Why is Redeemer PCA, NYC, not in the Gospel Coalition’s Church Directory?
Because TKNY is a brand and the Coalition is only an outlet.
Not sure that is as funny as “how many Teamsters does it take to change a light bulb? Ten, you got a problem with that?” But it was a curious discovery today when in response to a friend’s email about churches in NYC for a relative living there, I looked at the OPC’s church directory (none in Manhattan) and then went kicking and screaming to the Coalition’s website to look at the Church Directory. I assumed Keller’s congregation would be there but that I might find other evangelical congregations downtown. I was surprised to see that Redeemer was not there.
Maybe the directory is not up to date. Of course, the Coalition is comprised of individuals whose congregations need not be part of the allies. But a search at Redeemer’s website for TGC shows only one hit. So it looks like my conclusion is sound, even if the joke is not.
This points to another curious feature of Tim Keller’s status in the Presbyterian and evangelical worlds. Part of the point I tried to make in Engaging with Keller was that he does not fit in with the rules or expectations of his Presbyterian communion. It appears the same is true of the Gospel Coalition. That would seem to put Keller in John Wesley territory where the world is his parish.
Old Life 
“I looked at the OPC’s church directory (none in Manhattan)”
No, but the OPC does have a church in Key West:
http://www.keys-christians.org/
LikeLike
As far as NYC Church recommendations go, don’t forget the URC: http://www.merfnyc.org/.
LikeLike
Brad, Keller he ain’t.
http://www.merfnyc.org/about-us/pastor/
LikeLike
Hmmm….let me Google what it means for us in our church to joined with the likes of Keller via NAPARC. What our are responsibilities, for example? Surely, someone wrote something to help guide my quandary… I’ll be reading.
LikeLike
D.G.,
St. Patrick’s may also be a good recommendation. Dolan is a solid preacher. Just sayin….
Having lived in New York City for several years I’m familiar with many of the churches and I’d highly recommend Charlie Drew’s church, Immanuel Presbyterian. I think they meet on the upper East side around 120th St. It would probably be a pretty good fit for someone who is coming from the OPC.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Sad joke is the woman announcer for the Buckeyes game.
The only good part is hearing the obvious errors that the research team has put on the cue-cards, just to see if she notices.
“Columbus has the Jack Nicklaus Museum. He was a good golfer. He won 20 majors…”
and every sports fan watching just shakes his head…
LikeLike
I trust a woman calling a football game as much as I trust a lapsed Presbyterian recommending Presbyterian churches.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brad. Do you know what happened to the former pastor?
LikeLike
I could very well be mistaken, but as far as I know Rev. Murphy had been there from the beginning. I think he was the original planter.
LikeLike
Matthew Schultz, one of our Triabloggers, has attended Keller’s church in the past.
Here’s what he had to say some time ago:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/ministering-in-gotham.html
So Keller is not really like John “the world is my parish” Wesley. It’s more like “my parish is worldly”, and Keller is crafting his message to address them specifically.
LikeLike
just clicked your embedded link to the tgc directory and redeemer pres is right there so i’m not quite sure what the point is?
LikeLike
“Their cultural expectations, which they improperly universalize in evaluations of other ministries, seem generated from Southern and/or heavily Christianized environments”
So D.G. “Country Bumpkin” Hart is Ronnie Van Zant to Tim Keller’s Neil Young, in other words…
And here I thought he was from Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
John B., no offense to your blogging buddy, but I am not buying Keller has his finger on the pulse of NYC. When I think of Manhattan, I think Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld, the New Yorker. Nothing like that comes to mind when I look at Redeemer stuff of hear Keller. It’s fine for a church not to have its finger on the pulse of a city. It’s odd when so many think a church does when it doesn’t.
LikeLike
bob l. you’re looking at NYC, right? The only two congregations are Gallery Church and All Souls. The only two in Manhattan. Don’t let the Redeemer brand fool you. There’s only one Redeemer. That’s where TKNY is.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
When will we start seeing ‘Engaging with Keller’ promoted with the other books on the upper right corner of your blog? The introduction itself ought to be an 8th essay in the book – a great apologetic for the enterprise.
LikeLike
We need to realize there really is no way to dress up the law and gospel to make them palatable to those in whom the Holy Spirit is not working. If we dress it up in a way that is not accurate, we’re going to have to give it to people straight at some point, so we’d might as well do it from the beginning. As far as understanding sinners’ unique problems, they’re not so unique. Their problem is that they sin and need to repent and recognize Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf.
Beyond this it’s mostly just self-aggrandizement and smoke blowing.
LikeLike
Oooh, there are two levels of TGC churches according to the maplets — council member and regular. I thought they are non-hierarchical.
LikeLike
Chuckles, Still a no show for TKNY Redeemer. No little blue icon in Manhattan.
LikeLike
Warren, I will see what I can do.
LikeLike
Maybe a case of the really cool kids not needing the cool kids. Distressing number of PCAs on those maps, though.
LikeLike
John, so is this Willow Creek for the urbanized? But haven’t we seen how adapting Christianity to a specific group ends up with a lot of self-feeders? Whatever happened to one gospel for all people, as in one Lord, one faith, one baptism? It all reminds of how the traditionalists are of no help.
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/why-the-traditionalists-are-of-no-help-willow-creek-for-the-raised-pinky-class/
LikeLike
Maybe it’s hot girl (Redeemer NYC) hangs out with ugly girl (average PCA) instead of hot girl hangs out with pretty girl (GC churchlet) syndrome.
LikeLike
dear darryl, i’m looking at tgc directory right now using the link from your page that takes me directly to tgc directory. i click new york and there is THE redeemer pres with tim keller listed as pastor meeting at hunter college. as a hopkins grad i won’t assume you think i’m reading challenged. : )
LikeLike
bob l. right. http://thegospelcoalition.org/network/church-directory/state/new-york is different from http://thegospelcoalition.org/network/church-directory. Not the same link. At the latter, you see a map which my grade school education tells me might be handing for locating a congregation in Manhattan, easier than scrolling through a list of churches for the entire state (of course, my Hopkins education tells me that New York City is not the same as New York State.
LikeLike
Erik: So D.G. “Country Bumpkin” Hart is Ronnie Van Zant to Tim Keller’s Neil Young, in other words…
No, not in anything like those words at all. Such a suggestion is both unkind and unhelpful.
DGH: I am not buying Keller has his finger on the pulse of NYC. When I think of Manhattan, I think Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld, the New Yorker. …
Why not think of the entire “gay” subculture, or Wall Street, or the underclass that resides in and out of the area?
I don’t know NYC, so I can’t personally address this question.
ZrimJohn, so is this Willow Creek for the urbanized? But haven’t we seen how adapting Christianity to a specific group ends up with a lot of self-feeders? Whatever happened to one gospel for all people, as in one Lord, one faith, one baptism?
