The Wormwood and the Gospel Coalition's Gall

Published on by D. G. Hart

I take issue less with the author than with the editors who chose to serve themselves without seemingly the slightest bit of caution or embarrassment (thanks to our D.C. correspondent):

Screwtape on How to Ruin The Gospel Coalition
Dear Snavely,

Receiving your letter brought back such memories. It seems like only yesterday that I was in your position, in the field, on the front lines, writing to my uncle Screwtape for advice. How quickly the years pass . . . but enough of that. Your situation is urgent, our Enemy is always on the move, and we have no time for reminiscing.

ScrewtapeLettersYou say your patient has gotten involved with something called “The Gospel Coalition.” Ugh. Even the name reeks of the Enemy. I have done some research, and I agree with you completely—you must act now. Your Patient is dallying with deadly stuff, and much harm can be done. But all is not yet lost.

It seems to me you have one option. Do your best to shift his allegiance from the Enemy to this “Coalition.” If you’re sharp about it, he won’t even know it is happening. What you’re after is this: keep him excited about the Coalition while keeping him from actually doing any of the things the Enemy likes to see in his servants.

It seems the Coalition produces pages and pages of that filth the Enemy calls “truth.” Dangerous stuff. But see if you can use that to keep him from the Enemy’s book. Nothing his servants produce is so deadly to our cause as the Book. Far better for your patient to read 10 pieces on how to read the Book than to actually pick up the Book itself. (A practical note: perhaps you can work in one of those new devices, the ones that beep all the time, the ones the humans love so much—I can never remember their name, but how I wish we’d had them in my day!—to distract him from the Book. Keep him constantly checking for the latest update from the Coalition. Don’t underestimate the power of the New and Urgent—it’s one of our most powerful numbing agents.)

It goes on. Really, it does.

104 thoughts on “The Wormwood and the Gospel Coalition's Gall”

  2. The Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible.

    When your bodily fluids are brought done from revivalist boiling points, bear this in mind…

    Like

  7. Ditto Eric. What the heck was this GC post about? Odd, defensive, unclear? Who allowed that to be posted? Names please.

    Like

  8. Don’t sweat the small stuff, brahs.

    Technically, anyone who finds OL ages about 5-8 years when they first hit the “post button.”

    Ask C. Trueman. He knows.

    Point is, we are all old farts around here (or dead (hello C. Lewis)).

    Like

  10. Alley oop:

    How does one judge that one is growing old?  In Britain, it is typically thought to be when the policemen start to look younger.  Over here, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is when you read cigar aficionado D. G.Hart and find yourself nodding in agreement.  Like admiring Simon Heffer, it is one of those things a young person should never, ever do.

    Like

  11. Erik imagine your church. Problems it has and stuff..

    Multiply by a million.

    The product of the factors?

    My daughters are learning math, but I say, from my training, that explains something of what you raise.

    Maybe?

    Like

  12. DG,

    I read the link and (aside from its silliness and cant) don’t have problems with it. How are the editors of the GC serving themselves?

    Like

  13. It seems in fact to be a warning against making TGC one’s primary allegiance and source of truth — so the opposite of self-serving, except that it does not mention the Church. Perhaps a paragraph about TGC distracting one from one’s own communion might have been good form as well.

    As it is, it is saying find your primary spiritual identity in your personal devotion to God and the Bible, rather than in TGC. That’s a good start — but my personal devotion kinda sucks eggs at times, which is why we have the Church. But I liked that bit about turning off one’s stinking smart phone.

    Like

  14. Iowa youth pastor sentenced for having sexual contact with minors. I wonder if the outcome of Edouard’s “I’m not a counselor” appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court will have any impact on this case. The fact that the victims here were minors as opposed to adult women will not help the youth pastor.

    Former youth pastor sentenced in sexual abuse case

    A former Des Moines youth pastor convicted of sexual abuse was sentenced Monday. Ryan McKelvey, 27, was accused of having sexual contact with two teenagers who attended his church. He reached a plea deal on charges of third-degree sexual abuse and two counts of sexual exploitation by clergy. He was sentenced to a prison term of 10 years for the third-degree sexual abuse charged and five years each for both sexual exploitation by a counselor or clergy charges. The first two counts will run consecutively and the last count concurrently. He could spend 15 years in prison. McKelvey is also being added to the Iowa Sex Offender Registry as part of the sentence.

    Like

  15. Technical note: Wormwood got eated or otherwise consumed (my poppet, my pigsnie) at the end of the Letters, no? What’s he doing now as a demi-minion (or whatever the rank) writing letters?

    Like

  16. Chris – It seems in fact to be a warning against making TGC one’s primary allegiance and source of truth — so the opposite of self-serving, except that it does not mention the Church

    Erik – When Hart was in Des Moines I was hoping that he would serve me Old Life Theological Society Communion. I couldn’t even get him to buy me a beer, though.

