Further discussion of Protestant conversions to Rome and Jason Stellman’s views over at Green Baggins have set me thinking about a curious feature of the Called To Communion paradigm (how do you like them apples?). Jason is trying to give a biblical account for Bryan Cross’ understanding of agape and he has challenged Reformed Protestants to show where Calvinism’s idea of imputation is found in the gospels or Christ’s own teaching. His point is that if Paul’s teaching on justification were so basic, you’d expect to see it in the accounts of Christ’s teaching and ministry.
My counter to this is that if Paul’s teaching is consistent with Christ’s, then Paul’s views of justification may very well be what he learned from Christ. Doctrinal development being what it is, you surely wouldn’t want to imply that Paul was making this stuff up. Jason says he’s not positing a red-letter edition of the Bible, or Jesus against Paul, but the tensions are there in his view. He can read Jesus through the lens of Paul or he can read Paul through the lens of Jesus. (Or you try to harmonize.)
Either way, this discussion has made me wonder if CTCers are guilty of their own form of deism. According to Cross’ idea of ecclesiastical deism, Protestants have no way to explain convincingly how the true church popped up after 1,000 years. So to counter the Protestant and Mormon view of church history, he doubles down and insists that the church was there all along. And to do this, CTCers put great emphasis on the early church fathers as a body of teaching that reflects what the apostles handed down to the church from Christ. Hence the continuity, authority, and infallibility of Rome’s teaching in the CTC paradigm.
But there is a gap here that is quite startling when you think about it. Consider three important Roman Catholics beliefs, the primacy of Peter, the status of the virgin Mary, and the authority of the papacy. You may be able to find biblical support for these in the gospels. But where do you find in Acts or the epistles a stress upon Peter, belief in the import of Mary, or signs of the bishop of Rome? The New Testament after the gospels is virtually silent on these matters.
So how do CTCer’s account for the gap between Christ and the Early Church Fathers? Do they suffer from a deism of their own? Did the Early Church Fathers all of a sudden pop up with the teachings found in the gospels after the New Testament epistle writers neglected them? Of course, CTCers will deny any gap exists. But two can play this game.
Old Life 
From the day the Mormons stumped him Bryan has been on a quest for certainty & authority. You can tell by the way that he interacts here that he has the mind of a scientist, a mathematician, a logician. Everything has to be neat, tidy, and fit together. Rough edges are sanded off. Everything has to be consistent from beginning to end to make sense.
Now Reformed people have some sympathy for this. Compared to our evangelical & mainline brothers (I’ll be generous for a minute and call mainliners our brothers — with apologies to Machen) our theology is pretty streamlined and tight. Most of the Reformed guys who interact here can live with some ambiguity, some grey, some things that we ultimately take on faith, however. Reasonable faith — not blind faith, but faith nonetheless.
Unrelated newsflash: Edouard was just found guilty of sexual expolitation but not of sex abuse.
LikeLike
When Gaffin says it’s gray, him saying that never feels all that gray to me. I mean, it’s not like he has “not yet” made up his mind about what’s gray.
Not all boundaries are “Dutch intellectual dikes”. We want to be clear, to ourselves and to others, even when we are not very…
LikeLike
Bryan, how can you agree with me since my observations about Jeff do not follow from my premises?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Observations need not be inferences.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Edouard could get up to nine years in prison. I wonder if he might have any grounds for appeal on a church/state issue.?Can the State make a law saying that a counselor or therapist can not have sexual relations with a patient and apply it to a pastor/congregant? They are doing that here if there was no rape/abuse. Any minister who meets with women alone needs to have their head examined.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120824/NEWS01/120824016/Former-Pella-pastor-convicted-of-exploiting-women?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
LikeLike
McMark,
Are you a former RC?! You have a healthy dose of that there cynicism.
LikeLike
If these women get a good plaintiff’s attorney they could probably own Covenant Reformed Church if they want to. It’s a nice building. One of the women is an attorney herself. Elders – Don’t allow your pastor to meet with women alone.
