Andrew Sandlin.net

Dear Editor,

The California Supreme Court’s legalizing same-sex marriage overturned not only millennia of legal and social custom in the Western tradition — everywhere, without exception — but also the explicit will of California voters.

This persistent judicial assault on the choice of ordinary voters of which this week’s court decision was but a recent example bodes ominously for Californian — and American — democracy.

Rev. Dr. P. Andrew Sandlin
Church of the King
Santa Cruz

I put myself on guard whenever I observe speakers and writers neatly classifying individuals into distinct, mutually exclusive, and seemingly airtight categories. One factor that makes individuals what they are is their own distinctiveness, a fact that renders most attempts at classification somewhat arbitrary. Nonetheless, the Bible itself classifies individuals again and again (saved and unsaved, carnal and spiritual, Jews and Gentiles, weak and strong, foolish and wise, and so forth), and any attempt to chart characteristics and trends that involves individuals demands classification of some sort. The categories of blond-haired people, self-taught people, two-income people, and gregarious people are relevant categories. The fact that these categories have fuzzy edges, and the fact that they can be used for foolish or malicious purposes, do not detract from their usefulness.

My concern in this essay is briefly to set forth three identifiable sectors within today’s conservative Reformed camp. By “conservative,” I mean conservative theologically — holding to the time-honored tenets of the Christian Faith, such as the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, His sacrificial atonement, His bodily resurrection, His second advent, salvation by grace through faith, and so on. By “Reformed,” I denote those who maintain an allegiance to the Calvinist tradition springing from the Protestant Reformation and crystallized in the Reformed confessions of faith hammered out during the 16th and 17th centuries. Its chief theological distinctives are the sovereignty of God, the final authority of Scripture, the unity of the Biblical covenants, salvation wholly by the grace of God, and the application of the Faith to all areas of life. From the standpoint of a belief system only, this is what it means to be “conservative Reformed.”

The conservative Reformed camp is not a denomination, though several denominations are — or wish to be considered — both Reformed and conservative (I am including here many Presbyterian denominations).

Within this broadly aligned camp, three identifiable variations exist today. I have denoted them the TRs (Truly Reformed), the BRs (Barely Reformed), and the CRs (Catholic Reformed). I am intending in this essay, first, a description, delimiting the leading characteristics of each group. Second, I would like the first two groups to consider a third alternative (Catholic Reformed), which holds firmly to the essentials of the Reformed Faith and which assimilates the best in both of the other camps but which jettisons some of (in my view) their less attractive features. I do not wish to further divide the Reformed camp. Indeed, this essay constitutes a proposal to further unite that camp (and other Bible-believing Christians) for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

THE TRULY REFORMED (TRs)

While there are certainly variations in this company, it is fair to say that the TRs are conservatives of the most intense sort; and they are fervently committed to the scholastic, Reformed orthodoxy of the 16th and 17th centuries. Almost all are “strict subscriptionists,” holding that statements of faith like the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons and Decrees of the Synod of Dordt, the Belgic Confession, or the London Baptist Confession are virtually summary duplications of Biblical teaching. They are strongly committed to the scholastic formulation of Calvinist doctrine as it comes to the fore, to take an example, in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

The Great Doctrinal Defection

TRs see the great crisis of the modern church as a deviation from this formulation of doctrine or theology. The great enemies of this doctrine are, first, evangelical Arminianism, the almost perpetual opponent of Calvinism, which originated in its midst, and particularly today as it is manifested in a form of evangelicalism within Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. This Arminianism is often linked with a dangerous revivalism, especially the Second Great Awakening, most notably with men like Charles G. Finney, and more recently D. L. Moody and Billy Graham.

To the TRs, the second great enemy is Protestant liberalism as it sprung from the pietistic tradition in men like Friedrich Schleiermacher. This liberalism completely transformed the older orthodox Protestant tradition by questioning or denying the infallibility of the Bible, the miraculous character of our Lord Jesus Christ and His great redemptive work in history, and a God-centered understanding of salvation.

The third great enemy to the thinking of the TRs is Roman Catholicism. TRs perceive Rome to have changed little since the Council of Trent (1545-63), convened to counter those pesky Protestants. Trent anathematized the leading Protestant distinctives of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). This opposition created a chasm in the relation between the two sectors of Christianity that, despite dialogue pressing for reunion, remains to this day. TRs radically oppose this dialogue. They believe that today’s Rome is an enemy of the Faith, and that she deserves nothing other than opposition, obloquy and exclusion.

TRs see in evangelical Arminianism, Protestant liberalism, and Roman Catholicism the most pernicious forms of religious humanism and believe that they are perpetual enemies of the Faith — including within the Reformed camp. TRs thoughtfully and rigorously fight the battle to preserve strict, confessional Calvinism; literal, six-day creation; male church leadership; the regulative principle of worship (only that which is commanded in public worship is permitted); Presbyterian church polity (government by elders); the soteriological doctrines of sovereign grace (the so-called Five Points of Calvinism); and so on. They believe that to lose these battles is to lose critical aspects of the Faith itself.

To the TRs, the chief solution to the pervasive evils within the church and the world is a return to the doctrine and practice of 16th- and early 17th-century scholastic Reformed orthodoxy.

The TRs, it should be mentioned, are highly suspicious of any doctrinal or theological development later than the seventeenth century, and they are particularly suspicious of any such development within the last hundred years. They would allow exceptions for Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics, and Gordon H. Clark’s “axiomatic” apologetics, either one of which many TRs affirm. In matters of “pure theology,” though, the TRs are committed to the 16th and 17th centuries. In other words, TRs tend to believe in the doctrinal development that the Reformation engendered, but none or little since (more on doctrinal development below).