    Like

  17. TGC, like every parachurch, eventually perpetuates itself(without scriptural warrant) at the expense of the local church. Some are more crass than others and more or less cognititvely aware of it, but it inevitably is an expression of, or results in, a faulty ecclesiology and greater and lesser degrees of self-regard and self-promotion. They aren’t all ‘that’ in regards to training or talent as it is, but now they’ve tapped into a market, and whether fueled by ego or money or both, they won’t give it up willingly.

    Like

  18. Michael T: the problem is what’s missing… The church. The GC is more dangerous to the Enemy than the church in this piece, even though the church is where the sacraments and promises are. Borders on being blasphemous IMO.

    Like

  21. The author is on staff at a SGM church — not really a denomination, obviously. The cool thing for the Noobs about substituting an affinity group like one of acronyms for a denom is that you can switch willy-nilly — no paperwork involved, no meetings or nuthin! How convenient.

    Like

  22. They practice comment moderation at the GC. I don’t think my comment will pass. What a bunch of softies. That happens when you cry too much in public worship.

    Like

  24. If a dude was middle-aged, married to a woman, liked her, was gay, and wanted to continue in ministry, what better way than to convert to Catholicism. You keep the wife, don’t have to have sex with her, can play around with like-minded dudes within the new church, and come off as extra holy to everyone involved.

    The Episcopalians will just be jealous that the guy went elsewhere to do it.

    Like

  25. Christian allegory has always seemed like a form of propaganda which appeals to that strain of believer either not quite satisfied with holy writ’s take on pilgrimage or given to wearing faith on the literary sleeve (i.e. more superiority). Or both. Quality seldom seems a trait. Its sophomoric imitation even less so.

    Like

  26. Michael and Chris, but where is there any room left in it to criticize TGC? Maybe that’s what so self-serving: devotion is what marks the spiritual, criticism is for the carnal.

    Like

  27. Michael T,

    It’s what’s implied. Why would a demon care about TGC when it’s got the church to worry about? Jesus said “I will build my church (not parachurch ministries) and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. Not to be too crass but who cares if TGC went by the wayside? Would the gospel be compromised? Could the church stop doing ministry? As if TGC is the stalwart and defender of all things gospel anyway.

    Like

  29. Deej, in the dark days ahead, expect more of that kind of thing.

    The real thoughts and comments will always simply move to where there aren’t restrictions.

    They are going for a tailored message. It’s just a distorted one, as a result of their medium, and erroneous underpinnings (see sean’s post) to start with.

    I prefer to read tweets from Vader, but I’m odd..

    Like

  30. AB, didn’t you read Wormwood on those powerful beeping devices? It’s a mind-numbing tool meant to keep you from the bible.

    Be careful

    Like

  31. AB, that’s what Muddy said, he followed me only to keep Twitter from continually suggesting me. I was honored.

    Oh, and Aztecs are going all the way.

    Like

  33. Nate, I am your follower #55.

    The honor is truly all mine. I’ll also be glad to stop having twitter tell me to follow you.

    Thanks always for the interaction. You make great points here.

    Like

  34. Michael T., Wasn’t Wormwood trying to undermine the church in general, not a particular parachurch organization? The post singles out TGC as THE carrier of the gospel. These guys don’t give much credit to actual churches.

    But if you don’t buy that, imagine that post written about Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network by one of his staff members. Do you send that post out to the world, or maybe keep it as an internal memo to boost morale.

    Like

  37. The latest at First things:

    John Piper recently gave a lecture at Westminster Theological Seminary about the New Calvinism that is already getting play at several Reformed sites (see here, here, and here). His aim was to argue for an interrelationship between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism and to attempt to ground the ethnic diversity of the movement in classic Reformed doctrines. If anyone has the stature and force of personality to will a connection between Old and New, it’s John Piper. Nevertheless, the probabilities are that Old Calvinists, who are better understood primarily as Old School Presbyterians, will remain unconvinced even if they think an alliance is the most effective way forward.

    Old School Presbyterians had a more strident interpretation of Presbyterianism, complete with Sabbath keeping (no sports or other kinds of activities on the Sabbath) and following the old Reformed Directory of Public Worship. Raised a Missouri Presbyterian, Mark Twain once quipped about sabbath keeping that “we were good Presbyterian boys when the weather was doubtful; when it was fair, we did wander a little from the fold” (I imagine there are plenty of good Presbyterians in the northeast and Midwest this winter). On the whole, this reflects mid-nineteenth century Old School ways, not necessarily early twenty-first century. Yet, there remains a concern for proper worship and a distaste for revivalism commensurate with the Old Princeton theologians, Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. The New School Presbyterians, conversely, were very much in line with revivalism as it unfolded in the nineteenth century and had a looser view about worship as a result.