Your characterization about “raised pinkies” is not helpful. I don’t see how having a “contemporary” service is “adapting Christianity”. I would agree with you that Worship is about God, not us”, but I don’t think that translates to “worship is about us, so do what pleases your inward tastes most.”
At some point there is a need for a pastor and group of elders to understand the culture in which they’re serving.
I thought Keller’s attempt at a catechism was very laudable — attempting to bring Confessional sensibilities to those who have none. Sometimes I think that the emphasis on “conformity in worship” among Confessional Protestants is more of an echo of Rome than an attempt to be Biblical.
LikeLike
John – No, not in anything like those words at all. Such a suggestion is both unkind and unhelpful.
Erik – This might be more helpful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME-mJtoprj8
LikeLike
John,
You’re laying it on thick and coming off like a Caller. Knock it off.
LikeLike
The ironic thing is that if NYC needs anything it is churches that stand in stark contrast to the zeitgeist — like Old School Presbyterianism does. Any attempt to “understand the culture” and somehow bend and shape the church to fit into it won’t work long term because it ultimately only invites derision from those who are being targeted. Just give it to them straight and hard — they’ll respect that even if they disagree with it.
I would bet that 95% of TKNY’s attendees are people who grew up evangelical in some other part of the U.S. The city remains un-transformed.
LikeLike
John,
I enjoy your blog. I do wonder if each area of the country really has a unique culture anymore. Socialists and historians have been chronicling the flattening out of cultural distinctions in the modern age. This flattening is even happening in other parts of the world, as young people in South America for example, are often raised on the same media as the U.S. children. But even more this flattening has been occurring in the U.S. for some time.
In times past the Monday morning conversation (classical music, vintage cars, stocks and bonds) of wealthy New Yorkers looked much different than amongst two lower class Long Island workers on the dock (football, perverse sexual humor, etc…). But with modern media that has all changed. Now the talk Monday morning around a cooler at the NYSE closely resembles the talk around the cooler at the local Walmart (Did you see American Idol?, I can’t believe how bad the Jets suck, the same sexual humor, etc.). Even the vernacular has flattened out – the rich are just as likely to use the terminology of the Jets “sucking” as the poor. And these same conversations and shared interests are found in every city across the country. Added to this is the reality that few adults in large cities live in the same area they were born and raised in.
I have been preaching through Acts this year. Beside the obvious Jew/Gentile distinction and their contrasting familiarity with the Old Testament, I do not see the Apostles’ strategy change from city to city, nation to nation based on culture. They seem to go into a town, find the Jews first, preach the gospel citing the OT, and then preach to the Gentiles the same gospel minus the OT references.
All this to say, I wonder if churches are making too much of cultural strategies and differences among urban centers in the U.S. Are modern people in certain cities really that different that the gospel needs to be contextualized according to that supposed unique culture?
LikeLike
John, I’m not sure what you mean by “conformity in worship” among confessional Protestants, but it sounds a little skeptical of what flows from the regulative principle. It may echo Rome to some, but making room for “contemporary” (which never sounds like anything RPW-friendly) sounds like an echo of revivalism. But Reformed according to Scripture wants nothing to do with either. Yes, discerning the times and knowing the spirit of the age is important–otherwise one wouldn’t be able to see how incorporating trumpets and violins is every bit as adapting Christian doxology to particular tastes as are guitars and drums.
LikeLike
DGH: Redeemer may not have made it onto the TGC website directory, but Wikipedia certainly has picked it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Churches_in_Manhattan
LikeLike
Erik: You’re laying it on thick and coming off like a Caller. Knock it off.
I’m nothing at all like the “Callers” – Rather than “binding” anyone to a thing, I’m encouraging a lighter touch – that is, I have suggested “Keller is not an enemy of the Gospel”. He does things differently, but “co-heirs” of the Gospel have been doing things differently since the time of the Reformation and before.
LikeLike
Zrim: I’m not sure what you mean by “conformity in worship” among confessional Protestants,
By this I am referring to DGH’s line from the OP, where he cites a point that he made in his book, to the effect that Keller “does not fit in with the rules or expectations of his Presbyterian communion.”
It’s a big world out there, and lots of Presbyterians “don’t fit in” from a worship perspective. What remains to be proved is that that’s a bad thing.
First of all, I want you to know that I’m on board with the notion that Calvin and the Reformed Scholastics went further toward understanding God’s intentions in Christianity and the church, far better than anyone else in the history of Christianity.
It should be clear, though, that even during the period of the Reformation and immediately following, not everyone held to Calvin’s doctrines. (I’m talking about Lutherans and Anglicans – that kind of scale, and not any kind of superficial differences between Calvin and other Reformed writers.)
I’m also on board with the notion that American (evangelical) Christianity is impoverished in a lot of ways, and that American Christianity, as a whole, has a lot to learn, and they would learn a lot from the Reformed.
On the other hand, lots of Reformed groups are impoverished in other ways. And a few non-Reformed groups are not impoverished at all (I’d suggest some but I don’t want to put up any more targets – just simply to make the point that I’m making).
I’ve not noticed any doctrinal deviancy with Keller (though I’m not making a comprehensive survey). If ire is going to be focused (and you seem to want to just generalize it outward, at anyone who is not strictly confessional), it does seem like FV and someone like Leithart would be a much more appropriate target.
The source of ire vs Keller seems to be the “eclectic” nature of his worship services:
Services range from “Classical”, “Contemporary/Jazz”, “Contemporary/Eclectic”, “Classical/Eclectic”, and just plain old “Eclectic”.
When you go to the orchestra, I’m sure you prefer it that the musicians vary their notes once in a while.
There are two ways to look at things:
Clark makes the point that the RPW “is sola scriptura applied to the act of corporate worship”. “Whatever is not prescribed in Scripture is proscribed”.
But surely that’s ways too strong. Because in that case, what happens to that which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”?
At the other end, “whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is allowed” – I think that can lead to trouble, but not in every case.
In instances such as this one, I think the best advice of all is something from Francis Schaeffer, (which providentially, I just stumbled upon yesterday) from “The God Who Is There”: “There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion”.
I think that the picking-on of Keller – the “joke” – has that kind of feel to it.
Recently, Steve Hays has made the following complaint in his discussions with the group from TeamPyro and their adherence to a firm cessationism:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search/label/Pentecostalism
Swap out “MacArthurites” for “Old Lifers” and “Pentecostal/charismatic” for “Kellerite”, and almost the same complaint could be made here.
In our world today, it’s important to understand who are the real enemies of Christianity, and who’s disagreeing with us over something that God hasn’t (Biblically) made a big deal about.
LikeLike
Todd — you are right that the NT church remains our standard of comparison for what is prescribed, proscribed, or permitted in Christian ecclesiology, and Steve Hays makes this very point in his discussion of Luke’s ecclesiology (here):
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/10/lukan-ecclesiology.html
However, Luke had one viewpoint and it wasn’t necessarily to discuss “cultures” in Acts (apart from, as you say, the Jews, Hellenists, and Gentiles, which, in itself, is a big discussion of “cultures”). The needs of those individual groups certainly were “contextualized”.