LikeLike
Bryan – If your priest is heterosexual don’t let him meet with women alone. If he’s homosexual or a pedophile I guess I don’t know what to say. What’s that – Your church doesn’t ask for your input?…
LikeLike
Hi Bryan,
We still remain pretty far apart.
Here’s why. You write, Making use of our own reason is something we must do throughout our lives, no matter what our religion or tradition. But from the fact that one must operate apart from a higher magisterial authority when first determining the identity and authority of that magisterial authority, it does not follow that one remains in the same epistemic position after one submits to that higher authority.
I think you either did not see, or did not understand (possibly my fault), or just ignored my argument that preceded it.
After one submits to a higher authority, one must continue to submit to that authority using the same reasoning as he exerted when submitting in the first place.
In terms of submitting to God’s authority, one does not “come to faith in Christ” as a single moment of decision in 2012. Rather, one must continue to believe, even in the face of circumstances that cause doubt. Perseverance is required.
In other words, your Anti-Tu-Quoque defense wrongly assumes that your position is different because you’ve made the decision once for all time. That’s not the case; and consequently the defense fails.
Why is it not the case? Because we regularly encounter data or arguments or even psychological circumstances that cause doubt. For example:
The Church teaches that one should bow (proskuneo) and give appropriate honor to icons and statues of saints and of Christ. The words of Scripture are do not make for yourselves graven images, and do not bow (proskuneo) or serves (latreio) them.
This raises the question. Since you have a fallible belief that the Church is infallible in its teaching, it is logically possible that this verse proves that the Church is not infallible.
How do you adjudicate this possibility? You have a couple of options.
(1) You can decide on the strength of the evidence that the Church is infallible, and whatever the 2nd commandment means, it’s not that. You may not fully understand the command, but you continue to accept the arguments for Church infallibility. Here, you are exercising your own private judgment to interpret history and tradition.
(2) You can study the Scripture independently of the premise of Church infallibility, and conclude that either the Church is right or the Church is wrong. This is clearly the Protestant option in Catholic clothes.
What you cannot do, of course, is to argue that because you have already accepted the infallibility of the Church, therefore this verse cannot possibly prove that the Church is infallible. For we have already agreed that your acceptance of infallibility is a fallible judgment on your part. And, you would be reasoning in a circle in any event.
So every challenge to church authority has to be met by … an exercise of private judgment. Do I continue to believe that the Church is infallible, or does this new piece of evidence change my mind?
Given the fallibility of your belief in Church infallibility, there is no other option. You must continue to exercise private judgment in the face of each and every challenge.
Now, I ask, how is this different from a Protestant who submits to the authority of his own church?
Well, there is one difference. The Protestant’s arguments are grounded in Scripture, while the Catholic’s are grounded in Scripture (a bit) + Tradition (a lot) + History (somewhat). So there is a difference in terms of evidence admitted, but there is no difference in terms of method.
Both Protestant and Catholic continue under Church authority for only so long as they continue to believe that their Church is authoritative.
You see this clearly in the Protestant case; your analysis needs to examine the analogous case for the Catholic.
Peace,
Jeff
LikeLike
not ex-RCC. Rather, a fundy who thinks he’s an ex-fundy. Also, an ex-Arminian and an ex-universalist. As my Arminian dad asks, and what phase are you going through now?…..
Romans 6:20 “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.”
Of course Gaffin never claimed to be skeptical about his “not yet”. But when he says that what he says about “union” does not deny the legal aspect of “union”, and then very soon after that says that the legal is a result of “union”, I become quite skeptical about the game he’s playing. (There is no order, but your order is wrong!)
Even after we make a distinction between redemptive history and “order of salvation” application, we all still have an order, Gaffin as well as we who disagree with his order.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting thought. What if Edouard was an unmarried white man & he had sex with an unmarried white female church member and they were in a liberal protestant church in Iowa City. Would we have the same outcome?
LikeLike
Machen, Notes on Galatians, p178–”You might conceivably be saved by works or you might be saved by imputed righteousness, but you cannot be saved by both. It is ‘either or’ here not ‘both and’. The Scripture says it is by faith. Therefore it is NOT works.”
