Author: D. G. Hart

. . . Then Justification "Causes" Good Works

Published on by D. G. Hart19 Comments

That would seem to be the way J. Gresham Machen thought about the relationship between forensic righteousness and the fruit of faith.

Of course [Jesus] died to produce a moral effect upon man. If He did not die, man would have continued to lead a life of sin; but as it is, those for whom He died cease to lead a life of sin and begin to lead a life of holiness. They do not lead that life of holiness perfectly in this world, but they will most certainly lead it in the world to come, and it was in order that they might lead that life of holiness that Christ died for them. No man for whom Christ died continues to live in sin as he lived before. All who receive the benefits of the Cross of Christ turn from sin unto righteousness. In holding that that is the case, the substitutionary view of the atonement is quite in accord with the moral influence theory and with the governmental theory. . . .

The true moral influence of the Cross of Christ really comes, in other words, only when we see that the moral influence theory regarding it is false; it comes only when we see that on the Cross Christ truly bore the penalty of our sins and buried it forever in the depths of the sea. He loves little to whom little is forgiven. If the sin for which we are forgiven is merely the light, easily forgiven thing that the advocates of the moral influence theory of the atonement think it is, then no great spring of gratitude with well up in our souls toward Him who has caused us to be forgiven; but if it is the profound and deadly thing that the advocates of the substitutionary view of the atonement think it is, then all our lives will be one song of gratitude to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us upon the accursed tree. (“The Bible and the Cross,” in God Transcendent, 183, 185)

Evangelicals Are Now Mainline (Woo Hoo!)

Published on by D. G. HartLeave a comment

Christianity Today is surprised, proud, and cautious about this state of affairs, which the American Religious Identification Survey reports.  Since 1990 the number of people identifying themselves as born-again has  almost doubled while mainline churches continue to lose numbers.  (Two important corrections to note: evangelicalism always was the mainline up until the 1920s when the mainline churches’ leadership went a little lite in the doctrine and heavy on the advocacy; second, identifying yourself as born-again as opposed to Methodist doesn’t really cost you anything – and at least the mainline denominations were churches.) 

The positive side of evangelicals’ mainline status according to CT is this:

We enjoy a significant position of authority — contra Meacham — in moral and political issues. Pastors Rick Warren and Joel Hunter, both of whom have had access to President Obama, exemplify this kind of standing in the culture. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family notes that the existence of laws or constitutional amendments opposing the redefinition of marriage in 43 states would be hard to explain absent the massive presence of pro-family evangelicals. Facing little competition from the old mainline, growing and dynamic megachurches, Pentecostals, and immigrant churches also have a great opportunity to appeal to the spiritually curious and open.

Frankly, I’m not sure Warren or Hunter actually count as political muscle, but evangelicals have always had trouble discerning the difference between celebrity appeal and institutional authority.  Even so, I thought the point (among many) of the Evangelical Manifesto was to recognize that political activism was giving evangelicalism a bad name. 

The editors do affirm, in a gesture to the “Manifesto,” that “spreading the gospel, not seeking social or political relevance, is the heartbeat of evangelicalism. More often than not, cozying up to the culture has been a ticket to later embarrassment.”  Ya think?

But they conclude:

we also must remain engaged in the larger culture. We cannot afford to become consumed by our own theological distinctives and subculture. That too would be a compromise. We are not called to identify with any culture or subculture, whether that be America or evangelicalism. Our future as a movement depends on that which is in our name, the evangel, the good news of Jesus Christ. If we keep that focus, we never have to worry about becoming the new sideline.

There you have it — viola!  By being faithful, evangelicals can have it all, both mainstream and counter-cultural, no hard choices required.  Those kind of easy answers long on inspiration and short on resolving contradictions admittedly have their appeal in mass movements like born-against Protestantism.  But American evangelicalism will never be trustworthy to confessional Protestants as long as its gate keepers abdicate the difficult work of deciding how ultimate loyalties affect proximate teachings and practice.

Man Crush on Leon Kass

Published on by D. G. Hart6 Comments

Last night, the author of the incredibly wise book, The Hungry Soul, gave the annual Jefferson Lecture (John Updike gave it last year).  Leon Kass is someone about whom more people should know.

Incoherence or Sentimentality

Published on by D. G. Hart9 Comments

Reed DePace has a thoughtful post at Greenbaggins on the inerrancy debate to which Pete Enns was a catalyst.  His point is that the defenders of Enns are incoherent.  The reason is the following syllogism to which Enns’ defenders resort:

1. The Bible contains non-incidental errors.
2. The Bible itself is inerrant.
3. This is not a contradiction.

DePace goes on to worry about the effects of such an incoherent argument on the church:

If I find your arguments incoherent, what do you think the average layperson hears when they read what you’ve written? One of you recently actually said, in the same paragraph, the Bible has errors, and the Bible is inerrant. (A fair paraphrase.) The context of those statements did not remove the onus present in this summary.

Brothers, assume for a second your position is right, and it will be a blessing to the Church in the future. Does not the significance of the subject (the only rule for faith and practice, THE source of spiritual food for the people of God) necessitate more care and caution on your parts?