But Paul’s letters go a great deal farther in looking at the needs of his congregations and addressing them in quite a specific way.
Are modern people in certain cities really that different that the gospel needs to be contextualized according to that supposed unique culture?
One key difference that lies outside of the water cooler talk is something that I’d simply attribute to “worldview”. That is, even though they are all talking about American Idol or sports, the people in NYC are MUCH more likely to have bought into (and to live by) a relativistic worldview that says “we are all equal” or “your truth is as good as my truth” than someone in other “heavily Christianized environments” who would hold to more rigid standards of right and wrong, for example.
It’s still important to approach those two viewpoints in different ways.
LikeLike
John, I think one of the points you don’t bring out in this, is that in terms of worship organization and responsibility, we are not equals in the formation. I’m largely subject to, not creator of, the liturgy, preaching and singing. So, regardless of intent(contextualization), the willingness of leadership to prescribe beyond scriptural warrant is not only callous but deleterious. Why is the pastor’s/elder’s compulsion to scripture any less than mine? I know all sorts of pastors, whose primary push back is; “freedom”, where in turn, as a congregant, they inform me that mine needs to be “submission”. I’ve gotten to the point where I tell them; “I don’t care what you do the other 7 and 23, but just for this hour, set aside your imaginings and “freedom” and consider the needs of the people who are your charge. We(congregants) by and large are not the one’s asking for Jazz, contemporary, multimedia or Mark Driscoll. This is emanating from the session and what they want to do, and resistance is lack of submission and whining.
LikeLike
John,
Besides a few large urban areas in the south like Charlotte, NC, I think it’s safe to say most urban areas outside of NYC share the same worldview. And I’m not sure how Paul addressing specific needs of each congregation relate to the point under discussion. But as to Keller, if he truly has stated and believes that “the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place,” then I do not think that’s a definition of salvation the Apostles would even recognize.
LikeLike
Todd: But as to Keller, if he truly has stated and believes that “the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place,” then I do not think that’s a definition of salvation the Apostles would even recognize.
Yes, but did he really say this? You don’t even seem to know for sure. And in what context? Perhaps someone else here has the exact context.
LikeLike
Sean — I think one of the points you don’t bring out in this, is that in terms of worship organization and responsibility, we are not equals in the formation. I’m largely subject to, not creator of, the liturgy, preaching and singing. So, regardless of intent(contextualization), the willingness of leadership to prescribe beyond scriptural warrant is not only callous but deleterious.
I attend the nearest PCA church that I could find, and it’s 25 minutes away from my house. I did not consider the worship style (which I’d characterize as contemporary).
What’s important to me is that I go and hear teachings and sermons each week that are thoroughly biblical — I have not once experienced dissonance with a sermon (or any other statement made in worship) in perhaps five years of membership.
The music that they do sing is a combination of Psalms and traditional hymns and also more contemporary songs. My kids who are members with me, love it.
Prior to that I attended an OPC church — the held a contemporary “sing time” prior to the start of the service, which, then, was I would say “more traditional” (though I still couldn’t say whether they held to the RPW — they had a piano and organ and frequently had a violin and perhaps some other instruments).
In either place, to be honest, I loved the music, and paid no mind to “liturgy”. In both places, there was no hint that “worship” was “not only callous but deleterious”.
In fact, I don’t know if you’ve followed my family’s story, but my wife spent a great deal of time in leukemia treatments (she is doing well now), and more recently I’ve had a bout of unemployment (and a threatened loss of health insurance, which would have been harmful to my wife).
The church (City-Reformed PCA in Pittsburgh) supported my family in every way possible, including contributing many thousands of dollars to help us pay for mortgage and medical bills.
The RPW folks may not care for the style of worship, but the overriding care was “are you well — we truly want to care for you in the most Christ-like way”.
There was nothing “callous or deleterious” in the whole last three years. There was no charge to “submit”, nor whining in any way.
What is it that makes a church be a real church? I know there are lots of discussions along those lines. Word, sacrament, genuine Samaritan-like care of members? Sometimes I think there is far too much emphasis on other, less important things.
LikeLike
John, he said it. You can trust Rachel:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/keller-the-whole-purpose-of-salvation-is-to-make-this-world-a-great-place/
LikeLike
John, and beyond all that TKNY is a bad presbyterian and denominational member. He plays fast and loose with the Book of Church Order and the scripture by not ordaining deacons (anymore) since he can’t ordain his deaconesses (except they were caught on video doing it once). This is clearly to pander to the sensibilities of egalitarian urbanites. And he seems more concerned with planting Gospel Coalitionish churches than presbyterian ones.
LikeLike
The excuse was this campus pastor or staff member or whatever had just come in from the EPC and didn’t know the “rules”… as if that’s not problematic. Wah, wah, wah.
LikeLike
“Yes, but did he really say this? You don’t even seem to know for sure.”
John,
It’s not that I didn’t know for sure whether he said it, I have read the quote in context. I wrote “stated and believes” because Christian charity should allow a man to qualify, correct or clarify a statement before we assume the worst about it, but I have not yet seen any qualification or correction that would alleviate my concerns about his understanding of salvation.
And about women deacons, I agree with Keller that deaconesses are Scriptural, but with the rest of my brethren who are like-minded on this we submit to the majority rule in our denominations. I don’t understand the games Keller seems to play to somehow allow deaconesses. If it is that important, why not simply move to a denomination that allows it and do it openly?
LikeLike
John, your latitudinarianism on the RPW is a good example of why adding doxology as a fourth mark might serve the P&R well. As to your sense that it’s all just an untoward picking on of Keller, I’d recommend “Engaging with Keller.” It’s quite charitable and judicious but doesn’t back away from leveling substantive criticisms that aren’t easily brushed aside with a good ol’ boy hand wave.
LikeLike
I agree on doxology, Zrimley. If some new denomination emerges from the PCA melange it will be destined for a similar fate without a directory for public worship that mandates certain liturgical forms and standards. Worship drives the bus and the bus is headed in the ditch if the driver is confused, of two (or more) minds, drunk on culture, or incompetent.
LikeLike
John, I’m pleased for the care you and yours received and experience in your church. I really am.
Pastoral care and mercy ministries are integral aspects of what God provides for his people.
As regards worship and catechism it’s been a disappointing experience, and required a lot of self-shepherding to overcome. I wish it weren’t this way.
C-Dubs and Zrim, couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
“Worship drives the bus”
I always found this idea difficult to accept. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say theology drives the bus? Doesn’t our worship flow from our understanding of God, total depravity, justification, election, the Holy Spirit, the new covenant, etc…?