    It is the revivalist style of at least some members of the New Calvinism punctuated by constant references to Jonathan Edwards and the rise of charismatic Calvinism that has many Old School Presbyterians concerned. Piper side-stepped the main issue between the two camps: from an Old-School perspective the New Calvinism smacks of the evangelical revivalism of a D. L. Moody, or, more to the point, the baseball-player-turned-evangelist Billy Sunday (insert Mark Driscoll reference here). Sunday once called the novelist Sinclair Lewis  “Satan’s cohort” in response to Lewis’s 1927 satirical novel Elmer Gantry, whose main character—a hypocritical evangelist—was modeled on Sunday’s flamboyant style. 

    That older coalition of Congregationalists, Baptists, and New School Presbyterians combined dispensationalism, celebrity revivalism, and fundamentalism—the very traits that Old School Presbyterians disliked then and now. It is not without some irony that Piper acknowledged the important role of Westminster Seminary while not even mentioning that it was the epicenter of Old School Presbyterianism with its anti-revivalist and cessationist stance (at the end of his lecture Piper got a laugh when he said, “you don’t even want to know my eschatology.” Indeed!).

    Because of the Baptist and charismatic impulses within the New Calvinism, at least some Old School Presbyterians will continue to look on it with suspicion as a kind of half-way house for a genuine Reformed Christianity that must be Reformed and Presbyterian. Nevertheless, as Greg Forster has observed, there is an implicit recognition that Old School Presbyterianism does not have the numbers to make a significant impact. There would be no Reformed resurgence without the Baptists and revivalist groups that form the heart of the New Calvinism.

    At the same time, Piper’s description of the New Calvinism as strongly complementarian glosses over recent trends within Presbyterianism that parallel what is happening within confessional Lutheranism. Two of the largest conservative Presbyterian bodies are the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). The former is comfortable within an Old School Presbyterian framework while the latter is largely charismatic and allows for the ordination of women. The EPC could be described as the heir of New School Presbyterianism. Ironically, the one form of Presbyterianism whose ethos fits the New Calvinism most is not complementarian.

    With its recent addition of 89 new congregations due to the slow break up of the mainline Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA), the EPC is the elephant in the room of the New Calvinism since it reflects the charismatic and revivalist impulses while also being firmly committed to allowing Presbyteries and local churches to ordain women. Ten of the twelve presbyteries in the EPC have already ordained women teaching elders. The EPC has created space for ordaining women as teaching and ruling elders by declaring the issue as a “matter of indifference” and thus a second-order doctrine. Groups like The Gospel Coalition appear to be moving in the opposite direction.

    When one adds to the mix the newly formed ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, which at 116 congregations is already larger than many other conservative Presbyterian bodies, it appears that egalitarianism will remain a firm part of the conservative Presbyterian landscape. With churches continuing to leave the PCUSA, it would not surprise me if in the next fifteen years egalitarian Presbyterianism emerges as the largest group of conservative Presbyterians.

    All of this is to say that the New Calvinism looks a lot like the old New School Presbyterianism with a Baptist and charismatic flair to it. Piper chose not to deal with this issue between the Old and the New just as he neglected the EPC’s stance on women. For now, the coalition is holding together on a Reformed understanding of salvation buttressed by complementarianism and a commitment to inerrancy. Only God, in his sovereign will, knows whether the anchor will hold.

    Like

  39. Baptist Bunyan, Alex?

    I mean, OK. But the Bible has enough of that as it is.

    You ain’t asking me. But I appreciate Bunyan, while also recognizing his writing isn’t without faults.

    You prolly brought up the best example though.

    Yo.

    Like

  40. Alexander, I know, but it’s a little like making the point about the orthodoxy of paedobaptism and someone asking, “What about Spurgeon?” What about him? He wasn’t orthodox and his celebrity doesn’t provide a Reformed pass. Similarly, Christian allegory is a form of creative spirituality and its celebrity doesn’t provide an old life pass.

    Like

  41. Zrim, good point.

    When I was an undergrad at Calvin one of the depts., nomine deleto, sponsored a student colloquium entitled “Seminars in Creative Reformed Thought.” You can see where this is going.

    I gave a talk on Calvin’s notion of the Contemptio Mundi (Inst. 3.9). Hackles raised. The word “creative” in theology grates like nails on a fingerboard, like the phrase ‘make a difference.’ I like to make sames.

    Like

  42. The question is as age old as the founding of the OPC herself. The church in relation to her parachurch offshoot relatives. I haven’t read enough Machen in this vein to be of further value. Only to say, the truth is out there..

    Like

  46. Speaking further of Calvin seminary, I recently received the latest publication from them. It had a touching profile of the cover artist, a former hit-man for Latin American drug cartels who found Jesus in prison. Praise God for that.

    He was, however, within the space of a few sentences described as “A friend of Calvin Seminary” and “a Catholic believer.”