Not to take away from DePace’ s legitimate point and concern, I wonder if the problem has less to do with incoherence than it does with sentimentality — namely, attaching more sentiment to an object of affection than is fitting.  In this case, it would be clinging to a high view of Scripture even though it has all the earmarks of other books from the ancient near east. 

Actually, what passes for sentimentality here was for J. Gresham Machen an instance of mysticism, and he believed that it fueled much of liberal Protestant piety and its unwillingness to abandon the religion of the Bible.   In What is Faith? Machen wrote:

Mysticism unquestionably is the natural result of the anti-intellectual tendency which now prevails; for mysticism is the consistent exaltation of experience at the expense of thought. . . . In particular, those who discard theology in the interests of experience are inclined to make use of a personal way of talking and thinking about God to which they have no right. . . . All personal communion seems to be a simple thing: yet it is in reality very complex.  My friendship for a human friend, for example, depends upon years of observation of my friend’s actions.  So it is exactly in the case of the communion of the Christian with his God.  The Christian says: “Lord, thou knowest that we are on the same old terms.”  It seems very simple and very untheological.  But in reality it depends upon the whole rich content of God’s revelation of Himself in the salvation which He has provided through His Son. . . . The experience of the real mystic, then, as distinguished from that experience of direct contact with God in the depths of the soul which is popularly called mysticism — the latter being of course a part of all vital religion — is not Christian experience; for Christian experience is a thoroughly personal thing; the Christian holds fellowship with a Person whom he knows.

Which raises the question — do the advocates of a messy Bible really know and pray to a messy God?  Or do they overcompensate for their understanding of the Bible with a piety grounded in a deity who reveals himself reliably and truthfully?  If so, it would qualify as plundering the Israelites.

We Apologize

Published on by D. G. Hart4 Comments

Because some readers of the NTJ took exception to a recent article, and because we had no intention of giving offense, we offer the following apology:

With reference to the article “Priorities” in the last NTJ (Winter 2009), the editors unreservedly apologize for implying that there is any tension between the position of Carl Trueman and Richard Gaffin on the matter of justification regarding the bounds of confessional orthodoxy; we also apologize for the fact that Dr. Gaffin was quoted out of context in the article in a manner that distorted his views, and we affirm that his recent response to John Fesko in Ordained Servant (March 2009) represents a satisfactory clarification of the comment we misquoted; we further apologize for implying that Dr. Gaffin’s views are contrary to the Protestant confessional consensus on justification and for writing that they constitute “a new perspective on Paul,” which uses eschatology to overturn the consensus of the Reformers and the Reformed creeds; and we acknowledge that the biblical notion of union with Christ does not contradict or contravene, directly or impliedly, anything taught in the Westminster Standards.

D. G. Hart and John R. Muether

The Great Debate: Psalms vs. Hymns IV

Published on by D. G. Hart12 Comments

(Reprinted from NTJ, April 1997)

From: Glenn Morangie
To:T. Glen Livet
Date: 9/4/96 10:46am
Subject: Re: Psalmody -Reply -Reply -Reply

Glen,
Wow, such a sensitive guy to issue such a long and personal response. I must have struck a nerve or you must be convicted by the power of the word. (Or could it be that I am just brilliant?)

Please be advised, however, that I did not say that you were guilty of not taking the other side seriously. I actually complimented you as one of the few hymn-singers who could make an intelligent argument and also respect the motives of the other side, while also recognizing the position psalmody has had in the tradition. But chances are you didn’t read my exemption of you because of the medium. Unless something is on the page we don’t read it as carefully. The tv screen and the never-never land of the Net must explain your taking offense. I am sorry if I gave any. But don’t be so sensitive. Continue reading “The Great Debate: Psalms vs. Hymns IV” →

Father Interlocutor

Published on by D. G. Hart2 Comments

Richard John Neuhaus, who died fairly suddenly on Jan. 8, 2009, was an inspiration for the NTJ, both as an editor and a critic of mainstream American Christianity (read: Protestantism). That is about where any comparison between this publication and his, First Things, begins and abruptly ends. Where Neuhaus rubbed shoulders with religious and political elites in New York City, Washington, D.C., and the Vatican, the editors of the NTJ occasionally run into faculty from other Reformed seminaries, mix with commissioners at the OPC’s General Assembly, and occasionally give a paper at a professional learned society. Where Neuhaus used those connections to raise funds for an intellectual journal of remarkable substance, the editors of the NTJ subsidize the publication of their “journal” by smoking pipes more than cigars. (As they say, “pennies a bowl.”) Where Neuhaus drew on a gifted set of writers and editors to produce a variety of strong articles and reviews, the editors of the NTJ rely on a handful of writers whose total is increased by sometimes employing pseudonyms.

If truth be told, the idea for the section of the NTJ called, “39 Alexander Hall,” was one part Machen, the other part Neuhaus. We not only wanted to use the space to editorialize in the royal we, we hoped to replicate in a small way Neuhaus’ combination of wit, sarcasm, nay-saying, and clarity of conviction in “The Public Square.”

Not so fast, pilgrim. To read this piece in its entirety, you need to subscribe to the NTJ.