LikeLike
C-dubs and Sean, I’ll take that as a second and a motion, but without religious celebrity in what John approves as the big-tent of today’s Presbyterianism, who cares?
ps John, God hasn’t made a big biblical deal over worship? It’s, like, the first two commandments. And I get the feeling by “the real enemies of Christianity” you mean mostly Roman Catholicism. But don’t forget that for the reformers the Reformation was a battle on (at least) two fronts. Quoth Calvin:
We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods.
The way you talk, it’s almost as if one of those battle fronts is at relative peace and another takes on more import than it deserves. I’ll take Calvin.
LikeLike
Todd, instead of the bus, I always liked the chicken-and-egg analogy: which comes first? I don’t know, but they both reinforce the other.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I agree they reinforce each other, but how could worship precede theology? How could we know how to worship if we do not know who or why we worship?
LikeLike
Chortles — thanks for the “daughter” article. I think that in context, Keller frames “the whole purpose of salvation” in an eschatological framework, and thus, this material life comes off as worth living — not just in bread and wine, but in every part of life. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, and it shows that Todd at a very minimum was misunderstanding what Keller was saying.
John, and beyond all that TKNY is a bad presbyterian and denominational member.
Aren’t there lots worse presbyterians and denominational members?
LikeLike
Todd: I have read the quote in context.
Then you should know that he is talking about salvation in an eschatological context: “That the whole purpose of everything God is doing in redemption is to create a material world that’s clean, that’s right, that’s pure. A material world in which there’s no disease and there’s no death and no injustice, there’s no unraveling, there’s no decay. The whole purpose of salvation is to cleanse and purify this material world.”
The Apostles certainly would recognize that.
but I have not yet seen any qualification or correction that would alleviate my concerns about his understanding of salvation.
Keller gave his own qualification, which you certainly failed to recognize.
LikeLike
Todd, I suppose. But without the first two commandments why would we ever need theology?
LikeLike
Zrim: God hasn’t made a big biblical deal over worship? It’s, like, the first two commandments.
Right, “no false Gods”, not “use a liturgy with no instruments”.
I get the feeling by “the real enemies of Christianity” you mean mostly Roman Catholicism. But don’t forget that for the reformers the Reformation was a battle on (at least) two fronts.
Where’s the “Called-to-Anabaptism” site that snapping up Reformed pastors left and right?
For that matter, there are no “Anabaptists” around today – except for a few Amish and Mennonites – so I do fail to understand why you continually rage against them. And while you might refer to modern Baptists as “Anabaptists”, the genealogy there works against you.
How might all of this play out if you were to update your categories to reflect who is actually opposed to us “on the ground today”?
LikeLike
John,
I read and recognized his qualifications, but I still see them as problematic. BTW, I am not suggesting, as some do, that Keller is preaching a false gospel, at this point I only see problems and imbalances.
First of all, who is he arguing against? What genuine Christian group denies the material nature of the New Heavens and Earth?
As to the phrase, “The whole purpose of salvation is to cleanse and purify this material world,” where do you find that idea in the Apostles’ teaching, that this is the whole purpose of the gospel?
Another problem is assuming continuity of purpose between the ministry of the church now and the work of Christ at his Second Coming. Because Christ will renew the created order at His return does not assume that the purpose of the gospel (and church) now is to begin renewing this created order through social transformation. So it really depends on what you mean by “eschatological context,” because I do believe a faulty eschatology is a major part of this.
LikeLike
John,
If we’re going to incorporate rock & pop music into worship, who is going to be the arbiter on whether or not it is aesthetically appropriate? We’re worshipping God and binding people’s consciences, aren’t we?
To paraphrase Miles in “Sideways”, I ain’t drinking any musical merlot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiOuroHPxRQ
LikeLike
Quality rock & pop music is Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rollins Stones, Steely Dan, etc. and their African-American predecessors (the blues & jazz musicians that inspired them). Contemporary Christian music takes its cues from Air Supply & the Gaithers. That sucks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnpabddUFdA
LikeLike
Erik: If we’re going to incorporate rock & pop music into worship, who is going to be the arbiter on whether or not it is aesthetically appropriate?
If you view “aesthetic appropriateness” as a legitimate reason for accepting or rejecting a thing, I’d say that “the market” would decide. (And I view “markets” as legitimate decision-makers, even at the micro-level of a single congregation.) People will or won’t show up based on whether they think a thing is “aesthetically appropriate”.
Frequently, arguments in favor of the RPW remind me of the anti-artificial-contraception arguments that come from Roman Catholics. You can practice contraception; you just have to do it within the specified parameters. Same thing here with the RPW. It becomes, “you have to worship within the specified parameters”.
We’re worshipping God and binding people’s consciences, aren’t we?
It’s God who does the binding through his Word. “We” aren’t supposed to become involved with that, right?
Don’t get me wrong Erik — I don’t intend to be critical of those Reformed congregations that sing Psalms a capella — it’s a beautiful way to worship. But full-orchestral productions are beautiful as well. I think the Reformed have much better ways to interact with American Evangelicalism than to nip at them about “rock music”.
LikeLike
John, we have their descendants, the evangelicals. If you don’t see that it only signals the wonder working powers of modernity which construes them as Protestants, as in there is Rome and then there is everybody else. But that’s the same error the CtCers use to tell us Biblicism and sola scriptura are one and the same. So updating categories might involve recognizing how the Amish are but one form of Anabaptism, evangelicalism another.
LikeLike
Todd: First of all, who is he arguing against? What genuine Christian group denies the material nature of the New Heavens and Earth?
As to the phrase, “The whole purpose of salvation is to cleanse and purify this material world,” where do you find that idea in the Apostles’ teaching, that this is the whole purpose of the gospel?
I think he can say that the “cleansing and purification of this material world” is encompassed by “glorification”.
One might say that your initial statement was very much an attempt to misrepresent what Keller actually was saying, to turn this into a “Fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man” kind of thing:
But as to Keller, if he truly has stated and believes that “the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place,” then I do not think that’s a definition of salvation the Apostles would even recognize.
That bare statement certainly could be interpreted as a purely liberal concept without the preceding. Why go to this kind of length to make your point?
Because Christ will renew the created order at His return does not assume that the purpose of the gospel (and church) now is to begin renewing this created order through social transformation.
I don’t believe Keller said “social transformation”. To be sure, we are called to be “salt and light” in the world. A preservative and a guide.
So it really depends on what you mean by “eschatological context,” because I do believe a faulty eschatology is a major part of this.
Here is what he says: Instead we see heaven, the power of God, coming down and renewing this material world. That the whole purpose of everything God is doing in redemption is to create a material world that’s clean, that’s right, that’s pure.
If you want further qualification on this, consider the commentary on this concept from his New City Catechism:
http://www.newcitycatechism.com/q-parent/q52.php
Paul writes that the whole creation will one day be liberated from its bondage to pain and decay (Rom. 8:18–25). Peter prophesies that the present heavens will be replaced by a new heaven and earth, which will be the home of righteousness and peace (2 Pet. 3:7–13). Next, John writes that he saw the same replacement, together with the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God (Rev. 21:1–2). And in the same chapter John writes that the kings of the earth and the nations will bring their glory into the city, though “nothing impure will ever enter into it” (Rev. 21:27). We need to be cautious in our interpretation of these verses, but they seem to mean that human culture will not all be destroyed but, once purged of every taint of evil, will be preserved to beautify the New Jerusalem.