    Genevan JC is rolling over in his unmarked grave. Merde.

    Like

  47. I think what galled me most about that GC piece was the closing lines…

    “But if you can win this battle against the Coalition, we’ve achieved at least a small victory. Write up your findings, and if they’re successful we’ll send them to the rest of our agents. You may even earn a promotion. Perhaps we can ruin this “Gospel Coalition” yet.”

    As has already been said, apart from the church itself, I can’t fathom writing those same lines about any organization I worked for, forget publishing them as a self-congratulatory victory lap. I’m guessing it’s right about the time when you think that Satan must really be gunning to take down your website that Satan has you right where he wants you.

    Like

  48. I thought this would be an interesting experiment, to simply turn the TGC post inside out to see what it’s really saying. Imagine this conversation between two angels:

    You say your patient has gotten involved with something called “The Gospel Coalition.” Praise The Lord! Even the name fills me with thoughts of The Lord. I have done some research, and I agree with you completely—you must act now. Your Patient is dallying with wonderful stuff, and much good can be done.

    It seems to me this is your best option. Do your best to shift his allegiance to the Christ and to this “Coalition.” If you’re sharp about it, he won’t even know it is happening. What you’re after is this: keep him excited about the Coalition while keeping him doing many of the things the Lord likes to see in his servants.

    It seems the Coalition produces pages and pages of the treasure The Lord calls “truth.” Excellent stuff. But see if you can use that to keep him in the Lord’s book. Nothing his servants produce is so helpful to our cause as the Book. We know it’s not as helpful for your patient to read 10 pieces on how to read the Book than to actually pick up the Book itself. (A practical note: it’s strange when people decry technology when the very medium they use demands it).

    A little advice on handling the Lords wonderful truth, whether it be from the Book or the Coalition. Like any poison, it is most helpful when ingested. We know how helpful it will be for your subject to collect these golden nuggets. If he can be pushed to continually ingest them, their influence is greatly strengthened. What you’re after is having your patient hoard these globules of truth and then actually acting on them. As far as we’re concerned, we would encourage him to have a steady diet of these golden nuggets and help him further. How will you know if he’s gone beyond the collecting to actually ingesting them? The symptoms are easy to spot. His daily routine will change: the way he relates to his wife and their little children, how much time he gives to his fellow servants in the the Lord’s cause, how much he talks to the unsaved about the The Lord. All of these are wonderful signs, and you should notify me immediately.

    Which leads me to another item of importance. Treat the influence of this Coalition on your patient as a helpful elixir—by all means let it spread from him to others. Encourage him immediately. The most good will be done if he starts taking such great ideas and using them to strengthen that wonderful gathering The Lord calls the church. I presume that he does not personally know any of The Lord’s servants involved in writing these articles. Convince him how helpful the Coalition is, in addition to those people The Lord has placed closest to him. It may take time, but it can be done. Try to get him to see his fellow church members as needing these truths, how much zeal it can produce, and how much more useful they could be from reading the Coalition. Of course, do not isolate him from his pastor. We know how wonderful it would be to him if one of the writers of the Coalition were his pastor. But help him be content with the pastor God has given him, and with their specific marching orders.

    Well, that’s all I have time for now. Keep me informed, and pay close attention to the dispatches. Remember, The Lord is always at work. But if you can win this battle with the Coalition, we’ve achieved at least a small victory. Write up your findings, and if they’re successful we’ll send them to the rest of our agents. You may even earn a promotion. Perhaps we can further this “Gospel Coalition” yet.

    Like

  50. DG, looks like hedonism comes back full circle. Maybe that’s the problem with it, you can’t get away from it.

    Like

  51. DGH, the hedonist view was very important in directing many to the baby steps of Reformed theology, usually after complete disaffection from Evangelical roots.

    Staying in the hedonist view for a long time and not moving into official Reformed theology is troublesome.

    Like

  53. DGH, it makes sense for re-entering church life and seeing that there is something with substance out there for believers. I can’t explain it more than that it has helped people get back into church and to a truly Reformed membership eventually.

    And then when you see what it out there, you drop hedonism, defending it only to say that it was helpful to some…

    It is very difficult to convince ex-Evangelicals that there are good churches in their cities, they have been rinsed-out-thoroughly by happy-clappy.

    Like

  54. Surely Paul would not have countenanced way-station churches or half-way doctrine to woo in the pagans or Jews. You know, this place just a has a few small idols and that accounts for only 20% of the devotion. This one retains lawkeeping for justification, but we’re slowly phasing that out — it’s in our strategic plan.

    Like

  55. Before someone protests that the Piperians have the gospel right and my above comment is apples-oranges: Wack worship can be idolatrous and there may well be de facto lawkeeping when a certain level of enjoyment is thought necessary or certain forms of devotion become standard.

