Author: D. G. Hart

Mark Driscoll is Joining the Christian and Missionary Alliance

Published on by D. G. Hart64 Comments

Or so it seems on the basis of Driscoll’s recent post on the differences between the New and Old Calvinism.  (My, how pertinent the paleo/neo distinction has become.) 

According to Driscoll, the differences between Calvinism 1.0 and 8.2 are simple and short: 1) New Calvinism is missional; 2) it is urban; 3) it is charismatic; and 4) it is loving.  Old Calvinism, accordingly, is not these things.  (Do I feel loved?  Not really, but it doesn’t matter since New Calvinists are loving.) 

What Driscoll may not realize is that American Calvinists have been there and done that.  They did so in the person of  A. B. Simpson, a Canadian Presbyterian who ministered in the PCUSA, established urban missions and a training school (Nyack) in New York City, and was open to the emerging (couldn’t resist) Pentecostal revival.   The institutions Simpson founded, along with his teaching, formed the basis for the Christian and Missionary Alliance (1887).  (Before Keller, there was Simpson.)

So whether Driscoll knows it, he has a denominational home.  The upside is that Driscoll’s Calvinism could develop into the mature evangelical Protestantism of C&MA guru, A. W. Tozer, who could be remarkably perceptive about worship.  But just as likely the New Calvinism will go in a diferent direction because folks like Tozer and the C&MA are not new or hip.

What Would John Calvin Say to Rowan Williams, and to Billy Graham for that matter?

Published on by D. G. Hart31 Comments

David Neff, editor-in-chief at Christianity Today, writes a piece under the provocative title of “What would John Calvin Say to Dick Cheney?” Calvin is hot.  It’s the 500th, after all.  And the Bush administration is as out of favor as Calvin is supposedly accessible.

The point of Neff’s piece is actually quite sensible.  It has to do with the abuses of the Bush administration in asserting to itself powers above the law.  (Pssst.  Real American conservatives know that Congress is the branch to trust, not the White House.)  Granted, Neff may be guilty of sucking up to the new administration when he credits President Obama with understanding that “whether the issue is the torture of detainees, due process for American citizens suspected of terrorism, or eavesdropping on our private communications without appropriate judicial warrants, the President of the United States is bound by law.”  We’ll see how well any American president resists the temptation of imperial power.

Neff goes on to write as if Calvin would have agreed with Obama and opposed Cheney.  According to Neff:

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

What a striking phrase: “blasphemous tyranny”! And how apt. When rulers place their own goals ahead of protecting God-given laws and liberties, they are not only being tyrannical, they are also blaspheming.

Continue reading “What Would John Calvin Say to Rowan Williams, and to Billy Graham for that matter?” →

The Reign of Christ is Back

Published on by D. G. HartLeave a comment

Well, technically, it never left.  But De Regno Christi, the blog that sponsored that spirited debate about the Federal Vision, was for several months down for the count.  Now, thank to Bill Chellis, a Reformed Presbyterian (isn’t that redundant?) and New York State conservative (isn’t that an oxymoron), the blog is up and running.  This is the place where the two-kingdoms and the National Covenant enjoy peace and harmony — sort of.

Which Came First, the Theology or the Exegesis?

Published on by D. G. Hart22 Comments

Ken Schenck has been conducting a series of interviews with Pete Enns, formerly of Westminster Seminary and author of the controversial, Inerrancy and Inspiration.

In the second stage or interactions, Schenck asks Enns what he would say to those who think the Old Testament scholar is not a very good Calvinist.  Enns responded:

Just what it means to be Reformed has been a debated issue and the struggle continues to see who will win the right to define it. There are those who think of the Reformed faith—better, a particular articulation of the Reformed faith (19th century Princeton, for example)—as the only true expression not only of the Reformed faith but also of Christianity. Indeed, as some I know have put it, the Reformed faith (narrowly defined) is understood as “Christianity come into its own,” and that the Reformed “hold the truth in trust” for other traditions.

