During my years with the Christian Reformed Church the days I could endure dominated over those I couldn’t. In the last few years there has been a reversal of sorts. This morning served to affirm not only to be a prime example of a day I cannot endure, but also just how bad things can get when an institution exchanges its confessional heritage for a seat under the Big Top. (Do bread and lentil stew just taste better under a circus tent?)
This week, evidently, is Disabilities Week in the CRC. Amongst many things, this means that the Sunday services of confession and assurance are co-opted by a political correctness designed around the dictum’s of inclusiveness. It is not the gospel which should bring flesh of every tribe (and ability) together for the sake of God’s glory alone, rather it is wisdom of men that needs to be invoked in order that everyone might, ahem, get along. This is the “social” version of church growth. If we aren’t busy meeting the felt needs of the general populace by adopting the ways of entertainment in worship we are showing just how culturally relevant we are by pandering to yet another demographic.
But whether it is the irony of specially treating those with disabilities as we speak about treating them ordinarily, or it is the political correctness of Sanctity of Life Sunday (are you listening, John Piper?), Constantinianism appears to still be reaping the spoils of the victorious Christian life in America—at least when it comes to anything from soft social or hard political policy. Jesus is politely told to move over a skosh in his throne so that room might be made for whatever man deems as terribly urgent and needful of heavenly sanction. Whether we need to plead forgiveness on behalf of a nation for its unfaithfulness to Psalm 139, or we should resolve to do better at removing the barriers between the wheelchair and front door, either way, we show just how long, deep and wide our blind spot is when it comes to the unfettered gospel.
It is bad enough that American religionists of the Christian persuasion—Reformed notwithstanding—are fairly well clueless about how to ordinarily go about the common projects of cultural, social and political work. Typically, they seem predominantly wooed by pragmatism and largely only conversant with the extraordinary stuff of activism. And heaven forbid they should lose the day, admit that they could be wrong or (gasp!) have to live with a proximate justice over against their notion of an exact one. That is one thing, and what a thing it is to be quite sure. But it is when they allow the more obnoxious varieties of cultural belligerence to infiltrate the church and distract from the gospel it is beyond merely a supreme annoyance. Baptizing ideologies is nothing short of sacrilege. Ideologies may flame in shades of red and blue in America, but nothing compares to the white heat of heaven.
The Confessional Outhouse 
Yep. If the protestants aren’t going to bring the unfettered gospel of Jesus Christ, they’ve got nothing to offer. No matter how needful it may appear at the moment, it’s being done better somewhere else.
I’m sorry Zrim. That’s awful.
He is coming.
Pingback: Two on Christ and Culture « Heidelblog
Zrim:
I thought your article was very appropriate.
Here is an article in the latest Banner titled “On Being Reformed” by Cornelius Plantinga Jr., President of Calvin Theological Seminary, which shows that you are on target for your comments that shows a drifting away from being a single beacon of light on preaching Reformed doctrine to a mutitude of points of light (if you can even call them that) focusing on the latest, most culturally relevant, social agenda of the week. There is almost an embarrassment or almost an apology for being Reformed. There is also an apparent desire to show how the Reformed are really not that different.
I quote the article in full. I also put his comments in quotes. My comments are not in quotes. I alternate his paragraph of his comments in quotes followed by my paragraph of my comments not in quotes.
“On Being Reformed”
“Mention to a stranger that you are “Christian Reformed” and watch his eyes cloud over. He gets the Christian part. But Reformed? What were you before? he wonders. A drunk? A hustler?”
So, who cares?! I think the CRC has been far too defensive about being Reformed. Rather than proudly holding Reformed doctrine like an Olympian would carry a torch of light, the CRC too often seems to either hide that torch of light under a bushel basket or call it, so to speak, just “a helpful stick” to blend in with everyone else.
“Trying to explain that, actually, you belong to a church of the Reformed branch of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation with roots in Switzerland, France, England, and Scotland, and with a system of church government and of doctrine that stems principally from the thought of Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Bullinger—well, that doesn’t bring sunny skies to our stranger’s eyes. He now looks at you the way people do when you try to explain one of your jokes to them.”
Why start with history? Why not start with Scripture and a focus on God’s sovereignty?!
