They might understand the difference between a Baptist and Presbyterian. But to UCC pastor, Peter Laarman, Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne’s proposal to re-brand evangelicalism (post-Trump) is a fool’s errand:
Campolo and Claiborne even get their history wrong. What they regard as the first successful re-branding of Bible-centered “orthodox” American Christianity in the early 20th century was in fact a complete failure, just as their proposed “Red Letter” re-branding will be this era.
They cite Carl F.H. Henry as the principal re-brander in the 1930s, but Carl Henry was not really a force to be reckoned with prior to the 1940s and 1950s. Moreover, Carl Henry’s beliefs were immediately understood to be contaminated by the same poisons that had fatally tainted Fundamentalism: i.e., a rigid view of biblical inerrancy (including a literalist view of the miracle stories), insistence that mere individual conversion fulfills God’s will, complete acceptance of the old patriarchal frame, etc.
It would be hard to find any daylight at all between the theological commitments of Carl Henry and those of J. Gresham Machen, who was heralded during the 1930s as the single brightest light among the Fundamentalists.
See what he did there? Machen signals fundamentalism (and Laarman didn’t even give Orthodox Presbyterians a trigger warning). Therefore, invoking Carl Henry is really to say you haven’t progressed beyond fundamentalism (yuck!), which makes Campolo and Claiborne even more clueless from a mainline Protestant perspective than even progressive evangelicals can fathom.
The problem is that you can see separation between Machen and Henry if you actually care more about theology, sacraments, and polity than about being in the American mainstream. Henry may have been a Calvinist on soteriology but his Reformedness didn’t go much beyond that (plus his high view of the Bible). Henry also refused to baptize babies, which puts Machen closer to Laarman than to Henry. And then Machen took Presbyterian polity seriously — hello, his church refused interdenominational cooperation in settings like the National Association of Evangelicals where Henry was an intellectual guru.
But that kind of Protestant fussiness only comes up fundamentalist for mainliners. Even though telling the difference between Congregationalists and mainline Presbyterians is impossible (and something you’re not supposed to do in polite Protestant ecumenical company), if you do did in your heels on denominational identity you are merely a separatist. You lack the good graces and tolerant bonhomie of mainstream, well-connected Protestantism. Never mind that after 135 years of ecumenical activism, the UCC and the PCUSA remain — get this — separate. And by all means don’t notice that Congregationalists and Presbyterians descend from the mother of all church separations — 1054, the year that the church Christ founded (as some put it) split up.
Lots of separations out there in church history, but the UCC puts “United” in church unity. As if.
This is one of your sickest burns in while!
I had a conversation with some high school friends (all of us were raised fundy-methodist) recently and we were talking about how our beliefs had changed and I told them what Presbys believe and they said, “so you’re basically still a Methodist.” I was very sad.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed the SJW Redeemer coalition are making these same sort of distinctions now that the election is over. Vetting people out based on how they voted in this last election, Trump supporters are WP(supremacists), bigoted(fundy) and need to show that they’re still affirming of progressive concerns-LGBTQ, Urbanization, Racial reconciliation, and duly apologetic over their insensitivity toward the politically marginalized grievance groups. The PCA progressives are almost at the point where everything melts down into politics and social activism, give ’em five more years on the high side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read the Campolo – Claiborne article yesterday and concluded that what they need is a healthy dose of 2K theology and a thorough read of De-Constructing Evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart remember when you said blow up evangelicalism? I wish oh how I wish the whole thing would go away. I’m caving at my husbands request and we will soon be headed to a PCA church when we move next month. I’m scared to death what I am going to encounter. Is the OPC doing lots of church planting???
LikeLike
If you head over to the site where Mr. Laarman writes, you will see lots of agreement, etc. But nobody seems to notice 1. His first objection to Campolo et al is that the project is still led by “white males,” which is very bad.
2. Mr Laarman is a white male.
LikeLike
If we are going to have a series on why denomination ________ should read Machen, shouldn’t we make Machen some kind of protestant pope? Perhaps we could, and this would be ironic, canonize his writings.
IN addition, if we are going to have such a series, shouldn’t we also have a series on why political conservatives, liberals, and leftists should read people like Martin Luther King Jr., Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn?
LikeLike
Over the years I have been graciously invited to OPC Presbyterian meetings and the graciousness of many OPC elders, cannot be overstated, but there are always presbyters who are positioning themselves as experts and authorities on the confession, polity, etc..
I am not impressed.
LikeLike
You also fail to know that Carl Henry was a disciple of Gordon Clark–oh that is right Gordon Clark was banished out of the OPC for no good theological reason. Wow what a wonderful church polity.