The same people who are here, interacting as a “culture”, will be there. All things will be made “new” — but it’s the existing things that are made “new”, not completely replaced.
WCF seems to think along these same lines: 32:2 — “At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.”
LikeLike
John – If you view “aesthetic appropriateness” as a legitimate reason for accepting or rejecting a thing, I’d say that “the market” would decide. (And I view “markets” as legitimate decision-makers, even at the micro-level of a single congregation.) People will or won’t show up based on whether they think a thing is “aesthetically appropriate”.
Erik – Wow. So much for Presbyterianism. I can see why you defend Keller.
LikeLike
John,
If Reformed & Presbyterian elders have one important duty it’s protecting the consciences of church members who have no choice but to be in worship (so much for the market). Elders should err on the side of keeping things out of worship lest someone’s conscience be offended. People can and do get plenty of all kinds of music and entertainment at home — where no one is making them show up.
LikeLike
Just not going there:
LikeLike
What if instead of a young lady, it was John Frame who insisted on his right to perform a liturgical dance in worship?
My conscience and sense of good taste would definitely be offended.
LikeLike
“One might say that your initial statement was very much an attempt to misrepresent what Keller actually was saying, to turn this into a “Fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man” kind of thing:”
You are being too sensitive. Instead of assuming you could ask. I actually was not going in the direction you assumed.
“That bare statement certainly could be interpreted as a purely liberal concept without the preceding. Why go to this kind of length to make your point?”
I didn’t say it was a purely liberal concept, but an imbalanced one.
“Here is what he says: Instead we see heaven, the power of God, coming down and renewing this material world. That the whole purpose of everything God is doing in redemption is to create a material world that’s clean, that’s right, that’s pure.”
Right, and this is where one should take issue. God in this age is not coming down to renew the material world. The material world is passing away (I Cor 7:31). The whole purpose of redemption in this age is seeking and saving that which was lost – his elect, people. Christ came to bring dead souls to life, forgive their sin, reconcile them to God, and fill them with his Spirit. In the age to come he will restore their bodies and create a new heavens and earth for them to dwell. Here is where I think Keller is jumping the eschatological gun, much like the pentecostals do with the healing of the body.
LikeLike
Zrim: we have their descendants, the evangelicals.
There is no direct line of descent.
If you don’t see that it only signals the wonder working powers of modernity which construes them as Protestants, as in there is Rome and then there is everybody else.
I’m on board as saying just above that American evangelicalism has problems and that they can learn from the Reformed. It’s clearly not the case that “there is Rome and then there is everybody else”.
So updating categories might involve recognizing how the Amish are but one form of Anabaptism, evangelicalism another.
This would be quite a project. Without this pre-condition, I’m sure you would find some differences. But could you bear to deal with a situation in which some Reformed Baptists, for example, really are different from those who deny the Trinity (as some of the Anabaptists did at first), and would you be prepared not to lump them in with “Anabaptists”?
LikeLike
Todd: Instead of assuming you could ask.
I’m not the one making accusations of Keller, and dismissing him on the part of “imbalances”. Why don’t you give him the same benefit of the doubt?
But even with “imbalances”, you’ve moved the goalpost. To quote your original words: But as to Keller, if he truly has stated and believes that “the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place,” then I do not think that’s a definition of salvation the Apostles would even recognize.
Your question is disingenuous, and you need to own up to that. Was Keller giving a “definition of salvation”? In your first comment he was. Now you’re saying that his eschatology is imbalanced.
LikeLike
John,
Why can’t a definition of salvation be imbalanced, and because of errors added to a truthful part, not one that the Apostles would have recognized? Since I see an affinity between Keller’s emphasis on cultural (city) transformation and the Pentecostal’s emphasis on physical healing and prosperity, I can say the same thing about Pentecostals. When Pentecostals say Christ came to forgive sins and secure healing and prosperity for this life, that would not be a definition of the purpose of salvation the Apostles would have taught (recognized). I can phrase it different ways if you’d like but if you still cannot accept the point I am trying to make we can leave it at that.
LikeLike
John, it’s more than a learning problem. It’s that evangelicalism is every bit as much a Christian sect as Rome. There may not a direct line from the Radical Reformation to evangelicalism, but neither is there one from the Protestant Reformation (the way there is to confessionally Reformed churches). Maybe quasi-Anabaptist. But only in modernity could there be creatures called Reformed Baptists. I’m not sure what to do with them, but church membership is out, and if we’re serious about our ecclesiology then that means something.
LikeLike
John,
One other thing. Keller is a published theologian and a public figure. My concerns about his understanding of the gospel do not rise out of something I simply read on a blog. I have read some of his books and sermons, recently finished I think his largest book (City Church) and seen videos of his public presentations of the gospel. He certainly has some impressive gifts, especially how he deals with unbelievers, but raises some real concerns.
As for someone like me you do not know, you sometimes have to ask questions for clarification because blog posts are like conversations. Reading back I did not mean to say that Keller in every way held to a different gospel or entirely different view of salvation, and I could have been more careful how I expressed that, but again, if you think there is a devious or disingenuous agenda behind my words then there is nothing I could say to satisfy you accept agree with your accusation, which I cannot.
I do find it a very interesting phenomenon, as I have many friends and acquaintances around the country in broader reformed and evangelical circles, how testy people get if you dare criticize Tim Keller. I don’t think I’ve seen this with any other public figure, at least not among more reformed people. I’ve been in conferences where I do not even dare critique the Keller material being taught based on the responses I received if I try. And I’m a nice, soft-spoken guy in person! (sorry to burst your bubble, Sean) But I wonder if others have come across this phenomenon also.
LikeLike
The great lost emphasis of the Geneva wing of the Reformation is the importance of proper worship. Said Calvin:
“If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.”
If he was wrong, rock on. If he was right…Lucy, you got splainin’ to do.
A terrible error is to equate worship almost entirely with form and amount of music. It is a minor and subservient part, not the main attraction and NOT a marketing tool. The best way to deal with the “devil in the singing” (as Lloyd-Jones used to call it) is to dispense with instruments altogether and sing all or mostly psalms — simply. This goes a long way to removing the culture from the cult.
LikeLike
From ML-J who, as a Welshman, had seen music dominate church life:
“Nothing is needed more urgently than an analysis of the innovations in the realm of religious worship in the nineteenth century—to me in this respect a devastating century. The sooner we forget the nineteenth century and go back to the eighteenth, and even further to the seventeenth and sixteenth, the better. The nineteenth century and its mentality and outlook is responsible for most of our troubles and problems today. It was then that a fatal turn took place in so many respects—and very prominent among the changes introduced was the place given to music in its various forms…I am not concerned to evaluate the rival interpretations of the relevant Scriptures, or to argue as the antiquity of hymn singing; my point is that while hymn singing became popular at the end of the seventeenth and particularly in the eighteenth century, that the entirely new emphasis on music came in about the middle of the [nineteenth] century.”