Machen, p221–”If James had had the epistles of Paul before him he would no doubt have expressed himself differently.”
Norman Shepherd, —”I consider this statement of Machen to be an indictment of the Holy Spirit who inspired James.”
LikeLike
McMark,
I track with you. I think Murray’s monocovenatalism recast needs to be tried in the courts and found wanting, everything else falls like dominoes if that occurs. There’s politics in the reformed world too.
LikeLike
I wonder if he might have any grounds for appeal on a church/state issue.?Can the State make a law saying that a counselor or therapist can not have sexual relations with a patient and apply it to a pastor/congregant?
He would have an easy appeal and likely the case never gone to trial if the church was willing to stand behind the sex being part of the religious practice. For example if he was a wiccan therapist using sex magick, the state would need to show compelling interest to interfere. The problem is (I assume) the church is not willing to say the sex was religious in which case the first amendment protection doesn’t attach to Pella. As far as I know Pella doesn’t claim the sex was part of a religious rite.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross,
Let’s recap.
(And please note: I hope I get the html code correct in this post. Not holding my breath …)
D. G. Hart to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to D. G. Hart:
D. G. Hart to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to D. G. Hart:
Jeff Cagle to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to Jeff Cagle:
RL Keener to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to RL Keener:
Bryan Cross, since you were well aware of the “looser sense” of the term dilemma, and since therefore you were well aware that dilemma has more than one meaning, you should not have assumed DG Hart or Jeff Cagle in either of these cases was using a particular definition of the term. That’s why it is always best to ask for clarification in cases such as this, in which ignorance can do harm to constructive dialogue. That is the charitable approach.
Or, perhaps, in these exchanges with DG Hart and Jeff Cagle, you could have assumed that they were using the “looser sense” of the term. That also would have been charitable, because then you could have proceeded, if you so desired, to attempt to prove that “what DGH [or Jeff Cagle, –rlk] described was not even a dilemma [in that sense of the term] for my position, because it is part of my position,” instead of twice pointing out only one (as if it were the only one) meaning of the term.
Since you were aware of the existence of at least these two meanings, your first response to DG Hart is particularly disappointing. In full awareness that DG simply could have been saying, “But in your quest for philosophical comprehension, you don’t notice your own difficult problem,” you proceeded to ask him, “You do know what a dilemma is, don’t you?” And then you supplied the “two-horned” definition as *the* definition. I do not know how this could be construed as anything other than an attempt on your part to make DGH look like he was mistakenly using the “two-horned” meaning of dilemma instead of meaning something else, such as “difficult problem,” which of course, as you were well aware at the time, is one of the definitions of dilemma. Your question and answer did not signify a charitable approach.
It was someone on your own side over at CTC, one Tom Brown, who said, “For generally, and in my opinion in this particular instance, stating arguments in the form of a question runs the risk of coming across as uncharitable.” (Tom Brown at CTC, 12/1/2011). Not to start an argument, but what would Tom Brown think of your question and answer to DG Hart, particularly in light of your knowledge at the time of the “looser sense” of the term? Perhaps you can ask him.
Remember: The Golden Rule should always be before us in these discussions. The Golden Rule and Charity.
LikeLike
For some reason unknown to me, my italics is not coming through in my blockquotes. Dunno why. I guess the html gods are being uncharitable to me.
Oh well. I think my post is still readable without italicized blockquotes.
LikeLike
Iowa Code:
709.15 SEXUAL EXPLOITATION BY A COUNSELOR, THERAPIST,
OR SCHOOL EMPLOYEE.
1. As used in this section:
a. “Counselor or therapist” means a physician, psychologist,
nurse, professional counselor, social worker, marriage or family
therapist, alcohol or drug counselor, member of the clergy, or any
other person, whether or not licensed or registered by the state, who
provides or purports to provide mental health services.
On appeal I am sure his attorney will make the case that a minister does not “provide or purport to provide mental health services.” We might ask if this is really something our ministers are qualified to do in the first place.
LikeLike
Bryan, the peace of Christ may be war.