THE BARELY REFORMED (BRs)

I do not intend the expression “Barely Reformed” to be pejorative, but simply to denote that this group within the Reformed camp are much more committed to a broad evangelicalism than the confessional form of the Reformed Faith. In any case, this is what the TRs often label them, and the label has stuck. It is not that they are uncommitted to the Reformed Faith and the Reformed church as an acceptable ecclesiastical and sociological tradition, or even that they repudiate the tenets of Reformed orthodoxy. Rather, these are not matters of great concern to the BRs, for whom the preaching of a simple, earnest gospel of the Bible is the true commission of the church.

The BRs are pragmatists (and sometimes admittedly so). They are strongly committed to reaching the unsaved, and therefore the evangel, the gospel, means a great deal to them. They often pastor or attend the largest conservative Reformed or Presbyterian congregations in the United States, and they are tireless in their efforts to win souls and increase the size of the congregation. They tend to be less concerned with what they consider secondary doctrinal disputes over literal, six-day creation; women in the ministry or in other church leadership roles; the inroads of Arminianism; evangelistic strategies; the nature of the sacraments; and so forth.

The BRs are not to be confused with the truly “liberal” wing of the Reformed camp associated with certain mainline Reformed or Presbyterian denominations committed to Biblical higher criticism, female elders, theistic evolution, tolerance of homosexuality, and so on. The BRs are more accurately identified as evangelicals within the Reformed camp than as liberals. They are more interested in an irenic denomination and warm-hearted Christianity than in haggling over theological niceties. They are inclined to believe that the TRs are not so much wrong as wrong-headed: the latter need to get about the real business of preaching the gospel, discipling the saints, supporting the weak and weary, and building larger churches.

In most conservative, Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, the TRs and BRs are avowed foes.

THE CATHOLIC REFORMED (CRs)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am saying up front that I occupy a third sector. I have tried to describe the TRs and BRs as accurately and objectively as possible before describing my own view and that of this more recently emerging group of Calvinists. By “catholic,” it almost goes without saying, I do not denote Roman (or Eastern) Catholicism, but the manifestly Biblical notion of the universality of the Faith and church (Eph. 4:4) and their description in the Nicene Creed and among the patristic church as “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” While there may be (and certainly are) variations and sectors of orthodox Christianity, there can be only one Christian Faith. This is what Catholic in “Catholic Reformed signifies.”

Affirmation and Dissent

Now, where do the CRs agree and disagree with both the TRs and the BRs? We CRs agree with the TRs in identifying three main problems in the modern church as evangelical Arminianism, Protestant liberalism, and Roman Catholicism. We agree that evangelical Arminianism has undermined the gracious character of the gospel; that the European Enlightenment, joining later with Romanticism to produce Protestant liberalism, precipitated a great crisis in the Western church; and that Roman Catholicism undermined the catholicity of the church by insisting on its hegemony and subverts a gratuitous soteriology by insisting that man in some way merit salvation. We agree with the BRs, however, in wanting to focus attention on the preaching of the evangel, the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We agree that incessant dispute over comparatively secondary doctrines to the exclusion of the energetic preaching of the gospel has things just backwards, though we by no means consider any Biblical doctrine unimportant. We are not latitudinarians.

Conservative and Progressive

We CRs, however, disagree with both the CRs and the BRs. While we hold with the TRs that evangelical Arminianism, Protestant liberalism, and Roman Catholicism are big problems, we do not agree that the restoration of Protestant scholastic confessionalism is the only (or perhaps even the best) solution. We are more conservative than both the TRs and BRs in that we do not wish to throw overboard the great gains of the pre-Reformation period — the patristic and medieval eras. We do not wish to perpetuate the errors of those eras, but neither do we wish to perpetuate what we believe to be certain errors of the Reformation era. We are more progressive in our willingness to explore new, Biblical ways to meet today’s challenges to the Faith. This distinguishes us from the TRs, who are reluctant to talk about or acknowledge such errors from the Reformation era, and who are convinced that a return to — or adoption of — the Reformed confessions is really about all that the church needs. We agree that it needs the confessions, but it needs more than they can offer.

Theological and Dogmatic Development

CRs are committed to the fact of theological and dogmatic development. For instance, it is evident that the sub-apostolic church did not have an entirely clear picture of the relation between the Persons of the Godhead or between the divine and human in Jesus Christ; if they had, the early church councils setting forth that teaching would have been unnecessary. In other words, the sub-apostolic church did not fully grasp what we today would call orthodox Trinitarianism or Christology. This does not mean that they “denied the Trinity,” or that they did not see Jesus as the God-Man sent from heaven to redeem us mortals from sin. It simply means that they were not afforded the opportunity to participate in the later doctrinal debates that clarified the Biblical teaching on these (and other) matters.

The same is largely true of the Reformation’s innovative definition of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. No one until the era of the Reformation expressed it quite like Luther and Calvin, and particularly like the Protestant scholastics. This is not to imply that salvation by grace was “lost” in the sub-apostolic era and only “rediscovered” at the Reformation. Augustine, for one, highlighted justification by faith alone in his battle with Pelagius. But his formulation of this doctrine was not that of the Reformers (for one thing, he included infused righteousness in his definition of justification), and he warred against synergistic soteriology (God and man cooperating in man’s salvation) without benefit of a Protestant-type doctrine of justification. It was given to the Reformers to revisit this doctrine in an intense, sweeping way; and we can grateful for the product of their theological labor.

