modern-reformation-turns-10-january-february-2002 by Modern Reformation

C J

O A

N B

T R

E 0

N V

T E

S N

MODERN REFORMATION TURNS TEN

11 Why the Alliance? The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals remains committed to its original vision of promoting the central truths of the Protestant Reformation to a desperately needy church. by Michael Horton

15 Whatever Happened to Evangelicalism? A church historian argues that the sad state of Evangelicalism over the last ten years is reflected well in the pessimistic books of at least three leading scholars. by D. G. Hart

18 How My Mind Has Changed: The Insufficiency of Scripture Contrary to the common assumption that the Westminster Confession teaches the sufficiency of Scripture, the author contends that both the light of nature and Christian prudence are essential in matters of faith and life. by T. David Gordon

Thinking Like an Exegete Reading Scripture seriously requires a conversation with contemporaries, as well as with theologians of the past. The results impact individual Christians and the church at large. by Paul R. Raabe

From Rags to Riches A journey in and out of the Charismatic movement, for one Lutheran minister, meant moving from theological rags to the riches of the gospel. by Don Matzat

How My Mind Has Changed on the Centrality of the Congregation Finding the church central to Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eternal plan works out practically for the Christianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth in both encouragement and discipline. by Mark Dever

The Importance of Creedal Theology COVER PHOTO BY ARTVILLE

An argument that the great ecumenical creeds of the church are significant for both defining Christian identity and shaping Christian proclamation. by Charles P. Arand

Ten Years Into a Modern Reformation

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton Executive Editor D. G. Hart

n the very first issue of Modern Reformation, when it was merely a newsletter, these words Managing Editor Irene H. DeLong

announced the editorial vision for the magazine that would soon follow:

“With a name like [this] we cannot be accused of subtlety. At first glance, many might associate that name with the sixteenthcentury Reformation, and we will not deny the association. However, we are a twentiethcentury group, specifically bent on helping bring another Reformation to our hi-tech contemporaries…. It is our conviction that today’s church—whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Independent, has sold its treasures to the highest bidder. Even ‘evangelicals’ who boast of being heirs of the sixteenth-century Reformers resemble the medieval Christians more than those who like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Hus, Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer, sought to proclaim ‘Grace Alone,’ ‘The Scriptures Alone,’ and ‘To God Be The Glory.’… We don’t need any more ‘God, Save America’ movements…. No, we need another Reformation. The world at its worst needs the Church at her best.” Ten years ago, when Modern Reformation started as a magazine, this was the same aim of the magazine—as tall an order for a bimonthly, glossy, fifty-page publication as it was for a quarterly, four-page newsletter. Anniversaries provide occasions for assessment. And one question that such an assessment invites is how successful the modern Reformation has been. Judging strictly by the standards of magazine publishing this one appears to be thriving. The art and graphics are more appealing, the writing is better, the topics are more interesting, and the subscriptions are higher than they were ten years ago. But the purpose of Modern Reformation is not simply to be a successful magazine. It is to carry out another Reformation, one that extends even into a new millennium. Judging our success here is a little more complicated. Has there been a return to “Grace Alone,” “The Scriptures Alone,” and “To God Alone Be the Next Issue Glory”? The answer, Right With God: Why as some of the Justification Still Matters articles in this issue

2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

suggest, would not be the most comforting. In fact, the areas of concern that informed the original mission of Modern Reformation may have disappeared only to be replaced by even more pressing theological and practical problems in American Christianity. This means, of course, that there is still plenty of work to do, which is another way of saying that the Church is truly always in need of reform. Still, has Modern Reformation made a difference? Here it might be useful to remember how the original Reformation was faring in 1527, only a decade after Martin Luther nailed the Ninety-five Theses to the Wittenberg Castle Church door. At that time, the gains of the Protestant world were negligible. Germany, where the Reformation had made its greatest impact, had just endured the Peasants’ War; John Calvin, only eighteen-years old, was still seven years away from being a Protestant; in England Henry VIII, still trying to secure a male heir, was trying to convince Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and significant reforms in the Netherlands were the better part of four decades away. Such a comparison, while reassuring in showing how slowly change occurs, also poses the problem of inflating Modern Reformation’s significance. This magazine is devoted to defending and making available the truths and practices of the Reformation to the contemporary church. And we see encouraging signs that more Christians are understanding the importance and relevance of Reformational teaching. But we are realists and do not assume that a magazine can accomplish anything approaching what the original Reformation did. But that is not a reason to stop. And so while reflecting on the last ten years, we hope to show as well that there is still much work to be done, enough even for another decade.