“And, yet, maybe it’s OK that to many people “Reformed Christianity” has all the definition of a fog bank. The truth is that there’s little about us that is really distinctive. We should worry if there were. It’s cults and heretics who want to be different from everybody else. Reformed Christians, by contrast, are just regular, meat-and-potatoes Protestants who, like all other Christians, owe much to the church fathers and especially to the great Saint Augustine (354-430).”
No, we are not “just regular, meat-and-potatoes Protestants … like all other Christians”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We emphasize how important sound doctrine is. We emphasize how important sound Reformed doctrine is. We emphasize how important sound Reformed confessional doctrine is.
“Even after the Reformation, we Protestants still share a good deal of doctrine not only with each other but also with Rome. Read The Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will see how much. As C.S. Lewis showed us in his modern classic, there is such a thing as Mere Christianity.”
No, we are not like Rome!!! One of the most important facts of “Being Reformed” is that we proudly stand apart from Rome. The most important historical fact of being Reformed is that we broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, because of our conviction that it was a false church. We still believe that today. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church has not changed substantially even though they still may not sell indulgences nor contain as many flagrant abuses in behavior.
“Still, all major church groups have their own ways of being Christian—their own worldview, doctrinal emphases, ministry patterns, church government. Few items in this mix are unique ingredients: it’s the particular combination of them that gives a group its character.”
No, all major church groups cannot be considered Christian even though they may claim to be so. Many church groups have fallen out of the circle of what can be truly counted a Christian. This paragraph almost admires these groups as if they are spicy and have their own desirable flavor. No, it is more true to state that they have lost their salt and are now worthless.
“So Reformed Christians, too, have typical characteristics—ways, you might say, of “speaking Christian” with a Reformed accent. For example, it’s characteristic of Reformed Christians to make much of the need for disciplined holiness in our new life, a holiness motivated by gratitude, shaped by God’s law, and practiced through a daily “dying-away of the old self” and “coming-to-life of the new self.” In the March Banner, Rebecca Prins captures this characteristic emphasis by writing simply that “to be Reformed is to be always changing our lifestyle so that it is pleasing to God,” and she adds, significantly, that in secular settings this is a profoundly countercultural move.”
No, we, Reformed Christians, don’t just speak with a Reformed accent implying that it is like a Dutch accent. Although Reformed Christians are disciplined and holy and “changing our lifestyle so that it is pleasing to God”, it is not Reformed Christians’ signature mark. Many Arminian denominations also emphasize those features and also appear to be disciplined and holy and “changing our lifestyle so that it is pleasing to God”.
“A second characteristic: Reformed Christians take a huge view of the kingdom of God and of God’s sovereignty within it. God’s realm includes the church as chief instrument of the kingdom, but also government and law, medicine, sports, education, music, food production, social services, and any other arena you can think of. God is the author of all that is good in these things, the foe of all that is corrupt in them, and, one day, the perfecter of all—including us. We cannot save ourselves; Dwayne Felver is entirely right to testify that salvation is through faith alone.”
Yes, the emphasis of God’s sovereignty may be the Reformed Christians’ signature mark. But, no, Reformed Christians do not teach God’s sovereignty to build a kingdom here on our earth. First, we teach God’s sovereignty, because it is one of God’s most important characteristics. Second, we teach God’s sovereignty. because it glorifies God. Third, we teach God’s sovereignty, because it is the central message of His Word, the Bible. Fourth, we teach God’s sovereignty, because it is the basis of our salvation.
“Still, in the coming of the kingdom God has called us to play a role by celebrating what’s good, working for reform in what isn’t, and looking forward in hope to God’s redemption of all in the new heaven and earth. We’re “co-workers with Christ” in this, as Melissa Groot writes. “All of life is part of Christian service,” declares Harry Kits. Kelly Brower lifts up the resurrection of Jesus as the chief sign of God’s triumph in the end, and delights in her calling to praise God in the interim through her dancing. And Jeannette Smith draws comfort from God’s sovereignty in a world that otherwise can seem so desolate. All six respondents speak with a Reformed accent.”