This is tragic, and if this is what it means to be Reformed, then I am not Reformed. If, however, one understands the Reformed faith as a particularly insightful and deep tradition that hits upon numerous biblical and theological issues with clarity and gospel-fidelity—even to the extent that other traditions will be richer for the interaction—BUT that is also, by virtue of its location in particular historical/cultural circumstances, as prone to sin and error as anything else under the sun, and is therefore in need of regular critical evaluation, then, yes, I am Reformed. The Reformed faith is for me, in other words, a means to Christian truth rather than the sum total of Christian truth.

Aside from what this says about Enns’ own understanding of the tradition in which he found himself as a student and professor at Westminster or even what it means to be situated within a theological and ecclesial tradition, it raises an interesting question about the priority of convictions and academics.

It would be impossible to imagine one of Enns’ predecessors at Westminster,  E. J. Young, for instance, rejecting the narrow construction of Reformed Protestantism.  Is the difference between Enns and Young that they approach the critical questions of Old Testament studies differently and then reach alternate understandings of being Reformed?  Or is it that Enns and Young started out with different views of being Reformed which then lead them to approach Old Testament scholarship with alternate — I believe the word is — “trajectories”?

Continue reading “Which Came First, the Theology or the Exegesis?” →

Dog Bites Man; Evangelicalism is Collapsing (Again)

Published on by D. G. Hart34 Comments

The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, wrote an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor (you know, the Mary Baker Eddy Christian Science Monitor — so it must be true), on the impending demise of evangelicalism.   The piece has received lots of attention and been forwarded around the e-superhighway; I received at least three emails with links to it.

What accounts for the editorial’s popularity, aside from Matt Drudge having linked it on his site?  One reason has to be Spencer’s contention that evangelicals have let politics overwhelm the gospel, and not just any politics, but the politics of the Right.  Spencer writes:

Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

Continue reading “Dog Bites Man; Evangelicalism is Collapsing (Again)” →

Year 2000 Recipes

Published on by D. G. Hart8 Comments

(From NTJ July 2000)

For readers who may have stockpiled various kinds of dried foods in preparation for the computer crash to end all computer crashes, we offer the following recipe as a tasty of way of serving beans in the new millennium. It comes from the Ontario White Bean Producers.

Rigatoni and White Beans with Italian Sausage

6 oz. rigatoni pasta, uncooked
2 tbsp olive oil
2 tbsp fresh parsley, chopped
1 cup WHITE PEA BEANS, soaked and cooked or canned in water: drained and rinsed
1 lb. fresh Italian sausage, meat removed from casing
1 medium onion, finely chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
6 oz. mushrooms, sliced
2 tbsp fresh chopped oregano
½ tsp crushed chilies
1 cup beef or chicken stock
1 can (28 oz.) plum tomatoes, drained and chopped
1 tbsp tomato paste
2 tbsp balsamic vinegar
½ cup freshly grated Romano cheese
salt and pepper to taste

Cook pasta according to package directions. Drain and toss with the olive oil, parsley and beans. Set aside. In a saucepan or skillet, saute sausage meat until browned. Drain excess fat, if necessary, and add onion, garlic, mushrooms and oregano. Saute for about 8-10 minutes or until tender. Add crushed chilies, stock and tomatoes and simmer gently for 10 minutes. Add tomato paste and balsamic vinegar and continue to simmer until heated through. Season with salt and pepper. Lightly toss together pasta and sauce. Sprinkle with Romano cheese.

6 servings

Are Those Ashes on Your Forehead or Simply The Evidence of My Unhappiness the Last Time I Saw You?

Published on by D. G. Hart37 Comments

Reformed Protestants don’t do Lent. It is not simply a function of giving up the church calendar and foreswearing holy days appointed by Rome. (Of course, Reformed Protestants do have a church calendar and sequence of holy days — one every week, for that matter, going by the name of the Lord’s Day.) It is also the result of differences between Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants over the nature of repentance. Lent is part of Rome’s practice of penance — a way of meriting absolution for sins committed after baptism.  Even so, contemporary Protestants are an eclectic bunch and find the practices of Rome appealing and even edifying.  Continue reading “Are Those Ashes on Your Forehead or Simply The Evidence of My Unhappiness the Last Time I Saw You?” →

Who Knew (!) Van Til Would be Hotter than Dabney and Nevin?