Alliance Council Gerald Bray ❘ D. A. Carson Mark E. Dever ❘ J. Ligon Duncan, III W. Robert Godfrey ❘ John D. Hannah Michael Horton ❘ Rosemary Jensen Ken Jones ❘ John Nunes J. A. O. Preus ❘ Rod Rosenbladt Phil Ryken ❘ R. C. Sproul ❘ Mark R. Talbot Gene E. Veith, Jr. ❘ Paul F. M. Zahl Department Editors Lisa Davis, Open Exchange Brian Lee, Ex Auditu Benjamin Sasse, Between the Times Mark R. Talbot, Reviews Staff ❘ Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Assistant Editor Diana S. Frazier, Contributing Editor Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Celeste McGhee, Proofreader Lydia Brownback, Production Assistant Contributing Scholars Charles P. Arand ❘ S. M. Baugh Jonathan Chao ❘ William M. Cwirla Marva J. Dawn ❘ Don Eberly Timothy George ❘ Douglas S. Groothuis Allen C. Guelzo ❘ Carl F. H. Henry Lee Irons ❘ Arthur A. Just Robert Kolb ❘ Donald Matzat Timothy M. Monsma ❘ John W. Montgomery John Muether ❘ Kenneth A. Myers Tom J. Nettles ❘ Leonard R. Payton Lawrence R. Rast ❘ Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie ❘ David P. Scaer Rachel S. Stahle ❘ David VanDrunen Cornelis Van Dam ❘ David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals © 2002 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 ModRef@Alliance Net.org www.AllianceNet.org ISSN-1076-7169

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

D.G. Hart Executive Editor

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $22 1 YR $15 1 YR $25 1 YR $40 1 YR $45

2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $75 2 YR $85

I am writing to express my appreciation for the July/August (Living In Exile) issue of Modern Reformation. As I interact with those involved in the Seeker-Sensitive movement, I have a growing conviction that they are a group of people who believe that Jesus is the “only” way, yet market him as the”best” way. Their attempts to market the gospel as the “best” way has led to unhealthy reductionism, an unholy emphasis on the felt needs of the sinner and an eclipsing of the purposes of God in redemption, namely, his glory. The consequences have been disastrous. Robbie Mouw Glen Ellyn, IL I want to extend a hearty thank you for being a beacon of good Christian thought in the evangelical community. I have been receiving Modern Reformation now for almost a year and have enjoyed every page of each issue. I have recently been reading some of your archived issues, what a rich source for engaging discussion! I am a person who loves to think and debate through issues facing the evangelical world and Modern Reformation is a wonderful source of information. Stay the course and may the good Lord continue to guide your paths. Joe Loughery Tacoma, WA

book is another contribution of the Moody/Keswick “Higher Life Movement,” the belief that there are two kinds of Christians. First, there are those Christians who live defeated lives of failure, groping out a mediocre unfulfilled existence, missing out on all that God would like to do through them if they would only follow certain simple steps to success. And second, there are those Christians who have “broken through” (see the subtitle, and the titles of the other books advertised in the back of the book, and the series title), and learned how to access the sustained exhilaration of being one of the top notch, elite, super-spiritual, macro-productive, successful Christians. While the book is about prayer on the surface, it is more essentially about getting into that supposed super high impact spiritual zone that will set you apart with power, and victory, and the fulfillment you have been longing for. It is within your reach! Just buy this best-selling book and follow these simple steps! Listen to these incredible success stories! All this could be yours, and more! So get up and pray the prayer of Jabez! This is infomercial spirituality. Don’t buy it. Such theology sells books because it plays on Christians’ insecurities and frustrations, but it fails to improve the soul because of its quick fix mechanistic appeal to simple solutions. Sanctification is a fire, not a magic prayer potion. Brenton C. Ferry Mt. Airy, NC

Join the Conversation! Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.735.5133 fax

Thank you for Mark Talbot’s review of The Prayer of Jabez. In addition to his thoughtful remarks, this book’s popularity also witnesses to the evangelical community’s willing and wide embrace of a nonReformed conception of sanctification. The short

ModRef@AllianceNet.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

E A

N F

E F

X R

C E

H R

A E

N O

by Peter A. Castor

Calvinism vs. Reformed Theology?

am reluctant to admit a growing disappointment in what seems to be not so much a trend as a discouraging by-product

of Reformed theology: its denigration of non-traditional styles and methods. Debating with another believer about

whether or not the Bible presents a clear doctrine of predestination, eternal security, or irresistible grace is one thing. To criticize