LikeLike
Erik —
The moment he claims that he was having sex with them as part of a religious function the case shifts. If Covenant Reformed Church had said that sex is part of their ministry, their therapeutic model the state can’t be involved. The courts have held (for example another case in Texas: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/08/peggy-penley-and-buddy-westbrook.html ) that counseling, even by a licensed counselor, in a religious context is not subject to the same degree of state oversight.
The problem for Patrick Edouard is, there is no assertion of a religious context. He didn’t offer a first amendment defense. I agree he could have but he was contesting the rape (where even the first amendment wouldn’t be sufficient).
In terms of member of the clergy. It is not uncommon for members of the clergy to offer counseling to people who are not in their church / organization. In which case there is no first amendment and the state can freely regulate and that’s how I’m interpreting the clause you are quoting.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That claim simply begs the question, because it is precisely what the Catholic position denies. Your claim presupposes that this side of heaven, one can never know for certain that Jesus is the Son of God. Faith is always subject to possible refutation, and is merely a probable hypothesis, not qualitatively different from all the other beliefs one acquires by the natural light of human reason. But, in the Catholic paradigm, faith is more certain than any other possible knowledge, such that once one has come to faith in Christ no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ. Faith does not reduce to reason, nor Christianity into rationalism. Faith is a supernatural gift, its object seen by a supernatural light. So in this paradigm, the epistemic condition of one who has come to faith, is not the same as the person who has not yet come to faith. That is why in the Catholic paradigm it is not true that “one must continue to submit to that authority using the same reasoning as he exerted when submitting in the first place.” The reasoning by which through the motives of credibility he came to discover that, say, Christ is from God, was by the natural light of reason. But once by the supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit he sees that Christ is the Son of God, his ongoing submission to Christ is no longer merely or fundamentally on the basis of the motives of credibility and the natural light of reason. That would be a rationalism denying the supernatural character of faith.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
RL Keener,
When DGH said, “you don’t notice your own dilemma,” on either sense of the term ‘dilemma,’ it was not a dilemma, for the reason I have explained above.
When Jeff said, “The dilemma, Bryan, is that you must either … or else …. ,” I know Jeff well enough to know that he meant the term ‘dilemma’ in its stricter sense. And that too was not a dilemma (in that sense of the term) for me, for the reason I explained above.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, your response to Jeff begs the question. You define faith a certain way and so Jeff’s claims don’t follow. But since you are the great dictionary in all these matters, these discussions always must run through your paradigmatic definitions.
Is it possible to find a definition of faith on which you and Jeff agree? I doubt it. It seems that your understanding of reason ends when you cross the Tiber. At that point, you have reasons for your reason, but you have no capacity to show someone else they are wrong if they don’t accept your definitions.
This is no call. This is a demand for submission.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross,
I have limited faculties, so I could be mistaken, but it doesn’t appear that you responded to the salient points of my post. That leads me to believe you either did not read my post carefully or you chose to evade. In charity, I choose to believe the former.
Perhaps it would be best if I break it down into smaller sections.
Tom Brown, at CTC, said, “For generally, and in my opinion in this particular instance, stating arguments in the form of a question runs the risk of coming across as uncharitable.
Do you agree with statement by Tom Brown?
LikeLike
Last sentence: … with *this* statement by Tom Brown.
LikeLike
Bryan says “But, in the Catholic paradigm, faith is more certain than any other possible knowledge, such that once one has come to faith in Christ no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ.”
How do you account for those who have come to the Catholic faith through reason, experienced it firsthand, and then left it again through reason? Maybe what they find once they’ve “bought in” isn’t what they were sold?
Do you assume that those who reject Catholicism and become Protestants have “denied Christ”? This doesn’t seem to agree with some of the more “inclusive” things your church has said about Protestants since Vatican II, does it?
LikeLike
If you ever watch Season 1 of “Episodes” (one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen), compare Bryan’s attitude toward his church to Carol, Myra, and Andy’s attitude toward Merc Lapidus, the head of the network.
LikeLike
Darryl,
No. Jeff is criticizing my position. My pointing out that his criticism presupposes (rather than establishes) the falsify of my position is not begging the question, because my pointing this out does not presuppose the truth of either paradigm.