The truth expressed in the Bible does not change, but Christians’ and the church’s views about what the Bible teaches do change. Usually this occurs because a certain controversy erupts which forces Christians to go back and re-examine what the Bible actually teaches. Often they find not that they were flatly wrong, but that they had inherited certain teachings that do not give full justice to the full sweep of Biblical evidence. It often takes controversies to force the church to a deeper understanding of the Bible. This is how the church’s understanding of the Bible deepens over time. We thus know more about the Bible today than the Church Fathers did, not because we are inherently smarter or more spiritual, but because those who have gone before us have blazed the trail a little further than their predecessors. Likewise, we should expect that the faithful who follow us would enjoy a greater understanding of the Bible than we do today. This is how theological progress is possible.

Of course, not all new understandings of the Bible are progress. Protestant liberalism, for instance, has warped the Christian message by denying the truthfulness of the very Book from which we learn that message, not to mention the supernatural character of Christianity, without which it cannot exist. This is not progress, but apostasy. The problem with liberalism is not that it is new (actually, it is quite old by now!), but that it is anti-Biblical. Gnosticism, by contrast, is a very old teaching; but it is not legitimized simply by virtue of its antiquity. Similarly, new understandings of the Bible are not to be excluded merely because they are new. Old does not necessarily make right, and new does not necessarily make wrong.

We do enjoy an inherited Christian orthodoxy (expressed in the early ecumenical creeds) not alongside, independent of, and coordinate with the Bible, but a dogma, in the language of Philip Schaff, which flows out of the Bible itself. We CRs hold to this dogma as good, Biblical theology. We believe it delimits the dogmatic structure of Christianity. We hold it not because it is inherited church dogma (though we do give universal ecclesiastical consensus great weight), but because it is a summary of Biblical dogma. We do not believe that the Bible contradicts orthodox Christianity.

How does this understanding of doctrinal development apply to the CRs’ view of the Reformation? We heartily affirm the form of doctrine set forth in scholastic, Reformed orthodoxy — the sovereignty of God, salvation by grace alone (monergistic soteriology), the centrality of the covenant, the unity of the Old and New Testaments, and so on. Nonetheless, we are convinced that the scholastic formulations of these and other doctrines, while useful and necessary at the time, are less useful and necessary today and, in any case, a few do not accurately duplicate Biblical teaching. Some examples include the identification of the papacy with the Antichrist in the original Westminster Confession of Faith; the isolation of the doctrine of justification from an earthly, covenantal context and from “the obedience of faith”; the over-emphasis on the theoretical and judicial elements in the Bible and an under-emphasis on its practical and experiential side; and the general lack of acknowledgement of the broad, orthodox catholic tradition.

We CRs are less critical of the scholastic Reformed tradition than we are critical of the attempt to reproduce that tradition today without any conservative, cautious, critical, revision in light of the Bible. We CRs are opposed to abandoning the confessional tradition, but we are in favor of cautiously asking whether certain elements of that tradition are in need of revision. We are less interested in changing any doctrinal assertions than in reformulating those assertions in light of the world in which we presently live, and challenges we immediately face.

Holistic Faith

Moreover, we CRs are not convinced that doctrinal deviation alone is the church’s problem. We are not “doctrinalists,” that is, those who see the Faith in almost exclusively doctrinal terms. Unlike most TRs, we do not believe that the great defection within the Reformed church we observe today originated in an erroneous theology or deviation from a confessional tradition. Rather, we see these problems as the effects of a more profound problem — coldness or apostasy in the heart (Ezek. 6:9). If theological deviance is not the core problem, we do not believe that recovery of theological accuracy, essential though it may be, is the core solution. If men apostatize first not in their intellect but in what some Puritans called their “affections,” our initial concern for the church must be those affections.

Because we see man as a “holistic” being, we see his problem as a holistic problem. It is not enough to attack just one part of the problem; we need to get to the source of the problem, and that problem is apostasy of the heart — refusing to love God with all one’s being, and his neighbor as himself (Mt. 22:37-40). In the words of my friend Rev. C. L. Stover, “If loving God with all your heart is the greatest commandment, what do you imagine the greatest sin is?” We therefore accent Biblical piety, and give it no less attention than we do Biblical theology. We do not see these two facets of the Faith as competing, but complimentary; and we do not believe true reformation is possible without both. We want a fervently Christ-centered rather than theology-centered Faith, though we fully recognize that there can be no legitimate Christ-centeredness without accurate theology. We seek a delicate but Biblical union of doctrine and practice, creed and obedience, theology and life. We want to be intensely practical and pastoral.

A Fervent Charity

Part of that practicality is the calling to charity toward our brothers. And we CR’s believe that this has been grievously lacking in much of the Reformed camp, whether TR or BR. As noted above, the first great commandment of the law as defined by our Lord is loving God with the totality of our being. The second great commandment is loving our neighbor as ourselves. We believe this has been given inversely proportional emphasis in much of today’s Calvinism. In other words, while Jesus Christ put it near the top of the priorities for His disciples, we have often placed it quite low on our list of priorities. At least we act as though we do.

We CRs want to correct this in our own lives, and we want to inspire the church to greater charity. Steve Schlissel once asked me how it is possible that love was never considered as one of the “three marks” of the Reformed church. After all, love is given a huge place in the Bible. The Reformed “marks” traditionally have been considered the faithful preaching of the Word of God, the administration of the sacraments, and the maintenance of discipline. One might wish to argue that love is an aspect of discipline, but this is not what we see in many Calvinistic churches today. The centrality of love in the Bible is undisputed (1 Cor. 13; 1 Jn. 3:16). This compassion within the church values fellow believers as brothers in Christ and as brothers of the human race made in the image of God. It does not see people as part of an agenda, or a means to some end. People are an end in themselves.

We CRs want to manifest this love as a true mark of the church. We believe that the day the Reformed churches are as disturbed by the absence of love in their midst as they are the presence of heresy, they will have approached a more Biblical balance in their churches. When we are as troubled by the evil of lovelessness as we are the evil of Arminianism, we will come close to the Bible’s requirements of the saints.