Interested in contributing to Open Exchange? Send your name, address, and essay topic to: Open Exchange c/o Modern Reformation Magazine 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 or contact us by e-mail at OpenExchange @AllianceNet.org

other believers for alternate techniques or styles, though, seems petty and divisive. While at a Ligonier Ministries conference several years ago, I was disturbed to hear one speaker dwell on the evils of contemporary praise music and another on the flawed methods employed within the modern church service. Whereas many good arguments can be made about any church that waters down the gospel, there is no justification in presuming that most contemporary methods result in (or are the result of) soft selling of the message. I am a recent subscriber to Modern Reformation, but already my contentions are bolstered by certain articles in your magazine. There are some friends to whom I would love to give a subscription of MR, wherein is argued many great tenets of Reformed theology in the words of those far more eloquent than myself. At the same time, I loathe the possibility of having to defend the magazine, a prominent voice of Reformed theology, over such ideas as the heresy of W.W.J.D. (“Why the Jesus We Want May Not Be the Jesus We Need,” May/June 2001) or the failing of contemporary churches due to the “shallow narcissism of cultural Christianity” (“Seekers or Tourists,” July/August 2001). My point is this: don’t we have a hard enough time fighting the dogma of insensitivity for our views on predestination or limited atonement without providing our critics with more ammo by criticizing styles or techniques which are endorsed and enjoyed even by many Calvinists? We argue that we’re not the callous purists we are made out

4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

to be only to have such defenses undermined by articles like these mentioned. I used to spurn the label of “Calvinist” and preferred instead to be considered “Reformed.” It is, after all, a theology founded in Jesus Christ, not in John Calvin. However, it seems that there is a tendency to promote (under the umbrella of Reformed theology) ideas that are not specifically grounded in Reformed theology. If this continues, I just might have to resort to dusting off some old labels and proudly slapping them back on. All because some of you reformers are giving us Calvinists a bad name.

Peter A. Castor is senior editor for the Practical Christianity Foundation.

E E

X X

A O

U H

D -

I T

T D

U M

Luke 7:11–47

Death vs. Life: An Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object about ten minutes’ walk to the cemetery—a cemetery ave you ever thought about the old proverbial question, “What happens when which, interestingly enough, is still there today. an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?” I ask because our study of So at the same time, two processions are converging. Scripture this morning will lead us to that very question. But first we should One is coming out of Nain, and at the head of this look behind the story reported in this text, where procession is death: the we must see two quite separate scenes developing. corpse of a young man and The first scene begins in Capernaum. Jesus, the the sorrow of his mother. From prophet from Nazareth, is becoming well known in The other is coming into REGINALD QUIRK the area. Already he has chosen twelve ordinary Nain, and at the head of this men as his followers, but his activities have procession is life: the Lord of attracted quite a crowd of others, too. I should say life, Jesus Christ; the that it was a mixed crowd. Some, no doubt, were resurrection and the life; the Senior Minister way, the truth, and the life. convinced that Jesus was a man sent from God; Resurrection Lutheran Church The two processions are others, genuinely impressed with his teaching, Cambridge, England on a collision course. And were interested to find out more. There were here we have the meeting of probably many more for whom it was a bit of sensationalism, a fad—the best since John the the unstoppable force and Baptist. But among them they made a “great crowd” the immovable object. Death is immovable. When in the words of our text. This great crowd was on this young man entered death, it was his final step. the move, as a flock following Jesus wherever he When death takes hold of a person, there is no led them. On this day he was leading them to a city room for argument or appeal against it. Death is the end; it has the last word. And right here that called Nain. Meanwhile, in Nain, the second scene is one of last word has been spoken on a young man’s life— tragedy. Another crowd is assembling, but this time death the immovable. But coming to meet it, the around a corpse, for a widow has lost her only son. other group is led by life itself. Jesus Christ came to The funeral procession, too, was a mixed sort of have the last word; he came that men should have crowd. There were some who had loved the young life, and have it more abundantly. man in life, and now shared the sorrow of his What will happen as these two meet, outside mother in his death. There would be the the gates of a city called Nain? professional mourners, too, musicians with doleful flutes and cymbals, called in as we might call in a The Death of Death team of undertakers. And, once again, among them Jesus sees the grieving widow and recognizes in they amounted to what the text calls “a large crowd this lady the suffering of one who had lost from the city.” They were on their way out of Nain, everything. And at once, Jesus enters into her

A Collision Course

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

sorrow. He has compassion for her. Death has struck the first blow in the encounter. Death has affected even the Son of God, as a tear, perhaps, begins to form in his eye. It is God who has weakened; death still prevails, with power to hurt the Son of God himself. God is no longer immovable—he is moved with pity. In his pity Jesus speaks his gentle words of consolation to the woman, “Do not weep.” And then he puts out his arm to the young man in the coffin as if claiming back for himself what has been seized by death. And while the bearers hold the coffin still he says, “Young man, I say to you arise.” It was said of Jesus that he spoke with authority,

