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

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?”

Dog Bites Man; Evangelicalism is Collapsing (Again)

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)”

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

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?”

The New Sabbatarians

(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”

Paleo vs. Neo-Reformed (continued)

The paleo/neo distinction for Reformed Protestants is not only useful for discerning different attitudes toward evangelicalism, but even for figuring out distinct understandings of Calvinism itself.  After all, the Kuyperian or world-and-life-view form of Calvinism has always been known as neo-Calvinism.  That reputation implies a distinction with paleo-Calvinism, and furthers the wariness that should accompany the use of the prefix “neo” — as in neo-conservative, neo-evangelical, and neo-orthodox.

Neo-Calvinists are prone to dismiss paleo-Calvinists as warmed over Lutherans because of either the two-kingdom doctrine or the spirituality of the church.  This is not the place to elaborate on either of these, except to remark that when paleo-Calvinists distinguish between the sacred and the secular, the spiritual and the natural, the temporal and the eternal, neo-Calvinists go batty and think that paleo-Calvinists are following Luther and restricting Christianity to the realm of religion and ethics.  (As if Luther’s view of vocation and the goodness of work in this world doesn’t suggest that neo-Calvinists are confused about Luther and Lutheranism.)  Continue reading “Paleo vs. Neo-Reformed (continued)”

Front Porch Republic

When will the blogging end?  Friends over at Front Porch Republic have launched a new site that may not be an obvious resource for confessional Presbyterians.  But it should because the Bible does not tell us directly how to be conservative.  Yes, Scripture provides lots of teaching that adds up to conservatism.  But conservatism’s essential features are by no means obvious when the Bible apparently inspires more “radical” or “red letter” Christians than believers who take situatedness and embodiment seriously.  Continue reading “Front Porch Republic”

I Thought It Was Black History Month

Turns out I’m wrong again.  Redeemer NYC is again on the cutting edge, going against the grain by making February Arts Month. 

You can read more about it here (not to mention the female – ahem – Director of Arts Ministry – double ahem).  Just when I was set to watch Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, now I learn I should have rented Pollock. 

Darn, redeeming culture is so tricky.

Paleo- and Neo-Reformed

We didn’t ask for this but when a respected Protestant scholar invokes the category of Neo-Reformed (which implies a Paleo version), members of the Old Life Theological Society take the bait with relish (tabasco would help).

In a blog that has gotten far more attention than it likely deserves, Scot McKnight complains about the efforts of the Neo-Reformed to capture evangelicalism. He faults them for being traditionalist as opposed to following the Bible, accuses them of displaying fundamentalist belligerency as opposed to evangelical niceness, and fears they aim to take over evangelicalism and exclude the non-Reformed as opposed to just getting along. Continue reading “Paleo- and Neo-Reformed”