No. Wherever I pointed out that Jeff’s conclusion did not follow from his premises, it was not because he was using his own definition of faith, but because his conclusion did not follow from his premises.
Jeff can define ‘faith’ however he wants. He knows that, and I know that. But if he wants to criticize the Catholic position in a non-question-begging way, he has to avoid using claims or assumptions that presuppose the falsity of the Catholic position.
No. There is some common ground regarding what faith is, but the Reformed and Catholic conceptions of faith are not the same.
I can see why you might think that. But operating out of the Protestant paradigm is not the only way to be reasonable. Comparing paradigms is another way to reason together. But using one paradigm to reject the other is not reasonable, because it provides no reason to believe one is superior to the other, and is therefore ad hoc.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan
But using one paradigm to reject the other is not reasonable, because it provides no reason to believe one is superior to the other, and is therefore ad hoc
So in rejecting paradigm A and accepting paradigm B, to be reasonable one must provide reasons that are independent of either paradigm and which show B to be superior to A? And if you don’t mind a second question, what do you mean by ‘superior’?
LikeLike
Bryan seems to me to liken Rome to the Hotel California – “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
LikeLike
Bryan, you wrote: “Jeff can define ‘faith’ however he wants. He knows that, and I know that. But if he wants to criticize the Catholic position in a non-question-begging way, he has to avoid using claims or assumptions that presuppose the falsity of the Catholic position.”
So where is this discussion actually going it? If Jeff uses claims and assumptions that presuppose the truth of the Catholic position there is no discussion. So if Jeff questions, he’s wrong (and a Protestant). If Jeff doesn’t question, he’s right (and a Roman Catholic).
Like I say, not much of a call.
Nice not talking to you.
LikeLike
This is just like ECT and Manhattan Declaration ‘dialogue’. The roman catholic surrenders NO dogmatic or ecclesial ground and the protestants are asked and comply with selling their doctrinal and ecclesial house. And oh yeah, the more ‘philosophical’ and ‘ontological’ these discussions become, protestants undermine their own perspicuity claims as it regards salvation,as propounded in the scriptures,being able to be KNOWN, BELIEVED and OBSERVED by the LEARNED and UNLEARNED through the due use of ordinary means.
LikeLike
Sean – We need you as an officer in a URC, OPC, or PCA church. Get on it!
LikeLike
Bryan has yet to realize there is a difference between frustrating people and persuading people. Come to think of it, they’re kind of opposites…
LikeLike
I am curious how many men here actually know each other personally (have met)?
Did Bryan & D.G. know each other in Bryan’s previous life as a Reformed guy?
LikeLike
Darryl,
The goal of the discussion is agreement concerning the truth. Whether this discussion will arrive at that goal, I cannot say. Regarding your other comments, it seems to me that you are presenting what you think is a dilemma that follows from my position: either the Protestant participant in such a dialogue must use claims that presuppose the truth of Catholicism, or he must use claims that presuppose the truth of Protestantism. Either way, no real discussion (between the two parties) is possible.
I agree that if those were the only two options, then there could be no real discussion between persons on either side of this question. But in my opinion those are not the only two options. There are many pieces of evidence that both sides recognize as evidence. There are also basic rational, logical, argumentative and ethical standards recognized by both sides, to which we can each appeal in a non-question-begging way. This is how we can compare the two paradigms, and how well they explain all the available and mutually recognized data. Comparing paradigms does not require presupposing the truth or superiority of one of them.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan – Here’s an honest question: Can you logically conceive of the Roman Catholic Church having an interpretation of Scripture that could be incorrect? Is this possible in your paradigm? Yes, no, or maybe? And if the answer is “maybe”, please elaborate.
LikeLike
Erik,
Bryan – Here’s an honest question: Can you logically conceive of the Roman Catholic Church having an interpretation of Scripture that could be incorrect?