for some time, since mankind entered death’s power. Death had spread to all men, in that all men had sinned, but now death was out to engulf the Son of God. The Lord of life and the prince of death were poised to meet in the final combat. To quote a favorite Easter hymn, “In a strange and awe-full strife, met together death and life.” And the battle took a familiar course. At Nain, Jesus was moved with compassion just as he was hurt in his own death. It was such compassion that brought God to earth, in the person of Jesus Christ—compassion for us who are all in death’s grip. Although he was in the form of God, he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death, even death on a he living, resurrected Lord of life won that strange and awful cross. God’s son submitted himself to strife, that death may be swallowed up in victory. death for us. But at Nain, Jesus overcame death and contradicted its final and not as the scribes of his day. Here we see the claim to the young man’s life. The living, true measure of his authority. Had death not resurrected Lord of life won that strange and awful spoken the last command to this young man? But a strife, that death may be swallowed up in victory. higher authority now countermands that order. “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is Jesus contradicts death, as a general going over the thy sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power head of a captain. of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives The contradiction is conveyed by the very us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” absurdity of this verse of Scripture: “And the dead man sat up, and began to speak.” What nonsense Dead to Sin, Alive to God there is in that phrase: “the dead man sat up.” If he I know that Christian preachers are often were dead, he could not sit up. If he could sit up, accused of not being relevant. But I can think of he was not dead. What nonsense. Unless we are nothing more relevant than this for any of us. For prepared to abandon an idea that is second nature the fact is that death will strike all of us eventually, to us—to say that with Christ death is neither an and sooner or later all of us will be carried up this unstoppable force nor an immovable object. It is aisle, or one like it, in a coffin, like the young man simply, as St. Paul had it, the last enemy to be of Nain. Only one thing can prevent that, and that overcome. Death is swallowed up in victory. This is if the end of the world should come first—a is, in fact, the death of death. possibility that cannot be discounted. But when That is very simply the lesson of this gospel death strikes us, final as it must seem, the Son of story. But we must understand that the lesson is not God—moved by compassion—will be there to restricted to this particular event, to this particular meet us with the power to disarm death, with story. I want you to understand the enormous eternal life instead. implications that follow when we once say that Everything that I have said has led us to think of death is not a final verdict but one contested by our salvation and our life in Christ as a future thing, Christ. I want you to understand this implication as if we actually have to die before we can begin to on two levels. benefit from the victory of Jesus. Not so. We must On the first level we may take the whole story also think of the implications of this gospel story at as a real-life parable of an even greater real-life another level. Jesus made it possible for us not only story. I mean that we can use the story of the to enjoy life after death, but also life before death. miracle at Nain to illustrate the final battle between For day by day this battle between life and death God and death, which was fought on the cross at goes on within each of us. Death has claimed us, Calvary, when God took on death and won. While not only for the fate that finally threatens us all, the funeral party was gathering at Nain, the powers death itself, but also to perform the works of death. of death and darkness were gathering on a much [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 9 ] wider scale. And indeed they had been gathering

6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

Speaking of... M

artin Luther was a Protestant. He was the father of Protestantism. Martin Luther was an evangelical. He defended the authority of Scripture and restored the gospel to its central position in the church. Martin Luther was a Protestant, and an evangelical; but was he a born-again … Absolutely No! In twentieth-century America, there are many zealous Christians whose experience of the faith bears little resemblance to that of Luther. We may think that if we just strip away the cultural accretions that have attached themselves to today’s born-again Christianity, we might discover the type of faith that Luther advocated, but that is mistaken. When all the cultural layers are peeled back, what is revealed is, at best, the faith that Luther left behind in the monastery when he discovered the gospel. If Martin Luther was a born-again Christian in the biblical sense, he was not a born-again Christian in the modern sense. Rick Ritchie, “Was Martin Luther a Born-Again Christian?” MR Jan/Feb 1992

o ignore creeds and confessions is the height of modern arrogance. Simply because we have microwaves and novocaine, we assume that ours is the wisest, most self-sufficient age in history. And yet, technological sophistication does not equal wisdom…. Christians have fallen into this modern arrogance by assuming that they do not need the teachers that Paul commended to Timothy. Nor do they need catechetical instruction. “I just believe the Bible” is no defense against cults, superstitions, apostasy, and heresy, since nearly every sect for the last two thousand years has claimed the Bible for its support. The answer is not to make the church’s teachers infallible interpreters of Scripture, as in Rome, nor to ignore the church’s teachers, as in contemporary Evangelicalism, but to have the humility to recognize that “iron sharpens iron” and that it takes the wisdom and insight of many interpreters over many centuries to help us to see our blind spots. Only a fool would ignore the accumulated wisdom of nearly twenty centuries. Michael Horton, “All About Heresy,” MR Jan/Feb 1994

love to come to church and sing. It is one of the few places where I am invited to do that! And it has always troubled me to look around and see people not singing. There may be good reasons for not singing occasionally. Sometimes I stop singing in some churches and my children lean over and whisper, “What is theologically wrong with that one?” There are times not to sing. But we are invited to sing praises with our whole heart. The Lord wants us to have an enthusiasm in his worship. And it is not really a matter of how much volume we can produce—that is not the primary thing to think about when we are praising the Lord. . . . But we do want to allow our hearts to be connected to God. That is why the Bible stresses the value of knowing the Scripture, memorizing it until those words fill our hearts and our minds. That is why it is so wonderful to sing the psalms, so that the very Word of God is planted in our hearts and in our minds. When we really know the psalms, our praise can rise so easily and so naturally to God. So, how are we to praise the Lord? We are to praise him with all our might, with all of our focused energy. W. Robert Godfrey, “What Does it Mean to Praise?” MR Jan/Feb 1996