A Full-Orbed Gospel

Just as we both agree and disagree with the TRs, so we agree and disagree with the BRs. While we agree with the BRs on the centrality of Jesus Christ and the gospel, we do not believe that the BRs often understand or at least preach and teach that gospel in its Biblical fullness. We believe that in the attempt to win as many people as possible (particularly in the so-called Church Growth Movement), they often sacrifice theological integrity and Biblical (Calvinistic!) soteriology. We believe that the BR gospel is often truncated; we believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ must be full-orbed, a heartfelt, compassionate, even emotional gospel message to the unbeliever that nonetheless requires repentance and submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and which seeks to bring all areas of life and culture under His authority. We see the omission of this comprehensive faith as a serious defect in the BR sector.

The objective of the Great Commission is worldwide Christian civilization. We are called not merely to evangelize, but also to disciple (Mt. 28:18-20). And we are called to not only to evangelize and disciple all possible individuals, but also all nations. This is nothing less than Christian culture and, eventually, Christian civilization. This means that we must preach a full-orbed gospel and practice a full-orbed faith.

The Orthodox Christian Tradition

TRs often identify BRs as operating within “broad evangelicalism.” In many cases, this charge is accurate. We CRs have a broadness of our own, but it is the broadness of the orthodox Christian tradition itself. We are committed to what Thomas Oden terms “classical Christianity,” the early ecumenical orthodoxy of the undivided church as set forth principally in the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian Creeds. We believe that this broad consensus must underlie the more narrow (though also more specific) Reformed dogma. We do not see Reformed orthodoxy as the foundation of Christianity. We see Jesus Christ as the foundation of Christianity (1 Cor. 3:11), Christian orthodoxy laid upon that foundation, and the Reformed Faith as the apex of the Christian building. We see Biblical Calvinism, therefore, as the logical conclusion, and not the presupposition, of Christianity. We CRs are fervently committed to the Bible as a pre-creedal, pre-dogmatic, primal, divinely inspired and infallible revelation. It is the very living Word of the living God. We do not claim that the Bible does not teach a binding theology; it surely does. We simply claim that it is necessary constantly to mine that revelation in terms of new events, experiences, and ideas and to judge all of them by the Bible. We don’t mean by this that the Bible could ever be pitted against the form of doctrine in orthodox Christianity. Indeed, we believe that orthodox Christianity is the paradigm within which we should understand the Bible and right theology. In this sense, we are ardent traditionalists. However, we believe it is necessary for us today to maintain the same frame of mind as did the original Reformers. They met the theological and ecclesiastical crises of their age with a fresh study of the Bible and a reformulation and reapplication of its doctrine — always within the bounds of orthodox Christianity, of course. We believe that we are in no less of a crisis today — indeed, that we are in more of a crisis — than were the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. Therefore, we must mine the Bible for truth as it applies specifically in our day.

Biblical Eclecticism

We CRs, therefore, are willing to explore the entire orthodox Christian tradition for Biblical truth that can be legitimately and effectively employed in today’s world. Commitment to Reformed Christianity does not prohibit — no, rather it demands — such a catholicity of doctrine. For instance, if traditional Wesleyanism is somewhat incorrect in its doctrine of sanctification but correct in its stress on the experiential nature of Christianity, we have no qualms in “borrowing” that emphasis (even with attribution!), if it is Biblically justified. If the Eastern form of Trinitarian dogma (which is where orthodox Trinitarianism developed) cannot be improved on within the Reformed tradition (and we don’t believe it can!), we have no problem championing the Eastern view; in other words, we do not feel it necessary to create a “Reformed version” of every doctrine (which may easily lead to heresy). Just as the Reformation church assimilated the Latin view of the Atonement (the satisfaction theory of Anselm), so we today are eager to launch out and employ Christian teachings which we believe are in line with the Bible, even if they did not originate within the Reformed tradition. The CRs, that is, are committed to a theological eclecticism, as long as its components are Biblically legitimate. We do not claim to possess all of the truth, and we are willing to find Biblical truth wherever it is located. We do not believe that Calvinists hold a monopoly on Christian truth.

The CRs are distinctively Reformed, therefore, not in assuming that Biblical Christianity flows from 16th century Calvinism, but that the leading themes of the original Reformation are essential to a healthy Christianity. We are further Reformed in that we do not believe that the need for reformation ended in 1540. We believe in ecclesia reformata quia semper reformanda est — “the church reformed because it must always be reforming.” The cautious, principled eclecticism of the CRs was a part of the Reformed Faith from the very beginning. In fact, had it not been willing to unite the inherited Latin view of the atonement with its innovative view of justification, Calvinism as we know it would not have been possible. This eclecticism presupposes that Calvinism is interested primarily in fidelity to the Biblical faith and not any particular historical manifestation of it — 16th century scholastic Calvinism included. We believe the latter is a striking example of Biblical Christianity, but we do not believe it is infallible, and we do not believe it is above revision, any more than we believe today’s CR view is above revision. The Bible alone is our final authority. We must champion — and practice — sola Scriptura.

Catholic Intensity

This leads naturally to the issue of catholicity. We are catholic in spirit, or intensity — at least we try to be. We do not try first to cut off other Christians who don’t agree with us on all points, but we want to work with them in whatever ways we can. We could not, for instance, invite a dispensationalist to teach his distinctives at our Bible conferences, but we could work with him in establishing a city rescue mission. We would never ask a Roman Catholic priest to lecture to our congregations on the primacy of the Pope, but we would work with him diligently to decrease and eventually eliminate abortion in our society. We would not invite an Arminian to champion his synergistic soteriology in our publications, but we would work with him in getting sound science curricula in his Christian day school. We want to work with our brothers and sisters as closely as we can on as many ventures as we can without compromising our distinctives.