LikeLike
Curt, as if Machen is balance to Chomsky.
In what bubble do you live?
LikeLike
Dan, banish is not a technical term. In point of fact, Clark left after opposition to his ordination. And speaking of technicalities, he had not gone to seminary (as I recall).
I bet you’d be impressed with Presbyterianism if it kept out of the ministry Osteen or Hybels.
LikeLike
Ockenga, Carnell, and Henry realized that any denomination that would banish a brilliant theologian and philosopher over analogical vs univocal knowledge was irrelevant to the cause of Christ. You may rightfully lament the fruits of their approach, but at least acknowledge the mistakes of your polity in contributing to the rise of neo-evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Dan, banish?
If you want to object to Carnell’s fait, fine. But at least get the facts right.
BTW, Ockenga and Henry were not on board with the OPC before the Clark controversy. So you find a text for your kvetching. Good for you.
LikeLike
Any denomination that makes analogical knowledge vs. equivocal knowledge a test of orthodoxy has a historical problem. I defer to you Dr. Hart, but I don’t see that issue addressed in the WCF. I am not a follower of Clark or Henry, my only point is that Presbyterian polity and its mistakes have affected the history of evangelism. You are wrong to claim purity of polity solves everything. By the way, why not inform me of the correct Presbyterian term for what occurred to Clark? I apologize for not being conversant with the Presbyterian parlance. No disrespect for Presbyterianism intended.
LikeLike
It was the Presbytery (of Phila.) that disputed Clark’s ordination, on the procedural ground that he was licensed and then ordained at the same meeting. That was the formal issue, and it was an issue that the Presbytery ultimately lost when the G.A. upheld Clark’s ordination. They admitted the procedure was improper; but that Clark had a valid call. His ministerial credential was validated by the OPC.
Clark recognized that the theological issues that steeled his opponents for a fight were not going away. Clark’s position stood in contrast to the historic position of the Protestants stated in classical terms: on archtypal (univocal in the modern debate) and ectypal (analogical in the debate) theology and knowledge. The former has always been considered God’s alone; the latter, human and derivative.
The modern debate never left the pages of academic and philosophical theology. Historical theology was never called in to assist establishing positions. One can find Southern Presbyterian J.H. Thornwell already using more modern terms, defending “analogical” knowledge in his collected writings.
In any case, Clark turned about and left the OPC of his own volition. He went to the UPC, and wrote a book titled, “What Presbyterians Believe.” His new denomination then promptly joined the PCUSA. Frustrated, he sought refuge in the RPCES. When that denomination was joining the PCA, he resigned the ministry rather than serve a church that would soon (he thought) absorb not only the RPCES, but also the OPC.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Just beware of pedestals, they lead to idolatry. And you might be right, I don’t think Machen provides the balance Chomsky does.
LikeLike
Dan, the technical term in this case is transfer. Clark transferred his membership and credentials to the United Presbyterian Church. Turns out the OPC licensed and ordained Clark. No fault, no banishment. So why do you hold such a grudge against the OPC (and who said that presbyterian polity solves “EVERYTHING” though in this case it looks pretty good — from Fighting the Good Fight):
LikeLike
Curt, you’re so prophetic. Always warning me of my sins. What about yours?
LikeLike
It would seem that a God-Centered understanding of the Christian religion would find it’s particularity and redemptive focus in the person of Jesus Christ, solely. To locate a God-centered understanding in the mystery of God’s being, perfections, counsel and will, would seem to bypass the mediatorial focus and reality of both the fall of man and the incarnation, life and resurrection of the messiah. Encountering God in the perfection of His being and attributes is to encounter the ‘naked’ God, in which there is no mercy or permission(if we’re going to really ‘respect’ the chasm between God and man) to encounter him. That’s not an argument for Clark, btw, just an observation.
LikeLike
Letme, is it a God-centered understanding of Christianity or the incomprehensibility of God — “the incomprehensibility of God should be stated in terms of the transcendent glory and mystery of the being, relations, perfections and counsel of God”?
LikeLike
Well, I was going off the summation, but, still, if we’re talking about man’s religious posture toward God, the invite, the gate, if you will, is still a mediated one and the comprehensibility that I might have is still to be had through the son. He’s(son) explained Him(Father). The incomprehensibility of God would seem to be incomprehensible, so, mystery, though not inconsistent with what It is revealed. I never was impressed with the philosophical inquiries into ‘god’. But I’m simple that way. Still, if you’re one who is flattening out the covenants and losing the particularity of the gospel compared to the law, maybe you’re tempted to find other ways to distinguish your understanding of God?