    Like

  56. C-dubs, I wonder. Not to give cover to the quasi-o-sity, but Paul demonstrated a kind of patience not countenanced easily by modern sensibilities (think Corinth), which seem bent on creating some form or another of perfection–doctrinal, moral, doxological, experiential. The difference may be that he knew imperfection came with the territory, while the modern is all about appeal.

    Like

  57. Zrim,I do not have perfection in mind and I don’t think I’d know it if I saw it. But maybe you’re right. Maybe Paul would be retweeting the New Calvinist royalty like crazy.

    Like

  58. Zrim-

    I’m not sure if that post was saying if you were prior anti Pilgrim’s Progress? I’m not advocating for Christisn allegory in general, per se, but merely asking about that specific text.

    However that being said allegory can be helpful in communicating spiritual ideas. Aren’t many of the parables allegory? I know: they’re inspired allegories so they’re a special case certainly but I think they at least give licence for the use of allegory in expressing the experiences of the Christian.

    Here’s a great little allegorical snippet:

    The happy man was born in the city of Regeneration in the parish of Repentance unto life. He was educated at the school of Obedience. He has a large estate in the county of Christian Contentment, and many times does jobs of Self-denial, wears the garment of Humility, and has another suit to put on when he goes to Court, called the Robe of Christ’s Righteousness. He often walks in the valley of Self-Abasement, and sometimes climbs the mountains of Heavenly-mindedness. He breakfasts every morning on Spiritual Prayer, and sups every evening on the same. He has meat to eat that the world knows not of, and his drink is the sincere milk of the Word of God. Thus happy he lives and happy he dies. Happy is he who has Gospel submission in his will, due order in his affections, sound peace in his conscience, real Divinity in his breast, the Redeemer’s yoke on his neck, a vain world under his feet, and a crown of glory over his head. Happy is the life of that man who believes firmly, prays fervently, walks patiently, works abundantly, lives holy, dies daily, watches his heart, guides his senses, redeems his time, loves Christ, and longs for glory. He is necessitated to take the world on his way to heaven, but he walks through it as fast as he can, and all his business by the way is to make himself and others happy. Take him all in all, in two words, he is a Man and a Christian.

    Lachlan Mackenzie

    Like

  59. Zrim-

    No need to apologise to me re: imaginative reading. I don’t read fiction (or secular non-fiction for that matter). And the reading of non Christian books is generally avoided and discouraged in my church. Glad to see we’re in agreement for once 🙂

    Like

  60. Just to be clear before certain persons try to be funny: I’m referring to books. Clearly I read blogs/websites, newspapers.

    Like

  61. C-dubs, nah, Paul would never tweet, pure blog guy all the way. And he’d be an old lifer skeptical of all things NC. Maybe someone here could answer TGC in kind and fashion Paul in an old life image by writing a fictitious epistle. Call it 3 Timothy. Or not, whatever.

    Like

  62. Alexander, my point was that what’s good for the general Christian allegory goose is good for the particular Pilgrim’s Progress gander. Who needs allegory when we have Scripture and confessions? And so Christian allegory (including PP) seems like the literary version of Lent.

    But I was saying that imaginative reading is good, creative preaching not so good. You seem open to creativity, hence the apology.

    Like

  64. Zrim – “…Paul demonstrated a kind of patience not countenanced easily by modern sensibilities (think Corinth), which seem bent on creating some form or another of perfection–doctrinal, moral, doxological, experiential. The difference may be that he knew imperfection came with the territory, while the modern is all about appeal.”

    What you said reminded me of this, which I happened to have in my files:

    Peter Brown on Augustine (rev. 2000) (348-9) – To [Augustine] it seemed that the new claims made by the Pelagians, that they could achieve a church ‘without spot or blemish’, merely continued the assertion of the Donatists, that only they belonged to just such a church. He was in no mood to tolerate the coteries of ‘perfect’ Christians, that had sprung up in Sicily and elsewhere under Pelagian influence.”

    Like

  66. I don’t know why churches would discourage the reading of imaginative literature. Seems to me lots of the Bible is written in imaginative forms. The Psalms, for instance. Becoming a better reader of poetry over the years has made me a much better reader of my Bible.

    Like

  68. D4-

    Yes but Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, all other writing is not. This is a fundamental distinction (the same which applies to singing Psalms and singing uninspired songs) which you either get or you don’t. It is the Holy Spirit who enables and aids the (regenerated) reader of Scripture, not any random poet. Of course Scripture uses different literary modes, and is often beautiful to read, but one is in trouble if one needs to resort to the world for instruction in understanding spiritual things.

    The reading of such writing is discouraged because it is a waste of time, often corrupting, and does not lead one to Christ. And often the writing is immoral.

    Like

  69. Alexander,

    Does the Spirit overcome deficiencies in vocabulary? How about Greek vocabulary? Literary form is a vocabulary of sorts.

    “Love calls us to the things of this world.”