No, again, this concluding paragraph focuses on building a kingdom here on earth. Let me repeat. Reformed Christians do not teach God’s sovereignty to build a kingdom here on our earth. First, we teach God’s sovereignty, because it is one of His most important characteristics. Second, we teach God’s sovereignty. because it glorifies God. Third, we teach God’s sovereignty, because it is the central message of His Word, the Bible. Fourth, we teach God’s sovereignty, because it is the basis of our salvation.
Yours truly,
Bill Hornbeck
As a permanently (yet only temporally!) physically disabled individual I grieve at this worthless substitution for (distraction from, departure from, addition to, etc.) the proclamation of Christ crucified. What did Paul say about “dung”?
I’m not so sure that I could be any more upset than you, Zrim. It was bad enough growing up in GARBC and having to hear, among other things, those awful mother’s and father’s day messages! Now this! What’s next?!? (I’m thankful our small PCA church hasn’t gone this far… not that we’re without issues.)
The pc crowd in the churches seems to pay more attention to us poor, pitiful, disabled folks when we speak about overcoming our disabilities than to God (who has all, is all powerful, and is worthy of all praise, etc.) when he tells us in his word how he overcame for us through the cross.
If I had been there, I think I may have had a brief case of self-conscious unwarranted guilt at having contributed to this… followed by anger and grief.
By the way, I noticed that an “Offering for CRC Disability Concerns” was scheduled. Perhaps I could send them my address or do you think direct deposit would work better? 😉
Greg,
Well, I am a deacon on the benevolence committee at Calvin. I’d suggest the new direct deposit route, since everyone is just giddy over exchanging an act of worship for the actions of a glorified charity (what’s next, bread and wine in a vending machine?).
But then I’d be promoting all sorts of oddities and departures. Maybe I’d have to request to be assigned to the promotions committee.
May I suggest that you guys change the font back to what it was, or at least to one that is easier to read? Does the CRC not have a Blind-Awareness Week or something?
J,
One day everything went all different and I don’t know why. But it really bugged me for the same reason. I guess I will just have to be patient and learn to live with that which makes me uncomfortable. My wife hates when I talk like that. I have to live with that, too.
OK, but while you’re withdrawing, I’ll call up some PCA buddies to storm the gates of WordPress and demand immediate action.
I’m not withdrawing, I am fully involved detaching. No storming is necessary, just working with a proximate system…like the DMV. But that doesn’t mean I’d resist your help!
And the Kellerites are fully disinterested recapturing.
I, meanwhile, will be partially annoyed napping.
Funny, that’s what I find myself at the DMV, partially annoyed napping, wishing someone would fully disinterestedly recapture. But then someone calls my number and I am happy again.
Funny, I always saw the DMV as a place for “groaning” In fact I’m sure that waiting in line at the DMV is what Edvard Munch had in mind. If the Kellerites can reclaim it, and if reclaiming it means getting me through line quicker, I’m willing to reconsider my position on the issue.
If falling off either side of Luther’s horse is triumphalism or despair, does pragmatism just make me an urbanite?
Sean,
Maybe. But it might just mean you’ve had one too many.
Tempting as it may be, I’d rather wait in line than sign up for transformational seminars. Do those seminars even have lines? If they do, isn’t that like the guy who sells his program on how to make lots of money instead of just applying his own principles to make lots of money?
Ah, well it’s certainly been a latent desire all day, so that fits. I figured it could also meant I’ve learned how to ride, but then I realized that required agreeing to grab the left reign with my right hand and I think inebriation could be the only justification for such an action.
Actually, I was thinking about what you’ve said before about proximate justice and it occured to me; “how did he get married?” than today you said your wife hates when you talk that way, and I realized she probably doesn’t read your blog and doesn’t realize your satiety with proximate justice and that’s how you get away with it. If however that is not the case…….does she have a sister?
Oh, they don’t only have seminars, Keller has got a church-planting program. It’s particularly oriented to the urban environment but in true big tent fashion it can be utilized for any setting. (although I’m not sure the applicability of mid-week bible study for twenty-something lesbians anyplace else.) The manual is $35.00. I jest not. (well I’m not sure the outline for that bible study demographic is actually cited in the manual)…………… I’m going for that bottle of Maker’s, you may want to do the same.