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

Will the PC(USA) Split— Again? ensions in the mainline Presbyterian Church—the PC (USA)—which have been simmering consistently for nearly a century, appear to be nearing the boiling point again, just as in the 1930s and 1970s. On the surface, the current conflict centers on the ordination of practicing homosexuals and on the exclusivity of Christ. The root issue, though, is clearly the authority of Scripture, again as in the 1930s and 1970s. At the General Assembly last June, a 317-208 majority voted to delete the denomination’s “fidelity and chastity” ordination standard, which requires that ministers pursue sexual intercourse only within a traditional husband/wife marriage. This proposal must be approved

by a majority of the PC(USA)’s 173 presbyteries to become official. Voting at the presbytery level began in October and will conclude in April. Surveys show that 74 percent of laity and 65 percent of clergy support the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. Nonetheless, the peculiarities of presbytery voting—which disproportionately represent “specialized clergy” such as ordained therapists—make it more likely that the presbyteries will vote to eliminate the chastity standards. At the General Assembly, delegates were also unable to affirm unreservedly that Jesus Christ alone is the Lord of all and the only way of salvation. Voters expressed concern that such statements hinder outreach efforts by making the church appear intolerant. One speaker told

250,000 SUM + of the =

Number of “God’s Top Ten”

TIME

book covers—which feature the Ten Commandments—in use

this year by American students. “Total Living Network,” which distributes the book covers, aims to get the Decalogue back into public schools.

8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

the assembly that different religions are simply articulating different understandings of God, much “like fruit with different flavors are all essentially the same.” And one Presbyterian seminary president said that the Bible is often terribly confusing on matters such as these. In response to these two actions, The Presbyterian Layman, which has long been recognized as the leading conservative publication in the PC(USA), took the drastic step of labeling the GA “an apostate assembly.” Denominational officials vehemently objected, and warned of the “sin of schism.” But the Presbyterian Lay Committee and Parker T. Williamson, executive editor of the Layman, defended the editorial, noting that both the Scots Confession and the Second Helvetic Confession, two historic Reformed documents, require the faithful to object publicly whenever “men, under the name of a council, pretend to forge for us new articles of faith, or to make decisions contrary to the Word of God….” (Scots Confession, chapter 20). Conflicts over biblical teaching on salvation and on

sexual ethics are surely not new in the PC(USA). In fact, this is the fourth ballot on sexual issues to be sent to the presbyteries since 1996. What is new, however, is the gathering of the dissenting congregations into an institutional structure. Last March, Rev. Paul Roberts of Summit Presbyterian Church (Pennsylvania) led his congregation in passing a resolution affirming Christ as Lord of all, Scripture as infallible, and God’s revealed moral standards—including on matters of sexuality—as unchanging, and not dependent on ever-changing cultural standards. Moreover, the resolution stated, this congregation will not ordain or install any minister who cannot affirm these three tenets, regardless of what the national body concludes on these matters. Somewhat surprisingly, PC(USA) congregations across the country quickly

began to follow the little Pennsylvania congregation, passing similar resolutions. The Presbyterian Layman quickly endorsed the movement, but there wasn’t any significant central planning or direction. Nonetheless, as of early November, more than 1,050 local churches representing over 350,000 members in 46 states had joined what has come to be called the “Confessing Church Movement” (CCM). Ministers and elders will hold a “national assembly” of CCM congregations February 2427 in Atlanta. Tensions have been exacerbated by the church’s new moderator, Jack Rogers, who has accused CCM leaders of “magnifying differences” to lead wellmeaning Presbyterians astray. Rogers, who calls himself an evangelical and spent much of his career teaching at Fuller Seminary, claims that most Presbyterians already affirm the CCM’s three tenets, and that placing extra emphasis on such matters aims only to divide Presbyterians.

ÍThe Rafiki Foundation, based in San Antonio, Texas, operates orphanages and young women’s centers for abandoned and uneducated children around the globe. Rafiki’s director, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ Council member Rosemary Jensen, noted recently that there are over twelve