    Be well. And read a bit.

    Like

  70. D4-

    Again, that’s not inspired writing. It’s irrelevant: it’s not the testimony of the Spirit, ergo it’s not trustworthy testimony when it comes to spiritual things; it has no promise attached to it; it doesn’t rest on the ground of absolute truth like Scripture does. It also flatly contradicts Scripture which warns us again and again of the evils of this world and how the Christian will reject this world and turn to Christ.

    I find it incredible that you people who are forever complaining about the neo-cals trying to redeem society run riot in your redeeming of literature and tv and films believing them to be a gold mine of spiritual truth. Even to the extent of Mencken: an avowed enemy of Christ.

    Like

  71. Alexander, gold mine of creational truth, big difference. But creation is God’s work and it is very good. Why are you so afraid of it? You’re sounding hyper-spiritual.

    Like

  72. Alexander,

    We might be missing each other’s point. I’m not talking about secular lit redeeming me or the world or whatever sphere. I’m saying that, in general, better readers of all writings will be better readers or the Bible.

    Like

  73. Zrim-

    Creation was declared good before the Fall, just as Man was inherently holy and righteous before the Fall. Is Man still that way? Is there any man who can even call himself good? What part does sin play in your “creational wisdom”? You take issue with Christians looking too much into themselves to discern whether they are truly believers, and yet your quite happy to rest in the wisdom of another mere man?

    D4-

    I dispute that. In what way a “better” reader? If you mean from a literary/critical perspective that really is neither here nor there: we’re not in an English Lit. class. If you mean in terms of spiritual understanding, then I must say no. The most godly and spiritual men and women I know, who have a great understanding of the Bible, do not read secular books; they do not use the “wisdom” of the world to understanding Scripture.

    Like

  74. Alexander, creation’s condition may be sinful but its essence remains very good (is this really controversial?). And as such, calls to withdrawal from it are specious. What part does sin play in creational wisdom? Plenty, but unlike so much of spiritualized writing it’s more serious than sentimental about sin.

    But I might ask you the same thing about Christian allegory. You seem to be arguing here that only inspired writing is trustworthy. So why so liberally read Christian allegory when it’s not inspired? Because a writer indwelt with the Spirit wrote it? Well so does sin abide the same writer. Have you taken into account that sin clings to Bunyan every bit as much as (Raymond) Carver?

    Like

  75. So, Alexander, I direct you back to my questions which, apparently, you sidestepped.

    Do you agree that one must have a sufficient vocabulary to understand the words of Scripture (whether in English, Greek, or Hebrew, etc) in order to understand the Bible? Or is vocabulary the wisdom of this world as well. Will the Spirit help a believer to understand the sense of words that reader doesn’t know the meaning of?

    That literary form is not in the category “the wisdom of this world” as proscribed by Paul et al. is manifestly demonstrated by the inclusion of poem, satire, allegory, apocalypse, and etc. in the Bible itself.

    Like

  76. Zrim-

    I didn’t say I read Christian allegory liberally: I asked your opinion of Pilgrim’s Progress.

    Of course sin abides in the regenerated man: but he’s also regenerated! Contrary to Oldlife.org opinion that actually makes a difference.

    I didn’t say withdraw from the world, but you would have us immersed in it. We must be in it- the question is to what degree. We do not want to be in it- we want to be with Christ- but for a time we must. But we are at odds with the world. If you cannot see the clear opposition between the world and the Christian life laid down in Scripture I can’t help you.
    D4-

    Vocabulary is indifferent; how we use it is what matters. Man has used vocabulary to write poetry, novels &c.- but that doesn’t mean the expressions of these are inherently good. The fact that Scripture uses poetry doesn’t mean that secular poetry is therefore profitable or even ok to read. There is Christian poetry- you may want to read that, or not. But poetry in the Bible does not make it ok to read Byron.

    As to understanding the Bible again I disagree. Where in the literary canon do I go to understand the Biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification; of the Trinity? These terms may be found elsewhere, but not in the precise meaning of Scripture: so it could actually distort one’s understanding of these doctrines to pay much heed to their secular uses. The early church borrowed from secular philosophy to formulate doctrines: but they made those concepts their own. The reader may need to understand vocabulary but why does that require reading novels? The Christian learns the meaning of Biblical terms within the context of the church. And there were plenty of Godly men and women who couldn’t actually read! And yes, though you say it scoffingly, the Spirit will enable the reader to understand Scripture and even words. Without the Spirit the reader will never rightly understand it even if he’s fluent in the Biblical languages.

    I’m not saying that there is nothing of use to he found in the works of men throughout the ages (though I’m very sceptical of those works that are most referenced on this site); but I disagree with the idea that secular writing enhances our understanding of spiritual things. If we truly believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for all things concerning our knowledge of God and our salvation I don’t see how any position is possible.