Sean,
Oh, she knows full well my comfort with proximate justice–she need read no blog of mine to know that. And if she ever has a problem with it, I remind her that she benefits from the whole notion as well…more than she might realize.
Yes, she has a sister. They are both deeply cut from the same revivalist cloth, so, like me, you’d have your work cut out for you for various reasons (one of which would be having to deal with th efact that she is quite happily married).
Lol. The whole married bit is quite an impediment, though good to hear it’s merry.
Oh well, I’ve decided that I’m just not going to reveal my contentment with less than strict justice in this realm, ’till after I’m married.
As far as lines, it’s yet another good rebuttal to those ushering in a golden age; “Yes, but if I still have to stand in line than how glorious can it be.”
Sean,
Disneyworld has brutal lines and it’s the most magical place on earth. I think I’d prefer those lines, seeing’s how even Disneyites say that knowing it’s just a sales pitch (well, that and it’s a lot of fun).
Do the Kellerites really think they are ushering in a Golden Age if the Disneyites know they aren’t really holding forth magic, just selling a good time? Talk about self-deception. I guess Stellman is right, pagans make better Vosians.
(Once, my father lost his wallet at the back of MGM studios. We ran to the front and it beat us there, thanks to an upright employee, all still intact. He is something of a dork and exclaimed to the young girl at the booth, “It really is the most magical place on earth!” What a dweeb.)
Zrim,
I don’t know if they’re so much golden agers as kingdom conflagrators. Their selling something alright and they seem to know it, but they consider that winsome on their part. I call it baiting. In that way they’re very much like their Disney counterparts. At least at Disneyworld you’ve got pictures to prove it exists.
True enough. Ok, golden agers-light. Seems to me that there are degrees of kingdom compromise, collapse and conflageration. Some are soft (Keller), some are hard (Kennedy).
I still don’t mind being baited by Disneyites though. They bait legitimately. This has always been the rub in American religion, insofar as it uses the ways of the world to effect the things of God (read: revivalism). The problem isn’t that the world does what it does, but that the church does what the world does.
Amen.
Zrim,
Could you unpack a bit more your comment about John Piper preaching pro-life sermons on Sanctity of Life Sunday? Obviously it’s not part of the historic church calendar, but how is it politically correct? I’m not sure that I see how preaching a sermon about the abortion issue is tantamount to promoting Constantinianism or the victorious Christian life. Isn’t it terribly urgent to preach the truth about that issue of our day? I’m not disputing the overall point you make in your post; just wanting some clarity about your thoughts on Piper.
Sincerely,
David
David,
It is a particular brand of PC known to religious conservatives. It is the stuff of values-voters and group-think. It is the litmus test of orthodoxy in our circles where we think theological conservatism implies ideological conservatism, and we are all supposed to parrot the “company line” when it comes to this particular issue. I decline to take my ideological cues from those mostly informed by an obnoxious form of activism. I am not a moral-federalist, so I have no seat with conventional “pro-lifers,” and am not sympathetic to their activism. (That is to say, if you want to know my own thoughts here, I think it is a state’s rights issue, not a moral issue to be enforced by the federal governement, no matter which side. My view gets pretty much no play in the typical national conversation. Good thing I’m not activistic or I’d go nutty.)
Frankly, my overall point relies on seeing this. The PCism of inclusiveness (i.e. the tragedy of Disabilities Sunday) finds its counterpart in the PCism of something like pro-lifeism (i.e. the silliness of Sanctity of Life Sunday). They rely on the same principles, just apply it differently.
Yes, it is urgent to preach the truth of the day, namely the unfettered gospel. The concerns of the disabled and unborn have nothing to do with that. If we think they do, we have missed the gospel.
Zrim,
I guess I’m with you on the danger of conflating the gospel with ideological conservatism, but aren’t you pushing that point a bit too far in saying that “the concerns of the disabled and unborn have nothing to do with the gospel.” Nothing? No connection at all between the person and work of Christ in the gospel, and the tragedy and evil of abortion? I understand the need to always preach Christ and Him crucified, but as I see it there is also the responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God, which includes pointing out the evils of abortion (e.g. from a passage like Psalm 139).
David
Zrim,
I guess I’m with you on the danger of conflating the gospel with ideological conservatism, but aren’t you pushing that point a bit too far in saying that “the concerns of the disabled and unborn have nothing to do with the gospel.”