LikeLike
My point is that the history of the OPC and the history of neo-evangelicalism are not separate universes. They have a common intersection.
My thesis is that the Gordon Clark controversy demonstrated that micro theology in the OPC would triumph over mission to the future leaders of evangelicalism.
LikeLike
I think that we agree that evangelical pragmatism did not bring about good results. But I also think the church polity must not be use to protect small theological interests. I don’t think that Presbyterian church polity is the safe harbor that you describe.
LikeLike
I transferred from Moody Bible Institute to Covenant College in 1983. I knew nothing about 20th century Presbyterian history. I liked to ask Dr. Clark theological questions. I was walking across campus and caught up with Dr. Clark. I mentioned to him that I was reading John Murray’s volume on Systematic Theology and I asked me what he thought of John Murray as a theologian. He look at me oddly, But he went on to describe John Murray as a fine theologian and made some other observations about Murray. All of his comments were thoughtful and kind. I learned later why he looked at me oddly long after that day. In my opinion, Gordon Clark was a humble man from my experience. Nothing like his reputation.
LikeLike
As to my having a grudge with the OPC, the most godly man I ever met was Calvin Cumming Sr. who came to Chicago to pastor a mission work when he was over 70 years old. I will can never be more grateful to Henry Krabbendam who was my advisor at Covenant College. Ivan Demaster invited to do a summer pastoral internship when I was not sure what God wanted for my life. I can never express enough thanks to John Shaw who befriended and encouraged me when I left the church where I was a pastor.
LikeLike
The point is to be “reformed” but without becoming baptists or biblicists. In seeking to magnify the significance of the Church’s sacramental identity, Nevin even taught us that the unity of civil society depends on not becoming congregationalists. It turns out you CAN have two masters and two kingdoms, just so long as you keep a distinction between sacramental unity of “the visible church” and “denominations”.
Mercersburg theologians also developed a social theology from their concept of the organic unity of the Church as Adam S. Borneman discusses in his 2011 book,Church, Sacrament, and American Democracy: The Social and Political Dimensions of John Williamson Nevin’s Theology of Incarnation.
Nevin, “No Church, No Christ.”— A relationship to Christ is determined by one’s identity with Christ’s church. In opposition to voluntarism, which taught that the individual and not the church was the primary locus of God’s saving act,
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/05/mercersburg-theology-eucharistic-union-and-civil-society
LikeLike
Oliver O Donovan—“Alarm about governments is alarm about society. For it is society that makes outsiders. Government may wrong dissidents by repression but government does not make them dissidents by recognizing and affirming things upon which its society agrees and they disagree. Deep social disagreements unreflected in the government would merely delegitimise the government.
Oliver O Donovan—“A liberal anti-Constantinian view springs from a radical suspicion of society as such and of the agreements that constitute it—to be traced back, perhaps, to the contractarian myth which bound individuals directly together into political societies without any acknowledgment of the mediating social reality.”
Not that D G Hart wants the “sphere sovereignty” of Kuyper and the neo-calvinists. Hart only wants the myth of presbyterianism to make him feel in his heart that the reality of the opc is different (and better) than congregationalism.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/
LikeLike
Machen–“A true Christian church, now as always, will be radically doctrinal. It will never use the shibboleths of a pragmatist skepticism. A true church will never say that doctrine is the expression of experience. A true church will never confuse the useful with the true, but will place truth at the basis of all its striving and all its life. Into the welter of changing human opinion, into the modern despair with regard to any knowledge of the meaning of life, the true church will come with a clear and imperious message. That message it will find in the Bible, which it will hold to contain not a record of man’s religious experience but a record of a revelation from God.”
Oliver O Donovan–“it is not Christendom but Christianity that is attacked. If any social agreement is potentially coercive and to be justified by the needs of the civil order, then the agreements which constitute the church are also coercive. If there is no religious test on the right to vote, or to have access to education or medical care, why should there be one on… receiving communion, which is, after all, an important means of social participation? ”
Oliver O Donovan–“This conclusion, that the church should not be defined by belief, seems to me to follow from the general refusal of ideology, though I do not know of anyone who has yet drawn it, except for the incomparable Simone Weil, who proposed ( in The Need for Roots) that it should be prohibited to publish any opinion on any subject in the name of a collective body. Any society defined by its belief was to be banned.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/protestprotest/2015/10/would-n-t-wright-be-popular-if-people-knew-his-politics/
LikeLike
Crawford Gribbon describes the Reformed slippery slide into the “detestable error” of Belgic 34. —“The doctrine of the two kingdoms, where church and state operated independently but with mutual reliance on the law of God, did not at all favor a religiously neutral state. On March 26 1646 the Assembly discussed a draft chapter on Christian liberty and liberty of conscience, concluding that “the gospel consists. . . in freedom from. . .the ceremonial and judicial law.” By the final draft of the Confession, however, the status of the judicial laws had been changed; WCF 20 contains no reference to the believer’s freedom from the judicial law, 20.4 demands that those who publish opinions or maintain practices contrary to the “light of nature,” the “known principles of Christianity,” or the “power of godliness,” or “those whose opinions or practices are “destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church,” may be called to account by the “censures of the Church, and by the power of
the civil magistrate. The proof texts include Deuteronomy 13:6-11.”