Our appreciation of and sensitivity to the development of dogma in the history of the church renders us less combative than others in the Reformed tradition. A good example of this is the development of soteriology in different branches of the church. Soteriological synergism is surely very bad (just as pharisaic Calvinism is), but it dominated both branches of the church for about a thousand years; and the church, while severely weakened, did not become non-Christian as a result of this error. Erroneous, yes; anti-Christian, no. If soteriological monergism is essential to Christianity, then, of course, there was no Christianity of any kind until the Protestant Reformation (even Augustine did not hold Luther’s view of justification). The same is true on issues as diverse as eschatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, epistemology, and so on. I am not suggesting that these are in any way unimportant issues, only that the position one takes on these issues, as long as he is otherwise within the orthodox Faith, in no way disqualifies him from that Faith.

Catholic Extensity

We see ourselves, in addition, as catholic in extensity. We believe that the Faith should dominate all of life. We are thus committed to Christianity as a means of transforming culture. This is also true of some TRs and BRs, but there is a somewhat different element among the CRs. Like the TRs, we believe in purging and reforming the church, and like the BRs we believe in preaching the gospel to all men; but we do not believe that the battles of yesterday are the battles of today, and we do not believe that an ecclesiastical gospel will suffice. We cannot agree with those who say, “Just reform the church; everything else will take care of itself.” This was largely true in the 16th and 17th centuries, when society itself still carried on the medieval notion of a church-dominated culture. The battle today is not between 16th century scholastic Reformed orthodoxy and 19th century non-supernaturalistic Protestant liberalism, but between a relevant, Biblical Christianity, and relevant, pagan postmodernism. This latter error does not stand outside the professing Christian church, but often finds welcome within the professing church. While during the medieval era, religious error moved from within the church out to the culture, today the religious error moves from the broader secular culture back into the church. At the time of the Reformation, reforming the church would largely guarantee the reform of society. This is simply no longer an option. The evil of secular society is too pervasive. We CRs believe, therefore, that we do not have the luxury to battle only on the narrow ecclesiastical front. We are committed to a full-orbed Faith that must dominate in the individual, family, church, and the wider society.

In summary, the CRs attempt to be catholic in doctrine, in spirit, and in culture.

CONCLUSION

It has not been my objective to malign either the TRs or the BRs, but simply to set forth a description of all three sectors within the conservative Reformed camp. Obviously my own sympathies lay with the CRs, and I hope that this brief essay has outlined why I believe what I describe as the Catholic Reformed approach is a viable and valid one within today’s Reformed context.

In The Courage to be Protestant, David Wells observes that (post-)modern “post-conservative” evangelicals (like Roger Olsen) really aren’t that different theologically from the old Protestant liberals (also called “modernists” at the time). In the extended CCL interview published in “Christian Culture,” I posed this question to John M. Frame, and his answer, in essence, is that the more radical Emergents today (like Brian McLaren) are akin to the older liberals — except that the older liberals were smart.

Ancient Modernism

The operational motif of Protestant liberalism has been the commitment to refashioning Christianity to make it acceptable to the leading themes of the — of the current — contemporary age. This conformist program actually began in the patristic church, when some of the church fathers (one thinks immediately of Origen) synthesized Biblical Christianity with the prevailing currents of Greco-Roman thought. A prime example is the degradation of sex and of the materiality of the created order, an idea obviously influenced by Platonism. We might term this phenomenon “ancient modernism.”

Early Modernism

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, often considered the father of modern liberalism, drank deeply from the Romantic currents of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and his profundity shaped a new departure for Christian theology: the source of theology is man’s feeling of absolute dependence on God. Just as the Romantics broke with Enlightenment in positing the interior of man as the depth of reality, so Schleiermacher broke with orthodoxy in grounding religious authority in the subjective rather than the objective. From our historic vantage point, it is easy to recognize that, no matter what his intent, Schleiermacher “re-imagined” Christianity in the image of the spirit of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Later Modernism

The Protestant liberalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries perpetuated Schleiermacher’s religious Romanticism but increasingly made way for an explosively successful secular science, including hostility to divine interruptions into history — Biblical miracles, resurrections, and so on. God may be at work within history, but He is not at work in miraculous ways. The effect of this move was to make Christianity palatable to the educated classes — and in so doing gut Biblical Christianity (but, of course, the divine inspiration of the Bible was itself one of those miracles that simply could not survive the modern world).

”Neo-Orthodoxy”

So-called “neo-orthodoxy” recovered something of the older view of the depravity of humanity and the majesty of God, but it did so at the expense of a unified understanding of the world. Francis Schaeffer would later suggest that “neo-orthodoxy” was largely the religious version of a wider intellectual phenomenon in the culture — the division of life into the “upper” story and the “lower” story. The “upper” story is the realm of God and the spiritual and mystical and “religious experience”; the “lower” story” is the province of earth, materiality, empirical science, “ordinary life,” and so on. This dualism permitted Christians to maintain belief in God and “religious experience” without the embarrassment of affirming the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the verbal inspiration of the Bible. It was, in the words of Clark Pinnock, a religious salvage operation.