Both Rogers and Clifton Kirkpatrick, national stated clerk, said in October interviews that the chances of the “negative people” leading a split were increasing. “The question,” Kirkpatrick told one group, “is not if but when.” He is not alone in this judgment. Even before the recent contentious General Assembly, a survey of PC(USA) ministers revealed that 73 percent expect that the denomination will ultimately break apart. Rogers asks how that would look to the watching world, especially in light of the September 11 attacks. Kirkpatrick echoes the sentiment, stating that in the midst of so much pain in New York City, the church should not allow any internal crisis to impede its work. Such comments, however, only reveal how little PC(USA) officials understand their critics. For the obvious CCM rejoinder is: But what is the work of the church? Is it not preaching repentance to the captives? Is it not urging all people to look to Christ for the

million AIDS-related orphans in Africa alone, and that one in three young South African women are raped in every five year period. To find out more about Rifiki’s multi-faceted services in these communities, and about current opportunities to participate either financially or on a short-

forgiveness for our sins— including homosexuality— and then to struggle against fleshly desires out of gratitude for what Christ has done? But how, CCM leaders ask, can the church do this work when so many ministers are unprepared to affirm that Jesus is the only hope, and are unwilling to call sin what the Bible calls sin? Even among confessional Presbyterians, though, important debates remain. Many within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which broke off of mainline Presbyterianism in the 1930s and 1970s respectively, wonder why so many Christians have so long remained in the PC(USA)— a body they’ve considered apostate for generations. Yet other Reformed Christians have asked if anyone is ever justified in leaving an ecclesiastical community. This latter group suggests that the faithful are always obligated to stay and preach the Law and the gospel. Though that may ultimately

term trip, see www.rafikifoundation.org. ÍAccording to the terms of a recent $5.3 billion buy-out deal, Disney can control the programming on its newly purchased Family Channel for 22 hours per day. At 10 a.m. and 11 p.m., however, Disney is obligated to continue airing “The 700

lead to being kicked out, they view this as preferable to secession. Never merely academic questions, these matters now confront immediately many in the PC(USA), a denomination which has hemorrhaged for decades. Down from well over four million members in the late 1960s, the body currently claims fewer than 2.5 million—a total that may be about to shrink even more dramatically. At an October meeting of the Presbyterian Coalition, a network of theologically conservative organizations in the denomination, almost exactly half of the 1,300 delegates present voted that “gracious separation” is now one of the legitimate options before them.

Club”—the favorite program of Family Channel founder Pat Robertson. “The 700 Club” is the program on which Robertson warned that God would send “earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor” to Central Florida if Disney World in Orlando hosted Gay Days ’98.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

MODERN REFORMATION TURNS TEN

Why the Alliance? n the churches of the Protestant Reformation, the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed is recited regularly, including the line, “I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Catholic means universal, and it refers to those truths that are, as St. Paul identified them, to be held “without controversy” (1 Tim. 3:16, KJV). It also refers to that body of Christians who, distinct from the heretical and schismatic sects that have plagued Christian unity throughout the ages, submit to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as he mediates his prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry in the visible Church through the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the impression is sometimes given in Protestant circles that the Christian Church started with Billy Graham or with the Protestant Reformation, whereas in fact the Reformation of the sixteenth century was an attempt to recover the ancient faith from the excesses of human pride and folly that had occurred during the Middle Ages. The reformers were not trying to start a new Church. That is why it was called the Reformation and not the Revolution. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other reformers saw themselves not as new apostles or prophets sent to establish a new and higher kingdom, but as ministers of the “one holy, catholic,

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N

and apostolic church” that had existed by God’s grace throughout the ages. They identified themselves with this. And so does the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. But unlike other cooperative efforts that came to fruition during the 1990s and that hoped to weaken the differences introduced by the Reformation, the Alliance’s outlook on unity and cooperation among Christians is one that staunchly affirms the central truths of the Reformation while also seeking to be catholic in the right sense of the word. For instance, months after the Alliance was formed (1994), the statement “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) was published, and in many quarters signaled a breakthrough in Protestant–Catholic relations. The unity achieved in this document was in the estimation of a number of evangelical leaders a weak one since it obscured the crucial differences between Rome and Protestants concerning the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Although the founding members of the Alliance did not have ECT explicitly in view as the basis for a new organization of confessing evangelicals, they did sense that evangelicalism was experiencing a failure of resolve concerning the central truths reclaimed in the Protestant Reformation. In response to the erosion of evangelical conviction in the face of modernity, the Alliance produced the “Cambridge Declaration,” (1996) a statement that reaffirmed the central truths of Scripture and called evangelicals back to the ongoing task of repentance and reformation