CG—“we cannot simply read the Confession as a summary statement retaining the unqualified approval of all those who participated in its negotiation. The final text of the Confession was “a consensus statement, broad enough to be agreed with by Divines who held somewhat different views of the contemporary applications of the Mosaic judicial laws.” Rutherford seems to stand at one extreme of the Assembly’s range of opinions, arguing, with the apparent approval of the Commission of the Kirk’s General Assembly, that the OT judicial laws ought indeed to be the basis of the Presbyterian state for which they were working. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that Rutherford’s theonomic opinions were shared by many puritans who could not have endorsed his narrow ecclesiastical ambitions. Even those who favored a broader toleration of those orthodox Calvinists outside the Presbyterian system looked to the OT judicial laws as their program of action. Cromwell’s Rump Parliament established the death penalty for incest, adultery, and blasphemy.’” John Owen was prepared to argue that some of the judicial laws were “everlastingly binding.” “Samuel Rutherford and liberty of conscience,” Westminster Theological Journal 71:2 (2009),
https://davenanttrust.org/christian-citizenship-post-christian-america-nyc/
LikeLike
Dan, oh, if that’s your point, why didn’t you say so. Evangelicalism is bigger than OPC. Got it. (now you’re sounding Roman Catholic)
LikeLike
Dan, in 1550 those theological interests were big and Carl Henry and you would not exist without them.
But fine. You’re the Cardinals. Theology of partial glory.
LikeLike
Dan, who said Clark was proud? But the more you respond, the clearer your profile becomes. This is not principled but personal.
LikeLike
mcmark, I only have to live with Kevin Swanson, not Jeremiah Wright.
LikeLike
McMark, thank God for the revisions of 1788.
LikeLike
D.G.,
And you are so sarcastic when you read, not respond to, other opinions. BTW, the warning about pedestals applies to all including me. And your answer suggests that you have no problems with pedestals.
LikeLike
Curt, architecture sometimes requires pedestals. Sorry.
I’m just trying to help you see how self-righteous you sound. The thanks I get.
Plus, I don’t put historians on pedestals.
LikeLike
D.G.,
But what architecture are we talking about here.
How self-righteous I sound? Is that because I offer some opposing opinions? Let me ask, when you criticize Keller, how many of your own faults and sins do you mention?
What is sad when you criticize him is not the criticisms, but it is the failure to recognize the good he has done. Just like you, he has things to offer to the Church. And just like you, he has made mistakes, has faults, and has sins. But one would never know that with the way you criticize him.
LikeLike
Curt, you use the s-word way too much. I don’t call Keller a sinner. I call him an evangelical. You do the math.
LikeLike
Verduin, p 68–“Great allegorizer that he was, Augustine managed to overpower Scripture to suit his purpose. Augustine found what he needed in the family situation of Abraham where there were two wives, one a free woman and the other a slave. By this Augustine justified the presence of two kinds of Christians in the church, with one kind by faith and the other kind without faith….If anyone does not of his own accord have himself regenerated by baptism, he shall be coerced to it by the king.”
If the mob makes the wrong choice, we must keep on praising democracy but do what needs to be done. Machen might still want more than one kingdom, but his second kingdom is going to get “paid double” as punishment for not doing what needed to be done.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2013/03/how-progressive-or-liberal-christianity-destroys-the-church/
LikeLike
D.G.,
Sorry, I am the only self-righteous here in your view? But don’t your criticisms imply that he is sinning at least in some of his views and ventures? For if he was not sinning, then would he be free to pursue what he is doing?
It it expected to be ironic that that the people who are the most critical are also the most sensitive to criticism. But it should be expected rather than be ironic. And what your note is claiming is that you are the KFC of critics because you do criticism right. In the meantime, you look down on critics like me who do not know how to criticize like you.