Nothing? No connection at all between the person and work of Christ in the gospel, and the tragedy and evil of abortion? That doesn’t compute for me. I think the cross has implications for everything. Not the kind of implications that the Christian right thinks it does, but implications nonetheless.
I understand the need to always preach Christ and Him crucified, but as I see it there is also the responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God, which includes pointing out the evils of abortion (e.g. from a passage like Psalm 139).
David
Sorry about that double post. Somehow I sent it when I wasn’t done thinking/writing…
David
David,
Yes, I am pushing it. But not too far, I think. I realize the language I am using is pretty stark, but that is to make the point. I am speaking more figuratively than literally.
“Preaching the whole counsel of God” is very often used to, ahem, baptize ideology. Does this mean we cannot have a position on whatever issue? Of course not. I have my views. But it isn’t at all clear how the gospel implies my particular views, especially when those who reject the gospel I embrace share my views. Christians of various ideological persuasions often think their own conclusions are clearly implied by Christianity. One thinks it implies something about labor laws, another about reproductive non/rights, the size of government or economic theory. But this is really all a form of idolatry.
“I understand the need to always preach Christ and Him crucified, but as I see it there is also the responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God, which includes pointing out the evils of abortion (e.g. from a passage like Psalm 139).”
I think this is a good example of compromise where the gospel gets diluted as it is forced to share its glory with a tradition of men. Remember, Rome never rejected the doctrine of grace, it just wanted to say this “alone” stuff was too radical, or as someone just said, “pushes the point a bit too far.” I see a necessary pararallel between how Rome and the Protestants understood something like the doctrine of grace (alone) and how modern religionists of the Christian persuasion want the gospel to share space with certain politics. I agree that this is radical, but I think that is the point.
Zrim,
I agree that a statement like “preach the whole counsel of God” could be used to baptize an ideology. But if you think that preaching about the sanctity of life from a biblical passage like Psalm 139 is an example of compromise, or somehow sharing the glory with a tradition of men, well — I’m not sure quite what to say. It seems like an awful lot of biblical teaching about human existence will be screened out to fit your idea of what constitutes a pure gospel sermon.
I think you are making some leaps in how you are reading my concerns. I’m not trying to smuggle social justice into the gospel, or to confuse law and gospel or something. But biblical preaching ought to address in some fashion the issue of abortion, wouldn’t you agree? After all, our heroes who preached a pure, unfettered gospel (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) certainly did address pressing societal issues of their day? Was their gospel compromised or diluted? Is the whole arena of ethics off-limits for gospel preachers?
Sincerely,
David
David,
I am not saying ethics are off limits. That would be absurd. I am saying that politics are. Seems to me many don’t distinguish the two very well.
Why should biblical preaching address abortion? Are there any social issues you think would be off limits? Why?
See, it seems to me that we tend to be much more lenient about what we allow to invade the gospel when it comes to those politics we feel particularly strong about; we tell the other guy he can’t do this or that because it’s “smuggling social justice into the gospel.” What that really means is he can’t smuggle his but I can smuggle mine. When he does it he is “confusing law and gospel.” When I do it, it’s “biblical ethics.” Isn’t that fairly transparent?
Zrim,
Agreed, we tend to define our own hobby-horses as “ethics” and the others guy’s hobby-horses as “social justice” or “confusing law and gospel.”
But still don’t see how that rules out addressing in a sermon the sanctity of human life as it relates to the issue of abortion. Is there really a big range of allowable Christian viewpoints on the issue of reproductive rights? Obviously when it comes to particular schools of economics, the biblical data is a little more general and preachers ought to tread carefully in delving into those issues. I think where the Scripture is crystal clear we can be crystal clear (e.g. man is made in God’s image; therefore destroying human life is wrong) and where Scripture is more debatable we exercise extreme caution (e.g. economic views). Make sense? I guess what got my goat about your post is that it seemed like a cheap shot against John Piper, who in my estimation is a faithful and exemplary preacher of the gospel.
Anyhow, I probably need to sign off on the discussion, so that instead of talking about preaching I can actually go write a sermon! 🙂
Thanks,
David