The Post-Conservative Evangelicals

Today some of the “post-conservative” evangelicals (and leading “Emergents”) follow in the liberal tradition by “re-imagining” the Faith and the church in postmodern terms. Since postmodernity is resistant to claims of transcultural truth, the “post-conservative” evangelicals cannot abide the notion of an infallible Scripture or a Gospel message that excludes from salvation all who do not trust in Jesus Christ. Because postmodernity subordinates the conceptual to the relational, “post-conservative” evangelicals are not much interested in orthodox conceptions of the Trinity but rather stress the “economic” (relations within the) Trinity. In that postmodernity is centered in man and his communities, “post-conservative” evangelicals see the mission of God as the restoration of man to fellowship with God rather than as the glory of God, some even arguing that the Biblical teaching of Christ’s substitutionary death is “cosmic child abuse” — after all, if God’s plan is all about pleasing man, why would He ever cause one man (His Son, no less) to suffer for the sins of another? In these ways and many others, “post-conservative” evangelicals are the latest permutation of Protestant liberalism (modernism).

If these ideas continue to grow in the younger evangelical communities, we will likely preside over the funeral of Biblical evangelicalism in the coming decades.

Neil Diamond, one of my favorite popular artists, is aging like a fine merlot, and his new album Home Before Dark carries an update of the old Newton classic “Amazing Grace.” Diamond’s “Pretty Amazing Grace” is beautiful, simple, lyrical — and Biblical. Like its predecessor, it doesn’t mention the name of Jesus Christ, but the lyrics are not unambiguous:

Pretty amazing song.

Thursday morning it was my privilege to attend my dear friend Coleman Jennings’ graduation from the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center in Monterey (his new specialty is Russian). Coleman is accompanied in the photo by his dear wife Angie, set to deliver their first child, a baby girl, on June 1. Coleman is in the U. S. Air Force and is headed off to Goodfellow AFB in Texas. He eventually plans to come back to the Central Coast to settle. I have savored many hours of friendship with Coleman and Angie.

I only use the unflattering term “fool,” because it is one of God’s (Ps.14:1). And if He calls someone a fool who simply says “in his heart” there is no God, someone who makes a living saying it must be the worst kind of fool.

Last week, I was privileged to attend a debate held at Temple Bat Yahm, in Orange County, sponsored by them and Redeemer Presbyterian Church, which holds their Sunday services in the same facilities. Dinesh D’Souza, Dennis Prager, and Christopher Hitchens were the participants in the debate that was tagged, “The Christian God, the Jewish God, and No God.”

D’Souza, the Christian, is a best-selling author (What’s So Great About Christianity? What’s So Great About America? and Letters to a Young Conservative, etc.). Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host; he represented Jewish theism. Hitchens, Washington editor of Harper’s Magazine, and regular writer for The Daily Mirror and Vanity Fair, is also the author of the best-selling book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The three men argued ably for nearly three hours, while we, the audience, silently—and not always silently—listened. Hitchens was, by turn, condescending, incisive, rude, persuasive, and unbending, even in the face of disproving fact. All this came in a soft, mumbling, speech, accompanied by a slouchy, semi-bored demeanor. He had to be reminded several times to speak up. (Frankly, I would be tempted to speak under my breath, too, if I were bad-mouthing God.) To be fair, his rhetoric (when we could hear it) was excellent. In fact, I told him afterward, “You said nothing as good as anyone I ever heard.” For some reason, however, he was not cheered by the compliment!

Dennis Prager did an commendable job arguing for the necessity and reasonableness of God. Without Him, one is forced to assume that matter and energy were generated spontaneously (nothing produces everything) and that randomness produces information (order comes from chaos). Prager had only praise for Christians, if not Christianity itself; and, as it turned out, the debate seemed to be more of a “two-against-one” event. My only criticism of his presentation—though I disagree, of course, with his theology—was that he seemed to enjoy his own rhetoric even more than the audience. In short, he was somewhat long-winded.

I had just finished reading D’Souza’s latest book, and so, as I told him later, was anticipating many of his answers. His arguments were well thought out, and he spoke respectfully both to us and the other debaters. When Hitchens insisted unrelentingly that most of the persecutions and killings in history were done in the name of God or religion, D’Souza pointed out that while the 2,000 or less deaths during the Spanish Inquisition were tragic, they took place over a period of 350 years; but in a single century, atheist regimes have murdered more than one hundred million people.

Sadly, however, my greatest disappointment came from the man I most admire of the three: Dinesh D’Souza. While I know from reading his book and his own testimony during the debate, he is adamant that Jesus is God and died for the sins of the world; at the same time, he could not bring himself to say that adherents to the Jewish religion are not saved, perhaps because his friend, a Jew, was sitting next to him . Whatever the reason, simply believing in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may be correct and admirable, but it is only the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has “begotten us again to a lively hope” (1Pet.1:3). Granted, they are One in the same, but it takes both to get to Heaven!

My trip was even more enjoyable (as well as possible) because of my son, Andrew, who took both me and his daughter, Peace. The little boy to whom I used to read Bible stories, now opens my own eyes to many of the intricacies of God’s Word, even as he lives out in his life the principles taught within it. I told my granddaughter, Peace (a budding theologian) that her dad is both a wonderful father and a wonderful son, no small accomplishment for any man.

She and I both agreed; this declaration is not debatable!

My Mother Salle with Dinesh D’Sousa

Last Wednesday my mother Salle, daughter Peace and I drove down to Orange County for the big, long-awaited Thursday night Dinesh D’Souza-Dennis Prager-Christopher Hitchens debate on the topic of, well, God. Hitchens is a published, militant atheist; Prager, a conservative talk-show host, is a Jewish theist; and D’Souza, prominent author, is a Christian theist. Hitchens, politically conservative (and a former socialist), is a God-hating blasphemer. He is living proof that political conservatism does not guarantee Christian theism — or anything close to it.

David L. Bahnsen’s extensive account of the debate is here, and I don’t intend to add to it.