LikeLike
C-dubs, it’s like Godfrey once said, music is the new sacrament. But if we stick with baptism and the Supper then any form of (credo) Baptist is a bigger problem than John seems to imply.
LikeLike
Mega dittoes, Zrim. You can take the Ana- outta the baptists but they’re still mostly wrong on the meaning, mode, and importance of water, bread, and wine. And that’s a big deal.
LikeLike
And why does any Reformed church need a “worship leader”? The Scots’ precentors are about as much as I can justify, if that.
LikeLike
Zrim: “So updating categories might involve recognizing how the Amish are but one form of Anabaptism, evangelicalism another.”
mcmark: makes sense, because “anabaptist” was the old swear word, and “evangelicals” is the new swear word. And swearing is always easier than defining.
Certainly Keller is “evangelical”, but how is that caused by his being baptist? My guess is that more conservative Presbyterians think of themselves as “evangelicals” first, and if confessional, that’s second. There are many John Frames out there, but again how is John Frame the result of his being baptist?
Did you ever know a baptist, Zrim, who was NOT evangelical? Or would that not compute? I mean, since you were an “evangelical” when you were a baptists, all baptists must be that?
Defining “evangelical” as all those who like Billy Graham and his preaching (this definition used by Noll, Marsden, Doug Franks, Don Dayton), I know quite a few baptists who don”t qualify. And quite a few Confessional folks who would qualify, given that definition.
But keep throwing stuff against the wall. Some of it might stick.
LikeLike
DGH: in 1843 the Free Church abandoned the comforts of the Kirk for an ecclesiastical existence free from state control. (Of course, Thomas Chalmers was loathe to call this a voluntary church – despite the name “Free” – and repeatedly affirmed that the Free Church stood for the establishment principle; this meant that the Free Church still preferred ecclesiastical establishment but only on orthodox terms.)
dgh: And then there was the case of the Old School Presbyterians, who had no ecclesiastical establishment to repudiate but did reject the blurring of nationalism and Presbyterianism on display among the New School Presbyterians. This rejection involved the doctrine of the spirituality of the church
mark; But where did that idea of “voluntary church” come from? And why did Chalmers still want establishment? Is not the very notion of more than one visible church in one place a “sectarian” concept? Even if Roman Catholics are forced to become a “sect” in America, why should the Reformed (rightly descended) forsake establishment for something “voluntary”? Sounds like “free-will” to me.
Machen: The intolerance of the church, in the sense in which I am speaking of it, does not involve any interference with liberty. On the contrary, it means the preservation of liberty. One of the most important elements in civil and religious liberty is the right of voluntary association – the right of citizens to band themselves together for any lawful purpose whatever, whether that purpose does or does not commend itself to the generality of their fellow men.
Machen: Now, a church is a voluntary association. No one is compelled to be a member of it; no one is compelled to be one of its accredited representatives. It is, therefore, no interference with liberty of a church to insist that those who do choose to be its accredited representatives shall not use the vantage ground of such a position to attack that for which a church exists. . .
LikeLike
Erik – Wow. So much for Presbyterianism. I can see why you defend Keller.
You brought up “aesthetic appropriateness”. And that is one test, but it is one test among many. And not the most important one.
I love Presbyterianism for many reasons, not least of which is the form of church government it espouses. That’s where the name came from. I love it because Presbyterians are descendants of the Puritans, whom J.I. Packer described as spiritual giants, as the redwoods of Christianity, among the little trees. I love Presbyterianism because I love the Reformed confessions — all of them — and I can barely argue with the LBCF when it holds that credobaptism was the more Biblical form. Yes, infant baptism became practiced, became the norm in practice over time, and yes, the Reformed confessions have the best theology I think for describing the baptism of children, but holding those brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree at arm’s length because they (a) wanted to throw out a Roman practice and (b) wanted to be just a little bit more Biblical [in the direct sense] and a little less “good and necessary consequence”, I just can’t countenance that.
And when half of evangelicalism embraces Calvinism without going all the way to “TR”, I love the half that comes toward Calvinism, without mocking them as “neo” or incomplete in some way. I rejoice that the ideas of Calvin are gaining broad acceptance now, especially in this age after the “Left Behind” nonsense is getting left behind.
The Lord is behind such movements. And if they seem incomplete, it’s because we have little patience.
LikeLike
Chortles: “Nothing is needed more urgently than an analysis of the innovations in the realm of religious worship in the nineteenth century—to me in this respect a devastating century. The sooner we forget the nineteenth century and go back to the eighteenth, and even further to the seventeenth and sixteenth, the better. The nineteenth century and its mentality and outlook is responsible for most of our troubles and problems today. It was then that a fatal turn took place in so many respects—and very prominent among the changes introduced was the place given to music in its various forms…I am not concerned to evaluate the rival interpretations of the relevant Scriptures, or to argue as the antiquity of hymn singing; my point is that while hymn singing became popular at the end of the seventeenth and particularly in the eighteenth century, that the entirely new emphasis on music came in about the middle of the [nineteenth] century.”
How about Augustine: “Those who sing well pray twice”. How would some of the ancients have done it if they’d had electricity? Not just in the 16th century, but the first and second centuries, and the 10th century BC for that matter?
1 Shout for joy in the LORD, O you righteous!
Praise befits the upright.
2 Give thanks to the LORD with the lyre;
make melody to him with the harp of ten strings!
3 Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully on the strings, with loud shouts. (Ps 33:1-3)
LikeLike
Sometimes I think that the emphasis on “conformity in worship” among Confessional Protestants is more of an echo of Rome than an attempt to be Biblical.
Ouch.
That’s a low blow, John.
For the record, the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 is the genesis of the Westminster Standards. (It was also essentially the oath of subscription to those documents as referenced in the Form of Ch. Govt.). The Westminster Assembly was already in session revising the 39 Articles of the English Church, but after SL&C was signed, the Assembly laid the Articles aside and with the help of a Scotch delegation, among other things, began to make good the conclusion of the first head to:
“. . . . endeavor to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of Faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.
Hence – obviously – the WCF, the Directory for Worship, the Form of Pres. Church Government and the L&S Catechisms.
It is also a commonplace among P&R expositions of the ten commandments, to say the first is in regard to who we worship, the second how we worship – the external means, the third how we worship – the internal attitude and the fourth when.
Further the G&N consequences of the second commandment or the RPW – contra its mis-characterizations by John Frame’s Worship Children, who by and large have graduated to Fed Vision – is generally summarized as ‘Whatsoever is not commanded – explicitly or implicitly by G&N consequences/approved example – is forbidden in the worship of God’.