    Sola Scriptura is not the Bible in isolation; but it’s not the Bible plus Shakespeare either.

    Like

  77. Alex, what you said was “the reading of non Christian books is generally avoided and discouraged in my church.” You seem to approve of it and heed it. In my experience, that kind of counsel is a form of withdrawal. Wave your hand all you please, but ironically enough it’s the kind of counsel that lowers the bar on Christian vitality. Paul’s counsel is to be in the world but not of it. Counsel like that which you receive and approve makes believers flabby because withdrawal gives the false impression that the believer is safe from worldliness and can relax in balancing in-but-not-of. It also breeds self-righteousness, on top of a disdain for creation’s goodness. It’s the world-affirming piety of old lifery that achieves what new lifery is after but fumbles: Christian vigor.

    Like

  78. Alexander – I didn’t say withdraw from the world, but you would have us immersed in it. We must be in it- the question is to what degree. We do not want to be in it- we want to be with Christ- but for a time we must. But we are at odds with the world. If you cannot see the clear opposition between the world and the Christian life laid down in Scripture I can’t help you.

    Erik – Rome came up with an answer to this — monasticism.

    Like

  79. Considering anything showing vigour of any degree is routinely decried and mocked on this forum you’ll forgive my balking at that last sentence of yours.

    The difference between my church’s approach and yours’ is that my church understands that the world is a dangerous place even for the most robust Christian, full of snares and temptations, and counsels her people to avoid temptation as much as possible, understanding further that to put oneself in temptation’s path in order to test oneself is fool hardy in the extreme; yours believes that the world really isn’t all that bad and the more exposure one has to what is wrong the better. My church does not place a whole lot of confidence in man’s ability to resist temptation and live a holy life without constant struggle and vigilance and grace; yours clearly does. And I do not understand any Christian piety which affirms the world. We’re not talking about the earth itself. We’re talking about the world: the realm which is governed by Satan.

    There are many things of the world to be avoided but that is not the same as withdrawal.

    Like

  80. I need a scorecard to keep all this straight.

    On one hand we have Reformed Alexander on culture.

    On the other hand we have Reformed Neocalvinists who say culture is good, God is renewing all things, and Christians should participate in redeeming culture.

    Calvin College has a major in Film & Media (as well as English, Theater, etc.), and the Protestant Reformed won’t go to see a movie. These people all have Dutch surnames.

    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/academics/film-media/

    Call me when the schizophrenia dissipates.

    Like

  81. “The major in Film and Media provides a firm liberal arts foundation for students interested in the intersections between faith, culture, and film and media. Coursework for this major provides both introductory and advanced study for students interested in communication, particularly as it functions in film, television, radio, Internet and New Media platforms (social networking), multiple forms of digital communication, advertising, and/or other media arts. This major also will serve students interested in graduate education in Communication Studies, Film Studies, or Media Studies. Through coursework primarily in history, theory, criticism, and practice of film and media arts, students will gain the following:

    •An understanding of how a life of faith can be applied to the study of film and media.

    •An introduction to the elements of media production.

    •An appreciation of the way film and media work as art forms within culture.

    •Extensive knowledge of film and media history.

    •Extensive knowledge of classical and contemporary film and media theory.

    •Skills to analyze and criticize film and media through oral and written presentation.

    •An understanding of the global context and practice of film and media.

    •Experience in developed, historical and critical research and writing in the areas of film and media.

    Christian perspectives

    The arts of film and media are a gift from God, an addition to our lives, a potential source of joy and insight.”

    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/academics/film-media/christian-perspectives.html

    Like

  83. Erik, 2k to the rescue — it all depends which kingdom you’re in at anyone moment. Efforts to conflate the kingdoms are utopian or monastic. Christ left his church in the world and gave his people lots of freedom. Doh!

    Like

  85. D.G.,

    You & I can say that, but I want to see Alexander (not 2K) and the Neocals (not 2K) answer it. If they are united in being against 2K, why can’t they agree on engagement with (or separation from) the world?

    I thought it was 2K that was gumming up the works and everyone else in Christendom was in agreement?

    Like

  87. Erik, the funny thing about Alexander, and I’m not trying to talk about him like he’s not here — but who knows who’s listening, he’s a Presbyterian who apparently lives in London, and if you want to talk about gumming up the works, just think about the relationship between the Kirk and the English Parliament. In other words, all the griping about 2k is maybe good in theory. The theory exists nowhere.

    Like

  88. I think I’ve made it quite clear I live in Scotland. Don’t know why my IP places me in London: don’t know why you’ve made a point of mentioning where my IP says I am twice now (or why you’re divulging information about my whereabouts at all for that matter).

    I hold to the Establishment principle and I believe the kingdom is synonymous with the Church. What’s the problem? Maybe the problem is you insist on debating past me with an imagined neo-cal bogeyman rather than with just plain old me.