I am not sure how Brian will answer this question, but RCC has most certainly changed it’s interpretations on matters where science transects Scripture, whether that came in the form of finally embracing heliocentrism, or allowing for evolution as an explanation for biological origins. They have changed on these matters, and at least in some cases rightly so, but Brian will have to answer how these relate to the Deposit, and Papal infallibility. I am sure his answer will consistently uphold the infalliblity of the Pope, regardless of where Rome’s official positions have changed – you know the typical way in which Rome has mastered the heads I win, tails you loose approach to polemics.
LikeLike
Whenever I hear “The Deposit” I can’t help but think of “The Principle” in “Big Love”. That was actually a pretty good series. Maybe HBO could do a show about the CTC guys and their families. They could call it “Pope Hope”.
LikeLike
I actually felt way better about Catholics before I began “interacting” with them on Old Life. I think these guys are kind of Catholics on steroids. They’re like the new converts to Reformed theology who need to be locked up for awhile before they’re allowed to roam the streets (or the internet)…
LikeLike
Jed – And what you hear is Bryan answering the question. Can’t you hear the crickets chirping?
LikeLike
Bryan,
I think we’ve arrived at the nub of the matter. In your view, having accepted the infallibility of the Church as an infallible axiom, no justifications are any longer necessary.
This means that you accept
(1) The Church says X
(2) The Church is the highest authority
(3) Therefore X
as a logically valid argument.
Sadly, it is not. It is an argument from authority, and a non-sequitur. Your theological method rests on an error in reasoning.
It also means that you are immune to reason or evidence. For you accept the infallibility of the Church as an article of faith, and for you, “no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ” — or indeed, any other article of faith, as the rest of that paragraph makes clear.
You’ve articulated perfectly what it means to be a fideist.
LikeLike
Jeff,
No, that is obviously an invalid argument.
No, it doesn’t. Do you think the saints in heaven are “immune to reason” because they can no longer be tempted by evil, and no longer be deceived into denying the truth, and no possible evidence can convince them that Jesus is not God or that God does not exist? Your Enlightenment conception of “reason” is not one I share, because that conception of reason and reason’s relation to authority is historically and implicitly based on atheism. Of course I know you are a Christian. But the conception of reason you are using here is one that comes from the Enlightenment, not from Christianity. If you want to see the Catholic understanding of the certainty of faith, see St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica II.II Q.4 a.8.
I’ve written an article arguing against fideism. (See here.) But from the point of view of rationalism, anything but rationalism is fideism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, we are not talking about an abstract discussion. We are talking about a discussion about faith. Here there are only two options. Accept Rome’s/your definitions and then we can talk. Don’t accept Rome’s position, and see your arguments never get off the ground. Your mind is closed.
I am sort of grateful for that. It is good to be reminded of what Roman Catholicism was before Vatican 2. For all of the human face that John Paul 2 put on Rome, the same impenetrable and unreformable foundation exists. I don’t think many evangelicals would actually go to Rome if they thought the church was so inflexible and defensive. Of course, your problem is that Rome is not nearly as air tight — there are the Jesuits and the nuns after all. Still, it is good for potential converts to receive a dose of reality from the incomparable logician and dogmatician, Bryan Cross.
LikeLike
Erik, I don’t know Bryan.
LikeLike
Bryan, you may have definitions of “dilemma” but you can’t issue an encyclical to define Enlightenment. Your charge against Jeff is a good imitation of fundamentalism — you remember that form of Protestantism, right? But there is some form of reason that is still bound to revealed truth. It is called Protestantism and unlike Roman Catholicism, we can acknowledge errors whereas your entire edifice rests on no error (which then makes dealing with Galileo, Luther, and Darwin difficult since popes have gone both ways on these people). The Protestant version of reason is akin to Paul rebuking Peter for not understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
D.G. – In your decades of working with Catholic scholars have you met Catholic apologists with a more winsome approach (contra-Bryan)?
“Your Enlightenment conception of “reason” is not one I share, because that conception of reason and reason’s relation to authority is historically and implicitly based on atheism.”
It’s wild that someone can pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy with this view of reason. It’s kind of like getting a doctorate from MIT in engineering and refusing to use anything but a sliderule.
This does sound like a fundamentalist or Doug Wilson.