even an interchurch movement, the Alliance can lower the stakes and allow for a low-key cooperation on issues that matter most to us all. But precisely for that reason, we have to always be aware of the temptation to view our work as a ministry in its own right rather than as a resource for the ministry of the churches. Our goal is not to get together to complain, or to pontificate to the evangelical world, much less to impress the powers-that-be in Evangelicalism with our “power block,” but to generate constructive materials that churches can use, to create a “demand” for such churches, and to offer encouragement to those who are seeking reformation in their own churches. This sets the Alliance apart from other cooperative endeavors in the evangelical world. Agencies such as the National Association of Evangelicals exist largely, it seems, to coordinate joint inter-church efforts, not to promote a particular theology. Magazines such as Christianity Today, whatever their editors might hold personally, are institutionally incapable of defending a particular doctrinal perspective—even a classic evangelical one. Increasingly, voices that used to be “prophetic” are “managerial” in orientation, concentrating on keeping the factions together rather than standing for a particular interpretation of the Word of God. Over against mainstream evangelical projects that involve minimizing doctrinal differences, the Alliance seeks to promote the central truths of the Reformation, namely, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. That crucial Protestant insight lies at the heart of the Alliance’s endeavors and is the only Over against mainstream evangelical projects that involve minimizing doctrinal lasting basis for genuine reformation in the churches. differences, the Alliance seeks to promote the central truths of the Reformation, Still, the Alliance is not a church or an interdenominanamely, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. tional agency. We provide resources that pastors and laypeople tell us they can (see www.AllianceNet.org/pub/articles/html). Some find nowhere else. have wondered, however, whether the Alliance’s But is this basic truth sufficient for common purstatement is a proposal for unity fraught with prob- pose among evangelicals? In other words, what is lems similar to those exhibited by ECT. After all, to be gained from the Alliance by those Protestants although the differences among Lutherans, who are firmly committed to their own denominaBaptists, and Presbyterians, for instance, may not tional heritage? The Alliance may be useful to difbe as great as those between Protestants and ferent groups for different reasons. Some Southern Catholics, is not the unity implied by the Alliance Baptists and independent evangelicals, for instance, of Confessing Evangelicals one that also minimizes may be unfamiliar with their own historical roots important differences among Protestants in matters and the way that Arminianism rather than not simply of church polity and sacraments but Reformation theology has increasingly influenced also of doctrine? their ecclesiastical traditions. As laypeople and The answer to this question first involves a dis- church officers from these churches come to recclaimer about the nature of the unity affirmed by ognize what the Reformation faith is and that it the Alliance. Because it is neither a church nor rightly belongs to them, they may be encouraged

1 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

in their own struggle and support those leaders in blessings of Reformed and Lutheran interactions in their communions who promote these doctrines. the Alliance. Although the Alliance is wider, these Churches may also be more easily reformed are the two major streams of the magisterial according to God’s Word when they see that they Reformation and even those who do not fit neatly are not necessarily embracThe Philadelphia Confession of Faith, adopted by the Philadelphia ing an alien perspective. Baptists, for example, can Baptist Association in 1742, was based on the Second London appeal to the London and Philadelphia confessions and Confession of 1677. Its Calvinist theology was dominant among to various institutional charters to indicate a stream of Calvinistic views concerning American Baptists in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. sin and salvation. Even in independent churches where creeds and confes- into either category are connected to one or both sions may be replaced by significantly briefer state- of those traditions by history or sympathy. (For ments of faith, a remarkable consensus has existed instance, such denominations as the Evangelical on the sufficiency of Scripture and salvation by Free and Evangelical Covenant Church hail from grace alone through faith alone because of Christ Lutheran pietism while Reformed pietism has given alone. As many of us who regularly encounter rise to various groups such as the Moravians and mainstream evangelicals can attest, this is no small Calvinistic Baptists.) I have learned more about encouragement and incentive, especially for many Reformed theology by interacting with my who feel isolated. This probably goes largely for Lutheran friends. On the one hand, I have learned evangelical Anglicans as well, who can easily point that our two traditions are closer than I had imagto their Reformed roots in the Thirty-Nine Articles ined. Growing up in evangelical pietist circles, I as evidence of continuity with the aims of the lumped Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Alliance. Episcopalians together with Roman Catholicism On the other hand, conservative Lutherans may and liberalism. As I became a serious reader of find the Alliance useful for a different purpose. Reformed theology, however, doors swung open Surely their identity is not at stake in whether they that introduced me to a new world. The participate in the Alliance. (Some of them may Reformation world was, of course, filled with think that it’s at stake by their participation!) Unlike polemics and division. But it was also far more many other conservative bodies, Lutherans of the “catholic,” open-minded, ecumenical, and generous stripe we normally encounter (especially the than my evangelical upbringing had prepared me Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) are largely con- to believe. Increasingly, I have come to see that fessional and possess a strong sense of identity. But such emphases as Law-Gospel hermeneutics, sometimes that strength can be a weakness, and a Christ-centered preaching and theologizing, a parochial spirit can breed a sense of false confi- robust view of the means of grace and the ministry, dence, whereas the same distorting forces in mod- and a dogged commitment to the gospel of free ern Evangelicalism nevertheless eat away at confes- justification in Christ represent an enormous sional integrity from the inside. This has been all shared space of agreement. Many of our Reformed too true of confessional Reformed bodies as well, as and Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth and sevthe rapid “Americanization” of Dutch-American enteenth centuries knew that better than we do Calvinism in recent decades has proven. Such con- today, even though the polemics ran high when it fessional traditions can benefit from an encounter came to discussions of christological interpretation with non-Lutheran and non-Reformed related to the Lord’s Supper. We still have not Presbyterian Christians who are committed to found agreement on the mode of Christ’s presence many of the central concerns of biblical, apostolic, in the Supper, and there are other differences evangelical Christianity. Furthermore, a higher between us, but our Reformed and Presbyterian profile within American Evangelicalism (the fathers were right all along to see confessional fastest-growing wing of Christianity) provides Lutherans as our next of kin. I have become more another platform for confessional Lutherans to Reformed through my interaction with my speak to a wider circle of evangelicals interested in Lutheran brothers and sisters—not just as a result finding sound churches and to participate in shap- of going back to the sources to defend our docing a growing movement of truly evangelical trine, but as a result of going back to the sources Christianity within that wider stream. and discovering many shared themes and Here a word should be said about the particular emphases that, frankly, do not appear to even be on