I will offer two brief, restrained criticisms relating to the debate, one procedural and one substantive. The moderator was thoughtful and articulate, but she could have been more forceful with the gavel. Hitchens was at times frankly boorish, prolix and insulting and interrupting. Prager waxed oracular, and long-winded, on one too many occasions. A more decisive enforcement of the time limits and common courtesy would have been welcomed.

Second, I preface my next criticism with the assurance that I have nothing but the highest personal and professional regard for Dinesh D’Souza. He is doing yeoman’s work in publicly defending Christianity in the contemporary climate of virulent atheism. However, it was evident from the starting gate that Dinesh was defending the generic “God of the philosophers,” not the God of the Bible, despite the fact that Dinesh unashamedly believes in this God, our God. I agree with the late Cornelius Van Til that we cannot ascend to Christian theism from deism and generic theism but must, from the very outset, presuppose the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That said, I commend Redeemer Presbyterian, Fieldstead and Co., and Temple Bat Yahm (site for the debate) for an informative and profitable evening. The planning and format of the debate were superb.

Afterward, while I was jawing with Aaron Bradford over near the entrance, my mother left the reservation and was over pontificating with the speakers at the respective book tables. She told Dinesh as she handed him her copy of his most recent book to inscribe: “I just finished your book, so I was ready at any time to take over were you to falter.”

Next she opines to Hitchens: “Tonight you said nothing better than anyone I’ve ever heard.”

You now know the genetic source of my own cheekiness.

Adult children, there’s a lesson here for you: never allow your parents out of your sight.

When Pastor Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club defended (either explicitly or implicitly) his notorious sermonic nuggets that 9/11 was God’s judgment on America, that the U. S. government introduced AIDS to kill black people, that the U. S. supports state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and that God should “damn America” (that’s quote/closed quote), he did not merely revive the biggest political headache the Obama campaign could envision; more importantly, he verified one of the supreme Christian maxims: you reap what you sow (Galatians 5:7-8). To change the Biblical metaphor, the chickens really do come home to roost.

The objective, high-minded idealist defenders of Barak Obama amid his, um, “pastor problem,” the likes of Anderson Cooper and Andrew Sullivan in other words, may be eating crow this morning. Or maybe they are so intransigent and pigheaded as to stand by their man — if so, good for them. What this country needs just now is more defenders of presidential hopefuls who sit for 20 years in a church that virtually identifies the Gospel as Black Nationalism — and, let us add, who are married and take their children to that church — a church whose pastor’s sermons are liberally (I couldn’t resist) laced with conspiratorial, anti-American, nutty, racist rants.

Yes, sir. This is where Senator Obama chose to lead his family in ecclesial communion for 20 years. Not 20 months: 20 years.

And now after vesting him with the role of political messiah for many months, the news media delves into those oh-so-visually stunning prophetic clips of the Rt. Rev. Wright. And finally the house of cards begins to crumble. The harvest starts to blossom.

To grasp the full weight of this spectacle, imagine this scenario: it comes to light that for 20 years John McCain sat as a member of a church in the Deep South whose pastor (let’s call him Adolf Skinhead) repeatedly preached that whites are intellectually superior to blacks, that the liberal establishment in Washington D. C. is secretly bent on dropping biological agents into the water supply of affluent white neighborhoods, that the U. S. is corrupting white youth by supporting “Negro” music, and that God should punish America for abolishing slavery. Let’s not quickly dismiss this scenario as irrelevantly absurd. Who would say, “Well, of course, no one would accept McCain’s explanation that he did not hear all of these obscene rants and that he could not, in any case, endorse them, that Adolf Skinhead is merely perpetuating the ‘prophetic wing’ of the Lutheran anti-Semitic tradition but that McCain could no more disown Pastor Adolf Skinhead than he could his own grandmother. Of course, he would be run out of the Republican Party on a rail. But Barak Obama is different. He’s tapping into the greatest ideals of young Americans hungry for a post-partisan, post-racial, post-everything candidacy. Let’s cut the Senator some slack”? Who would say this? Nobody. Right? Right?

Jeremiah Wright is a mirror image of a KKK, American-hating neo-Nazi. And he was the chosen shepherd of Barak Obama’s family for 20 years.

Make no mistake. We should stand by our friends. And if Rev. Wright was Barak Obama’s friend for 20 years, he should stand by him now and not throw him to the wolves for political expediency. Of course, all indications suggest that it was political expediency in the first place that led Obama to join Trinity United Church of Christ, “the place” in 1988 for young, up-and-coming black Chicago politicians to burnish their credentials with the liberal African-American community. If so, the good senator is learning that the road of political expediency runs painfully in two directions.

In the lyrics of the haunting hit by the late Johnny Cash:

You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down

For Barak Obama, who sat for 20 years under the ministry of this raving racist kook, who listened to his sermons we now know were consistently laced with such venom, who as recently as several weeks ago stated publicly that he could no more disown this man than he could his own grandmother, and who consistently refuses to repudiate this man, the kooks are finally coming home to roost.

Last Friday it was my privilege to officiate at the intimate family wedding of our son Ben to the former Rachel Rojo, conducted at the famous Santa Monica Beach pier.

From right: Son David, Glory (holding her daughter Haley Peace), Rachel (our new daughter), son Ben, daughter Peace, son Richard (holding Glory’s son and our grandson Ethan Andrew)

This past Sunday I preached from Nehemiah 8 on “What Is Biblical Preaching?” My dear friend Bruce Torr phoned to remind me that the sermons from the now infamous Jeremiah Wright (Barak Obamah’s long-time racist pastor) are prime examples of what Biblical preaching is not. In brief, the problem is not simply the outrageous and unconscionable comments that the U. S, government devised AIDS to commit genocide against blacks and that God should “damn America.” No, the point is that those comments, abhorrent though they may be, could never have arisen in the first place had the Right Rev. Racist Wright been a Biblical preacher in the first place. If you have read one of his sermons, you’ll know — if you know Biblical preaching at all — that he’s short on history and exegesis and long on (unwarranted) application. Application is essential, but application must rest on rigorous grammatical-historical exegesis, not homiletical flights of fancy. In the memorable words of Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart: “A text cannot mean what it never meant.”