LikeLike
Just a passing thought while contemplating the Walter, Danny and Dude portrait. That picture captures their characters perfectly. Danny’s got that huh? confused look on his face; Walter has his arms crossed in a paranoid, angry and maniacal way; and the Dude is laid back in his chair with a what are you so uptight about look on his face. Now carry on this important and interesting discussion which is going on at this post.
LikeLike
For your sabbath reading pleasure I’ve published “A Primer on Evangelical Worship for Wayward Reformed Youth”. You can read it by clicking on my name if you wish to.
LikeLike
A Primer on Evangelical Worship for Wayward Reformed Youth
Fall is upon us and many of our covenant youth (kids raised in Reformed churches who have been baptized) are heading off to college. Now biblically sound Reformed churches are hard to find so these kids, either because there are no Reformed options, or because they are “playing the field”, may find themselves in an evangelical worship service. I have written this primer to help these youth make sense of what they encounter.
One of the first things you will encounter, probably as soon as you drive onto the large, well-landscaped grounds, is the fact that evangelicals are better dressed and just plain better looking than the Reformed people you are accustomed to. This is o.k. – evangelicals can’t help it. Back in my evangelical days a church I went to was considering a mission statement. They initially proposed something like “reaching out to upwardly mobile young professionals in X” before someone wisely thought better of it.
Once you are inside the “Worship Center” (“church” is so your grandparents’ generation) you will figure out that evangelicals drink way better coffee than Reformed people do. Most likely there will be a full-fledged Starbucks type establishment from which you can buy a latte, cappuccino, coffee, etc. In Reformed churches the plain black coffee comes after the service, usually with a doughnut or something someone has brought (“treats”). In the evangelical church you can take your drink into the service and enjoy it the whole time.
When the worship service starts you will most likely encounter the “worship leader”. No, the pastor is not the worship leader like in your Reformed church. This worship leader will be either a middle-aged guy with a haircut that belongs on a younger man or a young woman who looks like a more-modest version of Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson. Either way as the rocking praise band (usually consisting of at least one kid who looks about 12 — usually on the drums — and one man who looks about 55 — usually on the bass) begins to play you will find yourself distracted from the lyrics on the large screen (no Psalters or hymnals here) by either the middle-aged guy (because he is so awkward in trying to be hipper than he is) or by the young woman (because she is so attractive). Anyway, just go with it. They will be spending 20 minutes or so “singing you sweaty” and there is no escape.
After the “worship” has taken place there might be some kind of announcements given — maybe via video or maybe even a skit. Whatever happens will be, like everything that has taken place thus far, very hip & high-tech.
At this point the pastor will finally appear. He is the guy wearing laid-back, non-threatening clothes (definitely not a three-piece suit or tie). He is probably wearing some kind of headset or portable microphone because he needs to be free to roam the stage. There is no pulpit to stand behind (also very grandparentish). His hairstyle, like the male worship leader, is probably more meant for a younger man. The pastor is feeling a lot of pressure to keep up with the attractive members, however, so give him a break.
Now as a Reformed youth you are used to long, theologically rich sermons with perhaps quite a bit of opening up your Bible. There may be references to the various Reformed Creeds & Confessions (you may have even confessed something from these earlier in the Reformed worship service). In the evangelical Church you will most likely not “need” your Bible since the relevant verses will be put up on the video screen.
In a Reformed church sermon there will most likely be a distinction made between the Law of God (His requirements for how we act toward Him and other people) and the Gospel (what God has provided in Christ because we fail to keep His requirements). The purpose of the law is to show us our sinfulness and our need for Christ. The purpose of the gospel is to save us and enable us to keep the law in some measure. The gospel is what makes us able to do good works beause through it the Holy Spirit comes to live in us and change our minds and actions.
In an evangelical church the gospel will most likely be preached, but it will be more for the benefit of any unbelievers who are present (you may even be considered one by these folks because you were baptized as a baby and not as a “believer” — but more on that later). What you, the believer, will get from the sermon is helpful tips for living your daily life (which is actually just a kinder, gentler, watered down version of law). You will be told that now that Jesus has saved you the Christian life is all about getting energized and getting out and doing the hard work of building God’s Kingdom on Earth. Jesus has done so much for you, what are you going to do for Him? At this point there may even be some suggestions of how you can get involved in politics to help restore our country to “the godly nation it once was”, (but this won’t necessarily be present in all evangelical churches).