Published on by D. G. Hart9 Comments

Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Seminary, and long-time interlocuter in matters neo-Calvinist, has a very positive review in Christianity Today of the recent biography of Cornelius Van Til by NTJ co-editor, John Muether.   Mouw writes:

John Muether has done a particularly good job of making a scholar’s life interesting—typically a daunting challenge for the would-be biographer—and he has done it by portraying Van Til’s career in a larger-than-the-academy context. For one thing, the polemics for which Van Til is well known were not simply arguments that are “contained” within the academy. Michael Hakkenberg made this point nicely in an essay he once published about Van Til’s rather acrimonious dispute with the philosopher Gordon Clark.  The subject at issue was the doctrine of “divine incomprehensibility.” But as Hakkenberg observes, there was more going on here than a simple theological argument. The struggle had something to do with who would control the theological direction of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination. Clark’s position had affinities with certain non-Calvinist elements in the broader evangelical movement, while Van Til insisted on the kind of stark contrast between divine and human knowledge that would reinforce a uniquely Calvinst piety and ecclesiology. Van Til was victorious in the ecclesiastical struggle, with Clark departing for other environs.

He adds:

Those of us—and I consider myself in this crowd—who are more tempted in the commonness direction would do well to learn from a nice little vignette that Muether relates. Toward the end of his life, Van Til returned to Grand Rapids and visited one of his Calvin philosophy professors, William Harry Jellema, who was close to death. Jellema was very much a common-grace type Kuyperian, well known for his expressed hope that he would meet Socrates in heaven. He and Van Til had long parted ways on many key philosophical and theological matters. On this occasion, however, Van Til thanked his former teacher for what he had learned from Jellema. Jellema responded: “Yes, but Kees, it was you who at times kept us from going too far.” Jellema is not the only one with that kind of indebtedness to Van Til.

High marks for Van Til and Muether from a PCUSA neo-Calvinist.  Those who haven’t bought the book should.  And don’t forget the other biographies in the series.

The New Sabbatarians

Published on by D. G. Hart16 Comments

(From NTJ, April 1998)

How do you tell a true old lifer from a pretender? We used to think that a fairly reliable indicator was to raise the question of the Sabbath. Ask how should a believer sanctify the Lord’s Day (and be sure to raise the thorny language of recreation from the Westminster Standards). If one responds by clearing the throat and changing the subject, you knew you were looking at a counterfeit. But a curious trend seems underway. More and more Christians are claiming the Sabbath. There has been a recent flurry of publishing on the subject in several Christian magazines. In all of these articles there is the recognition that the Sabbath is essential to the Christian life, and that Christians ignore this discipline to their great disadvantage. But don’t worry, readers, because as it turns out, the Sabbath is really not that hard to observe after all.

Presbyterian Minister Eugene Peterson of Regent College takes care to distance himself from anything that smacks of Puritan repressiveness (but he waxes redundant). Although he recognizes the Sabbath as a command and not a suggestion, he discourages pastors from imposing a “common observance” in congregations, lest it communicate “guilt-trap legalism.” Moreover, the Puritans only got it half right: the Sabbath is a day to pray and to play. When he and his wife retire to Vancouver’s beautiful beaches on Sunday afternoons after church, he likes what he sees as he joins the beachcombers and kite fliers: “The outdoor playfulness always strikes a chord of harmonious response in our hearts that have so recently tuned to prayerfulness in the sanctuary.” This too, is not enough, he acknowledges. “In America we have conspicuous examples of widespread observance of half-Sabbaths, prayerful Sabbaths without any play, and playful Sabbaths without any prayer. Our Puritan ancestors practiced the first; our pagan contemporaries practice the second.”

Continue reading “The New Sabbatarians” →