    Like

  90. Now that I know that Alexander’s first name is “Alexander” and I have his location narrowed down to either London or Scotland I can enter those coordinates into my 2K drone…

    Like

  91. Alex, it’s the vigor of religious affectation that is questioned. But it’s not as old lifery has no category for withdrawal. It’s just emphasized elsewhere, as in weekly sabbath where believers hunker down around Word and sacrament in order to be lifted out of the world and into heaven. But no old lifer recognizes the way you characterize “our church” (confidence in the flesh to resist temptation, huh?).

    Like

  92. Erik, the local Protestant Reformed talk about secular day schools the way Alexander-the-Scot talks about secular books and movies. Legalism isn’t only about substance use. Great name for a denom, though.

    Like

  93. Neocal Boogie Shoes

    Girl, to be with you is my favorite thing, yeah
    And I can’t wait ’til I see you again, yeah, yeah

    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you, yeah
    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you

    I want do it ’til the sun comes up, oh yeah
    And I want to do it ’til, yeah yeah

    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you, yeah
    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you

    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you, yeah
    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you, yeah

    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you, yeah
    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you

    I wanna put on my, my, my, my, my
    Neocal Boogie shoes just to boogie with you, yeah

    Like

  97. Alexander, does your theory on the value of Scripture vis a vis secular writing allow you to read the pagan poets quoted by Paul?

    Like

  99. Kent, wait until 18 September and see if it’s the same diff.

    Everyone else, you should read James Hogg, The private memoirs and confessions of a justified sinner. It’s regularly cited as Scotland’s favourite novel and not without excellent theological reason.

    Alexander, would it be true to say that your church taught imaginative literature in its syllabus for English lit in its mission schools?

    Like

  100. Alexander,

    I’m confused by your perspective. Do Protestants not draw from secular “worldly” disciplines to further their understanding of Scripture? Can they only draw from Reformed archaeologists, Reformed philologists, Reformed historians, Reformed sociologists, etc in helping understand Scripture? And then for things outside of Scripture, then what? Only learn Reformed mathematics and Reformed biology?

    “The reader may need to understand vocabulary but why does that require reading novels? The Christian learns the meaning of Biblical terms within the context of the church.”

    I do not see how having a firm or expansive grasp on literature and genres outside of just Scripture somehow threatens the believer or Scripture or its understanding. It’s not some zero-sum competition game. It’s like limiting yourself to Christian music and film – you’re missing out on beautiful stuff. I thought you guys believe in common grace right?

    Like

  101. Mr. Smith, once Scotland secedes, maybe you can get your IP address back.

    I’m plenty prepared to argue against the Establishment principle. I learned well from John Witherspoon, another Scot. Maybe you could point me to Scottish Presbyterian objections to the revision of the Confession of Faith?

    Like

  103. Alexander,

    You continue to miss my point re: vocab. I’m going to give it one more shot.

    Thought Experiment# 1: Two castaways are stranded on two different islands (not within shouting distance of each other. Each has one Bible (in your preferred translation) both castaways are genuine believers and have the Spirit. The castaway on Island A posesses a vocabulary that includes 97% of the words used in that translation of the Bible. The castaway on Island B’s vocabulary only includes 63% of the words in that translation of the Bible. Which castaway will be a better reader of his Bible, if by better we mean reading with comprehension of the A/author’s intended point? Will the Spirit supernaturally enhance the understanding of Castaway B to overcome his vocabulary deficiencies?

    If not, why do you think the Spirit would so do with the recognizing/understanding of metaphor, allegory, satire, etc?

    Like

  104. Mr. Hart-

    I don’t know of any Scottish Presbyterian objections to altering Chapter 23- perhaps because the Confession has never been amended in that way over here. But perhaps there are some. You could, however, look to the articles published in the Free Presbyterian Magazine of 1896 (Volume 1), for instance, on the Declaratory Act of the Free Church of Scotland. This Act significantly loosened the subscription of Office bearers to the Confession and altered the understanding of fundamental doctrines therein contained. (The articles are also contained as an appendix in the History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1893-1970.)

    As to the Establishment principle in particular well you could look to the writings of Bannerman, Cunningham and John Brown of Haddington and I’m sure they’d furnish you with many arguments in favour of it. John Brown’s articles on the principle, for instance, are used in the teaching of our divinity students, I believe.

    Cletus-

    I guess we take a different view and see worldly writing as often morally corrupting and generally a waste of time. We have so little time, and so much wonderful Christian writing how can we find time for that which will not teach us about Christ?

    d4- Well I suppose in your super specific example he with the greater vocab. would have greater understanding, but your example is so distorted it really becomes irrelevant. I don’t know how it disagrees with what I’ve said. The main contention between us is that you believe a wide reading of secular literature is necessary to gain a greater understanding of Scripture; I disagree.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.