In other words – it’s backward from what you’ve grown up with. In a Reformed church the law is preached to show you that you are a sinner who needs the gospel. When you hear & believe the gospel you are changed and then keep the law (although always imperfectly). In an evangelical church you will come in, not confess sins corporately as you may have done in your Reformed church, hear the gospel (as if you’re a good person who just needs to be reminded of it), and then be told to go keep and “do” the law.
Anyway, the sermon in the evangelical church will most likely be shorter than you are used to and will include more stories and experiences from the pastor’s own family and life. He may use the video screen to show a movie clip or something he thinks is relevant to the sermon topic. Note that the biblical text will often serve as a “springboard” for whatever the pastor wants to talk about. The pastor is kind of driving the text vs. the text driving the pastor in the manner you are hopefully used to.
Now about that video screen – as you look around the worship center auditorium you may see art work or maybe even some stained glass or pictures of Jesus. Evangelicals do not share the Reformed interpretation of the 2nd commandment regarding making images. Your Reformed church was most likely very simple with few images. Not so in the evangelical church.
As the service draws to a close you may learn that one of the two sacraments are being celebrated. Now we could talk about the differences between Reformed and evangelical understandings of the sacraments for a long time, but for now I’ll just give you a few basic differences to consider. Regarding communion, in your Reformed church you most likely experienced some degree of “fencing the table”. This is the practice of the elders (the evangelical church may or may not have elders) trying to determine whether or not people who want to take communion are members in good standing of a Christian church. This is done for the benefit of these people because we believe that people who are not Christians who take communion are eating and drinking judgment onto themselves. In an evangelical church there will most likely be either no fencing of the table or a brief announcement that communion is for believers. No one will interview you, ask if you are a church member, or ask if you have made a formal profession of faith. While your Reformed church most likely had a view that Christ is really spiritually present during communion, evangelicals will almost certainly take a “memorial” view — it is something that the church does to remember Christ. No real presence.
If there is a baptism that day there will most likely not be a baby anywhere near it. Most evangelicals (unless they are Lutherans or liberal Reformed types trying to be evangelicals) will only baptize people that have made what they consider to be a valid profession of faith. This generally means no one under the age of 10 or so. The baptism will most likely be by immersion (the baptized and the baptizer will really get WET) and will generally involve a time of testimony — often with plenty of details about the bad things the soon to be baptized person did before becoming a Christian. Why do we differ so much with non-Reformed people on baptism? Generally-speaking it is because we are covenant theologians (more on this another day) and we see parallels between the Old Testament practice of circumcision and Christian baptism. For us it is more about what God does for the children of believing parents than it is what a new believer does for God. This is a foreign concept to most evangelicals — although it is interesting to note that they do “baby dedications”, which kind of makes you scratch your head since it is not a sacrament and is not commanded in the Bible.
We could talk about lots of other differences – TULIP (what you have hopefully learned about from the Canons of Dort & had drilled into you from years of Reformed preaching), the Regulative Principle of Worship, differences in eschatology (your Reformed church was most likely Amillennial, the evangelical church will most likely be Premillennial or Panmillennial — as an old evangelical pastor used to joke “it will all pan out in the end”), differences in making sense of the Old Testament, and on and on. For now I need to move on, though.
Let me conclude by trying to convince you that it is o.k. to check out evangelical churches for a time — going to college is all about trying new things — but consider very carefully the rich Reformed tradition you were brought up in. The Reformed expression of the Christian faith is truly a beautiful thing and should not be squandered. Think carefully about it.
LikeLike
JRC: This means that you accept
(1) The Church says X
(2) The Church is the highest authority
(3) Therefore X
as a logically valid argument.
BC: No, that is obviously an invalid argument.
Good. Then lay out your reasons for believing in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that do not contain the premise “The Church’s teaching is infallible” as the ground for your belief.
LikeLike