LikeLike
Curt, well, if you want to call Keller a sinner — all that systemic sin — that’s your call.
LikeLike
http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/brandonadams/visible-saints-the-history-of-a-puritan-idea/
Bannerman — “Formal profession devoid of saving faith (what is known as “historical faith”) is all that is required for membership in the visible church. The professor may not possess that faith UNFEIGNED and that vital union to the Saviour which will obtain for him the INTERNAL and saving blessing which the REAL believer will find in the ordinances; but there are external privileges which he does obtain in consequence of his mere outward profession… This relation of the mere formal member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an external covenant and outward federal union. There is such a relationship, involving both real RESPONSIBILITIES and real privileges.”
Samuel Rutherford—“Nothing more is required for the church to confer the seal of the covenant, but that the children be descended of parents professing the truth and faith, though the parents, as concerning any REAL union of faith, be plain strangers to the covenant, and are members of the church only as an arm of wood is a member of the body. Otherwise, God would not have commanded Joshua to circumcise all Israel because their fathers were externally within the covenant. For their fathers were a generation of unbelievers who knew not God, who tempted Him, grieved his holy Spirit in the wilderness. To profess the doctrine of the covenant is but to be born Jews, avow the Lord in external profession and swear a covenant with Him even when the heart is blinded and hardened (Deuteronomy 29:4). “
LikeLike
D.G.,
Look at it this way, if one is not a sinner, one can’t be saved by Christ. And, going back to an old point, if you deny that systemic sin exists, then it follows that Nazi Germany did not sin when it invaded its neighbors or persecuted and exterminated the Jews. Your cal.
But note something else here. The original question I asked you was this: ‘If we are going to have a series on why denomination ________ should read Machen, shouldn’t we make Machen some kind of protestant pope?‘ Then you also responded with: ‘Curt, you’re so prophetic. Always warning me of my sins. What about yours?‘ when I mentioned pedestals. And you continued to focus on me even after I readily acknowledged that pedestals is a temptation we are all vulnerable to.
Now as flattering as it is that you would want to focus on me, the original question remains unanswered. And the original concern that too much credit is being given to Machen still remains. One doesn’t have to take that question and concern personally, but you seemed to have in a way that avoids answering the question and concern.
LikeLike
Curt, your original question here was about Machen or about Nazi Germany? I can’t keep your self-righteousness straight.
BTW, I really can’t worry about Germany. I’m too worried about the U.S.A. That’s where I live but your high horse takes you all over the world with no remedy for sin.
LikeLike
dgh—“Machen took Presbyterian polity seriously — his church refused interdenominational cooperation in settings like the National Association of Evangelicals where Carl Henry was an intellectual guru. But that kind of Protestant fussiness comes up fundamentalist….
mcmark—Fundamentalist separatists used to not care if they had influence on the culture of democracy. Once upon a time separatists (congregationalist or Presbyterian) were more excited about Christ’s second coming than they were about the prosperity gospel of worldview capitalism. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/12/habetis-papam
LikeLike
D.G.,
In my last comment, I posted what I said first. And even without that, it is not too difficult for you to look back to see what I posted first. And now, you respond aggressively and have been responding with accusations. So I will repeat what I asked first:
If we are going to have a series on why denomination ________ should read Machen, shouldn’t we make Machen some kind of protestant pope?‘
Feel free to answer
LikeLike
Curt, shoot me. I know a lot about Machen. Machen is part of the inspiration for Old Life. Every post bears his fingerprints. Maybe you should stop reading.
LikeLike
Curt,
Your question indicates a connection between the suggestion that reading Machen and taking his arguments seriously would serve as corrective to issues in various denoms and the idea that Machen is an infallible authority to whom all must submit. Your analytical skills are dizzying…
LikeLike
If you are such a Machen fan, does he become responsible for your aggression and sensitivity, that is your behavior, to challenges? Certainly I haven’t read him as much as you. From what I have read, I notice that he has made some valid points worth considering. But the world is larger than Machen and my point isn’t about Machen himself, but the pedestal on which he is placed.
LikeLike
sdb,
Let me ask this: are your insults the result of Machen’s influence or the work of the flesh as mentioned by Paul in Galatians? When we insult or attack each other, we are insulting and attacking people for whom Christ died.
LikeLike
Curt, did you happen to notice the images in Old Life’s banner? Have you heard of Mencken?
LikeLike
@Curt Insults? Attack? I like to think of it as constructive criticism….perhaps a fruit of common grace?
LikeLike
I don’t think PETA thinks I exhibit fruits of the spirit, either. MURDERER
LikeLike