But as per Chort though, wandering hat in hand through the wasteland, many presbyterians find this very strange music to their ears and as long as the church has ruling elders, infant baptism and evangelical sermons, all is well, stop nitpicking and start “evangelizing”.
Via seeker sensitive, contemporary worship music etc. and so the descent into the abyss begins, when all the while Rome does the carnal worship thing much better than half hearted presbyterians.
LikeLike
Credobaptism?
Come on,John. This is elementary stuff.
If Abraham is saved by faith alone, why did he apply ” the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had (Rom. 4:11)” unto all the males in his household, even the infants who couldn’t even say the Apostles Creed?
Musical instruments/psalmody?
For starters,
With respect to the tabret, harp and psaltery , we have formerly observed [see C. on Ps. 33:3, 71:22], and will find it necessary to afterwards to repeat the same remark [see C. on Ps. 92:1,150:3-5], that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God, it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is very apparent that the papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves (“Commentary on the Book of Psalms,” Vol. 3, J. Anderson ed., Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. V, 1845, rpt. Grand Rapid: Baker, 1989, p.312).
For more on Calvin on the psalms and instruments try
http://heidelblog.net/2013/06/is-the-organ-gods-gift-to-worship/
http://heidelblog.net/2013/06/calvin-instruments-in-public-worship-is-the-restoration-of-shadows/
LikeLike
Bob — sorry about that Rome thing. I understand it was a messy time during the 16th and 17th centuries. It was one thing to “escape from Rome”; it was quite another to set up shop somewhere else.
The degree to which the Reformed groups were able to unify themselves was quite laudable at the time. However, they also had quite a bit of friendly and not-so-friendly competition among other Christian groups.
That competition does not disqualify those groups from being Christian — some even (as I mentioned) continued to thrive, and some of their descendants (direct and indirect) continue to thrive today.
The right way to interface with them now is not to condemn them for not being Reformed. Someone here put up an article about Lloyd-Jones’s ecclesiology, and I agree with it: “What is really needed is a clear and unashamed articulation” of a robust, Reformed ecclesiology.
How might that be accomplished without the sort of nit-picking that tears people down for being different?
LikeLike
mcmark, I suspect the voluntary church came from (unless you’re going to claim Anabaptist roots — but no Reformed communion said, yeah, the re-baptizers were right) disestablishment and the differentiation of government from civil society. Chalmers wanted establishment because the Kirk with its organic place in the parish was crucial to his ideal of a reformed church.
LikeLike
John, the ecclesiology of broad “evangelical” niceness was tried and it resulted in the PCUSA, Fast and loose with church order (Keller) and worship-as-you-like (practically everyone) is the fast track to disintegration. And can you really imply that how and who we baptize is not that important? Covenant theology is the structure upon which Reformed theology is built and it is destroyed by your softness on baptism. There’s room at the Gospel Coalition for you. Though millions have come, there’s still room for one, there’s room at the GC for you.
LikeLike
Mark, when I think Baptist I also think decisionist, so yes, I’ve know Baptists who aren’t evangelical. It computes quite easily in fact.
LikeLike
Mark, I believe I understand the Calvinistic baptist — I was one. I came to believe that it was an unsustainable track for ecclesiological reasons. It’s just a way station for eventual presbys — come on down!
LikeLike
“Presbyterians are descendants of the Puritans” — really? Calvin was a C of E renegade?
LikeLike
The “reformed” church tends to be a “way-station” for ex-baptists who later become Roman Catholics also. But let’s stop with the slippery slopes. Let’s stop assuming that all baptists are Arminians, but also let’s stop assuming that all “5 point baptists” will inevitably follow the trajectory you have followed, if they don’t die first, and read the right books that you did, and aren’t completely stupid….
Many ex- “calvinistic baptist” move up to the “confessional” front seats of the “evangelical” bus. But they still welcome Arminians onto the bus. Why not Mormons and Roman Catholics as well? If we can be justified before God without knowing how God justifies, why bother moving to better seats? We need repentance from the false gospel, not merely a new ecclesiology (Reformed or baptist).
Can we get on the bus without knowing the gospel? If we can become Christians apart from the power of the gospel, that would explain the smooth transition (no repentance) between the various seats on the bus.
LikeLike
Thomas Chalmers is interesting to think about, because like the New England puritans, he wasn’t against establishment but only against the establishment of another religion besides his own. But if you are established clergy for your entire parish (including those who do not attend your preaching), you can see how a person like that would think it their duty to be a world (or at least parish) transformationist.
I love intellectual history, but influence and causation are always difficult to prove. How much did Anabaptists effect Zwingli, not only in the distinction between water and God’s agency, but also about matters like “church discipline”? Who can tell? Anabaptists might have made Zwingli worse than he would have otherwise been, if they had only let him “go slow” and gradually reform that which had come about with the passing of time. Maybe they made him (and Calvin) over-react.
I tend to agree that being in Tom Paine’s nation did more to change (some) Reformed minds about the “voluntary church” than did anabaptists (or baptists). My argument for that would involve the evolution of the Roman Catholic church to “sect status” in America.
Though I don’t believe in “natural law” ( and therefore am not two kingdom in the Reformed or Lutheran sense), I do see two great advantages to Reformed two kingdom thinking, which are missing in other Reformed folks. First is voluntary churches. Second is the distinction between law and gospel. Of course the distinction between law and grace is not “dispensationalist” in any Reformed reading (even those who teach Mosaic republication) but that distinction makes other Reformed people think that you have not yet escaped your fundamentalist (retreating) past.
But of course not all Reformed two kingdom folks are ex-fundamentalists. First, Machen was never a fundamentalist. Second, ex-fundamentalists tend to over-react into theonomic triumphalism.
Click to access Mochrie%20-%20State%20Church%20vn%203.pdf
LikeLike
Mark, sorry, it’s not entirely clear what you’re driving at, but since baptism is essential to the Reformed faith. all an otherwise Reformed Baptist has to do is repent of his sacramentology to get on the bus. Sure, easier said than done (since a complicated theology underlies it all), but no slippery slopes here. We’ll even take neos and theos, since while 2k is right it isn’t essential as the Reformed confess the essentials.
LikeLike
Mark, it would be interesting — if possible — to know how “anti-Catholic” the drive-by Reformed Tiber swimmers wear before they took the plunge. My guess is that they were attracted to the images and visuals on a sensual level long before they rationalized it all. In other words, they now think they’ve found what they were “looking” for. I’ve put on the parking brake and am working on taking off the wheels. I’m convinced that only something like confessional presbyterianism can sustain right doctrine, right worship, and rightly-ordered churches. I don’t think there’s any evidence that Calvinistic credo-baptist congregationalism is a sustainable model.
LikeLike
I guess one question would be about what bothers you more, the baptists or the congregationalists. Many congregationalists are not baptists, but I suspect that it’s the “local voluntary congregation” which bothers you more than any ideology about divine agency (or human agency) in water baptism.
