some samples of our finest micro brewery beers, which I am sure you would enjoy, when my wife and I are across next month, perhaps something from Cumbria’s excellent ales and bitters. But it would be a headache to get it through customs, and I may be tempted to slurp it all before it got to the airport here.
LikeLike
UK Paul, I’m glad to know of micro brews in the UK. As much as I enjoy English and Scottish beers and ales, I have often wondered if I am simply drinking the British versions of Miller and Bud — sure, way better, but still the victors in a competitive market that gave the victory to mass produced and mass marketed beverages over the idiosyncracies of the local. But if you do bring me something you’ll need to come all the way to Michigan, where we have several good local efforts.
LikeLike
It’s publishers, rather than denominations or celebrity speakers, who define and market “Reformed” theology in the UK. And the focus of Banner of Truth publications and events has encouraged theology proper, soteriology and (perhaps) eschatology to trump and sometimes entirely eclipse ecclesiology and other loci in the minds of many. Of course, the consequence of this has been the un-spinning of the theological web: all loci stand and fall together. So, for example, we have many fine Presbyterians, but you won’t find many of them saying, with the framers of the Westminster Directory for Public Worship, that the baptised child is now a Christian, though she may not yet be regenerate. In almost 20 years in these circles, I can count on one hand the number of “Reformed” people I’ve met who understand why the church appears as an aspect of the work of the Spirit in the Nicene creed. And all of them were Baptists!
LikeLike
Thanks for your reply, Paul UK –
I didn’t find your initial narrative rambling but quite helpful and informative. I am appreciative of your straightening things out and saddened. It sounds like we are dealing with very similar attitudes and problems. I have seen the same veneer of deceptive niceness you describe, but had not connected it with how selective it is in choosing what history it accepts and how antagonistic it is towards Reformational history. Your explanation makes great sense and, in my thinking, sheds light on the situation. For lack of a better way to put it: they appear to feel threatened by Reformational orthodoxy and the brakes it would put on a lot of their shenanigans? The older I become, the more I love the boundaries good doctrine places upon me.
I am also appreciative of your observations of Trueman and the comparisons with Packer and MLJ. Surely, the temptations that accompany fame and the temptations to accommodate unsavory doctrines are theirs. It strikes me as what might be an instructive warning about straying from the narrow path. In our times, popularity certainly does not seem to accompany Reformational orthodoxy and I’m thinking that’s quite a good thing!
LikeLike
Thanks, Dr. Hart, for confirming that our times are not historically unique with the corrective that it’s the technology that turns up the volume and smell of the garbage. Thankfully, the same technology makes it possible for confessional groups to connect, too. The example of an RC mass was terrifically funny! Perhaps an EO mass with bells and smells would help improve our image? Thought not. 😉
LikeLike
Carl Trueman as a J.I. Packer or a Dr. Lloyd-Jones. Now that’s something to consider.
I’ll have to ask him about that next time I meet up with him (occasional running friends). I’m anonymous so as to not appear like a name-dropping fan boy.
LikeLike
Anonymous,
What I got out of the comparisons was the temptations that fame presents with it and the temptations to compromise. Please don’t forget that part. Thanks!
LikeLike
Celebrity issues can be a problem, but I have never put Trueman in the category or on the wrong side of the issue at large. Best I can tell with what little fame (in the grand scheme) he has, he seems to be one who has handled it well.
LikeLike
Carl’s occasional running friend,
I modify my comments about Carl being a potential Packer or DMLJ, as he is a church historian while Packer and DMLJ are known respectively as a theologian and “The Doctor” as a preacher. If Carl did ‘come home’ I am sure he would have a large part to play in the UK scene as he has no doubt amassed a lot of useful experience in the USA, but I would hope very much he would work hard for the Reformed Presbyterian church denominations (FPCS or Free Continuing maybe?) as Presbyterianism has wilted for numerous reasons here in the UK. And I hope he would avoid becoming some kind of spokesperson/celebrity for the wider evangelical or charismatic scene which would delight in the kudos in having his support.
I mention the need for the Presbyterian church focus as the Brits have embraced a polite, tolerant diversity in terms of theology all too often, and have largely lost the essential backbone of clarity in ecclesiology rooted in the confessions and catechisms. That may sound simplistic to some, but I reckon there is a grain of truth in it. Finally, and on a completely different subject, could you ask him while you pound the pavements which album he prefers: Zeppelin 4 or Houses of the Holy. Thanks.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
Good reminder on the RPCNA. Every Christian home deserves to have a copy of the Psalter that they produce.