This is the case whether the preacher is black, white, Hispanic, Asian — or anything else.

One of the great privileges of my life is to serve in various venues with devout, gifted Christian leaders. One such venue is eldership at my home church, Church of the King-Santa Cruz, and one such leader is Michel Junod, former YWAM missionary to Chile and one of the most Bible-drenched men I know (if I can’t recall the location of a Biblical verse, Michel can usually assist me). Michel is also and by no means coincidentally a world-class longboard surfer (and shaper) and is broadly recognized as such. The current issue of The Surfer’s Journal, lushly printed and photographed, details Michel’s surfing career under the apt title “Journeyman: Michel Junod’s Quiet Surfing Career,” by Christian Beamish. Michel will soon be featured in one of the most anticipated surfing films in years, Thomas Campbell’s The Present.

In the article linked above, Michel allows his passionate Christian faith to shine through in a clear but unobtrusive way. This man is a remarkable cultural leader.

Barak Obama’s revealing comments in Marin County suggesting that middle-class Americans cling to religion and guns in response to economic hardships opens a path of irony — and victory — for John McCain.

Since at least the 1930’s, the Democratic Party has been widely identified as the party of the working stiff, the union laborer, the poor and disadvantaged, while the Republican Party has been seen as the party of the country-club set, big business, and the pampered and privileged. Although the academic elite has been in the hip pocket of the Democratic Party for decades, the fact that the only two Democratic presidents in the last 40 years (Carter and Clinton) were widely (if sometimes incorrectly) perceived as down-home boys while three of the last four Republican presidents (Nixon, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush) were visibly positioned in the privileged class testifies to the distinct social appeal of each party.

If, as seems likely, Obama will emerge as the Democratic nominee in 2008, McCain can readily exploit Obama’s elitism in contrast with his own populism. McCain is a lot of things, but a patronizing elitist is not one of them. His down-home style and guts & glory autobiography will play well in Peoria, though not in the Hamptons, no matter what the economy is like and no matter how the war is going. And there are more votes in places like Peoria throughout the fly-over states than in the Hamptons on the liberal coastlines, and if McCain can tap into the social fabric of those mid-America voters, he’ll turn the partisan tables and best the slick law review editor with a Harvard accent.

“In the world of capitalism, the consumer is king. Success depends on serving the market. Powerful executives and glamorous stars may hold their audiences in contempt — but they will keep that contempt secret if they know what’s good for them. Popular culture in the Anglo-American world aims to please, and its skills at pleasing have been carefully honed through centuries of experience, trial and error, and the fiercest economic competition the world has ever known.”

Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World

Late last night in a phone call David Bahnsen alerted me to Doug Wilson’s extensive (and mostly sympathetic) treatment of Schneider’s The Good of Affluence: Seeking God in a Culture of Wealth. Because I so forcefully disputed the other Doug’s review of Schneider, it is only fair to commend the first Doug’s. Wilson’s serialized blog review really is a review, and a fine one at that. He actually interacts with Schneider, highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement and giving reasons for his disagreement. My commendation of Wilson’s review is due not primarily to his mostly favorable assessment but rather to his willingness actually to take the book seriously. It is, after all, one of the few books in English explicitly committed to offering a distinctly Christian view of wealth grounded in an overarching but exegetical Biblical theology. Wilson has read this book carefully, interacted with it critically and analytically, and has no doubt profited greatly from reading it — as I have.

The June issue of Christian Culture is scheduled to carry Schneider’s “The Affluence of Capitalism as a Christian Good,” the great talk he delivered March 7, 2008 in Newport Beach, California at the Marketplace Ministries Dinner and co-sponsored by the Center for Cultural Leadership.

Email me your surface address if you want to receive a copy when it’s published.

My article “Global Ecology and Godly Stewardship” in the April/May 2008 issue of Free Inquiry is presently available at better bookstores nationwide (you can also obtain a copy by calling 800-4581366 or sending email).   Free Inquiry (published by the Council for Secular Humanism) is arguably the most vocal and literate secular humanist magazine in the world.  Here is editor Tom Flynn’s introduction to the symposium on global ecology, of which my article is a part.  Note his comments about my article and the position I take.

I was encouraged to discover the video of the Midwestern Bapitst Theological Seminary lecture “The Development and Practice of Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease?” by my good friend Cindy Kunsman. This video version of Cindy’s lecture counters the misguided Patriarchy that has infested the modern church. Both radical feminism and radical patriarchy are blights to the church. Kudos to Cindy for her courage in addressing these issues responsibly. She and her husband, Dr. Gary Kunsman, are committed to exposing the cultism in today’s church.

These delicious words from the ever-provocative Mark Driscoll:

There is a strong drift [these days] toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.

Right on, Right Rev. Reformissional Mark, and I hate the effeminate-Emergent pictures of Jesus too; but the question isn’t whether you or I can frame a Jesus we’ll feel comfortable worshipping but whether we’re willing to worship the Jesus actually disclosed in the Bible.

And that Jesus may end up being quite different from both the limp-wristed Emergent Jesus and “Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed.”

You don’t get to choose your Jesus. He gets to choose.

Steve and Mary Walker, Amity, OR

Jeremy, Melissa and Klara Swanson (son Zach absent), Kennewick, WA

Connie Souther, David’s unflagging wife, Bend, OR

Clint and Elizabeth Miller, Seattle, WA