The First London Confession of the Particular Baptists was in 1642, and we still have “Particular Baptist” congregations who use the First London as their confession. So maybe it depends on how we define “sustainable model”.
I am reminded of Woody Allen’s old joke—such bad food, and also, such small portions.
These anabaptists#@&% won’t be around much because what would happen to Christendom if everybody waited to get baptized (Martin Luther). But then on the other hand, these ^%$#*& anabaptists are still around, and they are a threat to society, so let’s drown them.
Two other analogies. “Now that the wonderful Reformation has come, we expect that the jews will believe the gospel now clearly proclaimed (Martin Luther). But then on the other hand, we can’t wait any longer, because these jews are a threat to Christendom (also Martin Luther).
Second analogy: these TR (thoroughly reformed) types are just a few cranks who have always been on the margins, and they have no sacrifice (Kenneth Stewart and many other Reformed evangelicals). But then on the other hand, we need to write books against those who still insist on tulip so we can talk about creation and culture and other things which are really more Reformed when you think about the big picture, because these TRs will ruin things for the rest of us, so better to accept the federal visionists, if that means the TRs will flee to the margins (where they belong).
I hope you see where my argument is going. Being anti-Zwinglian is just a no-brainer. Anybody who can read and think will stop being a Zwinglian. But on the other hand, we still have this problem, that there are still so many Zwinglian churches around today.
And so it goes. Well, if churches are Zwinglian, then they are not really churches, and don’t count and are not sustainable. But on the other hand, we still need to be fighting this great evil of Zwinglianism.
It’s like the trash talk before the basketball game. There is no evidence that you are even a real player, fat —. And then you go back to your team, and say, the problem here is that the guy with the fat—-can still shoot and rebound.
If they are not sustainable, then no problem for you. On the other hand, if 5 point baptists (who are not both Arminian and Calvinist at the same time as John Piper claims to be) are still around, then there might be something wrong with your paradigm. And so, you go back to: I see nothing….
LikeLike
Zrim, I apologise if i was unclear. I was trying to say that the gospel is more important than having a baptist (or reformed) ecclesiology or sacramentology. I was challenging the idea that two persons with different gospels are both Christians.
Of course, it’s obvious that I think ecclesiology is important. But being “anti-Catholic” is not the point. My question asks if a person is submitted to the true gospel in which salvation is in no way conditioned on the sinner. My idea is that those who went from being baptist to being reformed to being romanists never ever heard and believed the truth of the gospel.
Maybe I should forget the bus parable. But I was not saying that it was a Reformed bus. (Of course you have to say it’s God agency in water to be on a Reformed bus). But my complaint is that most Reformed people are still on an “evangelical’ bus, and this means mostly Arminians. And thus the people on that “evangelical” bus may have changed what books they read (now Mike Horton instead of Joel Osteen), but still everybody on the bus in charity agrees to assume that they are all Christians, have been and will be, smooth transitions…..no repentance from a false gospel has ever happened.
LikeLike
John – I love it because Presbyterians are descendants of the Puritans, whom J.I. Packer described as spiritual giants, as the redwoods of Christianity, among the little trees.
Erik – Ouch. You take that back. The descendants of the Puritans are the Unitarians. Presbyterians have a different family tree. Also note that the Puritans were congregationalists.
Are you Darrell Todd Maurina’s brother, separated at birth?
LikeLike
Another “Life of Pi” observation: The number of meerkats on the island is roughly equal to the number of extras in Michael Cimino’s “Heavens Gate”. They make a “Where’s Waldo” cartoon look underpopulated.
LikeLike
Erik – Ouch. You take that back. The descendants of the Puritans are the Unitarians. Presbyterians have a different family tree. Also note that the Puritans were congregationalists.
I understand New England didn’t go well, but I thought there was a line through Jonathan Edwards to Old Princeton. Maybe I’ll have to scrounge up a free copy of “The History of Calvinism” from a used book sale in a library one day and explore that further. 😉
Aside from that, given your affinity for genealogies, maybe you could explain to Zrim where the Anabaptists ended up.
Are you Darrell Todd Maurina’s brother, separated at birth?
I’ve seen his name around — I’ll have to ping him when I get a chance.
LikeLike
Points to John for being a good sport. Cheers.
LikeLike
My idea is that those who went from being baptist to being reformed to being romanists never ever heard and believed the truth of the gospel.
Mark, that’s pretty sweeping and slippery-slope-ish. I’d rather say that those like this went in and out of orthodoxy on either side.
LikeLike
John – I understand New England didn’t go well, but I thought there was a line through Jonathan Edwards to Old Princeton.
Erik – Ouch again! You’re hurting me. Let’s make Edwards a cousin of Dickinson. Tennent, and the Log College if we have to link him to (New Side) Presbyterianism at all. Leave the Old Side (and Old Princeton) out of it.
LikeLike
John – Maybe I’ll have to scrounge up a free copy of “The History of Calvinism” from a used book sale in a library one day and explore that further. 😉
Erik – It won’t work. Hart holds up too well in the resale market and (Dutch) Calvinists are too cheap to give their books away for free.
I can’t even pick up “Recovering Mother Kirk” for less than $15.93 + $3.99 shipping on Amazon.
“New Directions in American Religious History” with Stout is the only thing I’ve seen go cheap.
I go to a lot of church rummage sales. I’ve never been to a CRC sale, but I imagine they would have everything priced at retail.
LikeLike
Not so fast John. You don’t get off that easy.
As per Dabney, who in his not so well known review of Girardeau on instrumental music in worship says (here or here);
The framework of his arguments is this: it begins with that vital truth which no Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our principles. The man who contests this first premise had better set out at once for Rome: God is to be worshipped only in the ways appointed in his word. Every act of public cultus not positively enjoined by him is thereby forbidden. . .
Further,
it it is a matter of grief to find ministers so oblivious of the first lessons of their church history. They seem totally blind to the historical fact that it was just thus every damnable corruption which has cursed the church took its beginning; in the addition to the modes of worship ordained by Christ for the New dispensation, of human devices, which seemed ever so pretty and appropriate, made by the best of men and women and ministers with the very best of motives, and borrowed mostly from the temple cultus of the Jews. Thus came vestments, pictures in churches, incense, the observances of the martyrs’ anniversary days in a word, that whole apparatus of will-worship and superstition which bloomed into popery and idolatry.
Bought your ticket yet?
Will you end up being yet another prot intellectually and theologically indisposed to Romanism, but yet aesthetically persuaded by her worship that this must be the true church. Because “It just feels right”? That’s what’s at issue in departing from the RPW.
Neither was I born in a P&R church – and neither were you – but that doesn’t stop me from saying the reformed faith is the best confession to date of the whole counsel of God. That’s not to knock evangelicalism or rbs per se, it just is what it is. If the e’s or rbs take offense, that’s their problem not mine. I was once one too.
LikeLike