LikeLike
Paul(UK) the need for the Presbyterian church focus as the Brits have embraced a polite, tolerant diversity in terms of theology all too often, and have largely lost the essential backbone of clarity in ecclesiology rooted in the confessions and catechisms. That may sound simplistic to some, but I reckon there is a grain of truth in it.
I don’t think that diagnosis and remedy is exclusive to Britain. That’s a fair description of the States as well. Don’t think that the simple solutions are simplistic. The overall picture and large scale situation don’t need to be overly defined and complex. But the effective, knowledgeable and charitable application of Reformed exegesis, confessions and ecclesiology always have to be directed to one’s specific situation and challenges. Being confessional doesn’t automatically solve the problems, being confessional isn’t a silver bullet. We still need to do the actual work of shepherding our people.
LikeLike
Dear Presbyterian runner,
Thanks for your comments.You write “being confessional isn’t a silver bullet. I don’t think anyone would say otherwise and I agree with you, but the ignorance of the confessions and catechisms is dominant in churches today with the contrast between the initial Reformed churches which are rightly held in high regard for their catechisms and regular use of them and the paucity of such teaching in churches today is massive.
The longer and shorter catechisms produced give a spring board for learning, discipleship, and church identity which is greatly overlooked or ignored, at least here in the UK. There should be a battle to get these documents, which richly illuminate Scripture and theology, back at the heart of church life, and they will greatly facilitate the sheparding of believers which you mention. A major and integral use of the confessions weekly should be normative, but with groups like T4G and the GC this is downplayed as many of their followers would simply disagree – they may have a very different focus ie. the latest song by Bob Kauflin or” how is my piety?”
And finally, lest anyone think that my perhaps misplaced question indirectly to Carl via his running friend about Led Zeppelin suggests a blanket approval of this English band, it wasn’t. There were plenty of naughty composers in past days who are held in high regard, like Mozart and Beethoven, and with Zeppelin you just listen to only the decent (and it is brilliant) stuff while leaving aside the morally bad songs. I am sure Carl would agree.
LikeLike
Paul:
My “silver bullet” remark is meant to be a caution to us here who are confessional and confessionally faithful that without shepherding (ruling & teaching elders) out of that confessional stance nothing automatically happens simply because of the confessional stance. I think we are on the same page there. FWIW the I draw my silver bullet illustration from Fred Brooks, who wrote of that in terms of Software engineering/development, which is my line of work. It is found in The Mythical Man-Month, another great essay and title of collection of Brooks’ essays.
Now in my final post as Dr. Trueman’s anonymous friend, he kindly answered the musical question, Led Zeppelin IV vs. Houses of the Holy thus:
The answer, of course, is IV, but only by a whisker. The great album is Physical Graffiti.
As for tempations to “downgrade” for celebrity sake, Carl notes:
I will speak for anyone as long as they don’t restrict what I say. But I have tried to make my local church the priority.
Thanks for the temporary anonymous posting, Mr. Hart.
LikeLike
Dear Presbyterian runner,
Just a few final words on our exchange. In the blog world, where words are spun and deep discussions are forged, I simply want to give a hearty and genuine “Thank you” for engaging in this exchange and for Carl’s response. I suspected he may favour Physical Graffiti as his favourite Zeppelin album, and perhaps songs like ‘The Rover’ tilted his decision, a track which for me defines the best of the group at their peak.
And finally a heartfelt “Thank you” to Dr. Hart for making Old Life a unique place for thoughtful discussion, excellent polemics and much more including his personal and sometimes humorous exchanges not often found in Christian blogs. BTW I am working, with typical Lancashire stubbornness, on getting a modest crate of samples from Cumbria’s micro breweries to you one day somehow. One or two of them may even be a match for your local ales.
LikeLike
UK Paul, I try but obviously not everyone gets confessional kvetching. I appreciate your kind words and wish you success in negotiating customs.
LikeLike
Looking for the definition of “prayer book Anglicans” and also waiting anxiously to know about the topic in deeper. Compromising the event and the instinct to do such thing is all matters.
LikeLike