FYI

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

the radar screen any longer in many of our Reformed and Presbyterian circles. I still think Lutherans are in error on some important points, just as they regard the Reformed; but the shared struggle for evangelical truth and the growing understanding of our real and not just caricatured differences has made it all worthwhile. In recent months I have had the opportunity to share our vision and, more importantly, our message, with many people who not only have never been exposed to the Alliance, but to Reformation teaching. There is nothing more exciting than watching the lights go on as people understand in a deeper way what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. Such encounters remind me why we call ourselves the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Like many others on the Council, I sometimes struggle with this broad identification. And yet, I am also constantly reminded of how many evangelical brothers and sisters there are out there who, though confused, are so thoroughly committed to Scripture that when they are convinced by it, they are quick to acknowledge its truth. This is not only something often missing from mainline churches, but, in my experience, is often missing in my own Reformed circles. It is not that the latter have a lower doctrine of Scripture, but that in our confes-

FYI

the contemporary Church is in desperate need of reformation and that a recovery of the central truths of the Reformation is necessary in part for such an outcome. Despite the differences that exist within the Alliance—and they are not slight—the unity of mission and message that exists among us is undoubtedly our greatest strength. And despite our own unfaithfulness, God remains faithful in getting his Word out in every generation—even our own. ■

Michael Horton (Ph.D., Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry) is associate professor of historical theology and apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and chairs the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

The Thirty-Nine Articles(1563) are a set of doctrinal statements

generally accepted in the Anglican Communion as having pri-

mary doctrinal significance.

The articles are not officially

acknowledged as a binding creed or confession of faith, but they do record the doctrinal foundations on which Anglican tradition grew. — Encarta Encyclopedia

sional circles it is so easy for us to treat the great truths enshrined in our confessional heritage as just that—a heritage to be accepted, rather than as a treasure to be rediscovered and shared in each generation. Many evangelicals display an enthusiasm for biblical preaching, teaching, and worship, not to mention evangelism, that our stodgy “conservatives” do not muster. Happily, a new Reformation is not dependent on Reformed, Presbyterian, or Lutheran churches, but on God’s Spirit blowing, by his Word, wherever he will—and often in the most unlikely of places. Whether or not the Spirit is at work in the efforts of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals— and we believe he is—we remain convinced that

1 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

MODERN REFORMATION TURNS TEN

Whatever Happened to

Evangelicalism? he decade of the 1990s was not the best of times for Evangelicalism in the United States. To be sure, evangelicals continue to be a force in national politics, and they have received favorable treatment in the press, such as Alan Wolfe’s positive coverage of evangelical academics in the Atlantic Monthly (October 2000). But Evangelicalism has also had to withstand several withering critiques over the last ten years from some of its most respected adherents. This soul-searching has exposed serious deficiencies in a movement that, since Billy Graham’s ascendancy in 1950 as its defining figure, was supposed to be the best hope for conservative Protestantism in modern times. The onslaught began with David Wells’s No Place for Truth (1993), a book that was as much social history as it was theology. The reasons the

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary theologian gave for Evangelicalism’s decline were many. But his diagnosis pounded a single theme, namely, Evangelicalism’s abandonment of theological reflection and conviction. Wells wrote, “The growth and prosperity of evangelical institutions during the 1970s and 1980s have brought with them much bureaucracy, and bureaucracy invariably smothers vision, creativity, and even theology. Leadership is now substantially in the hands of the managers, and … [t]he only semblance of cohesion that now remains is simply tactical, never theological.” A year later, Wheaton College historian, Mark A. Noll, piled on with The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994). As the title implied, Noll’s concern was narrower than Wells’s—the intellectual vitality versus the doctrinal health of the movement. Even so, Noll’s first sentence may have had more

by D . G . H A RT J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

bite than Wells’s sustained critique. According to Noll, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” And the reasons for Evangelicalism’s deficient intellectual life were theological. Evangelicals, as Noll explained, were heirs of two specific theological tendencies, namely, dispensationalism and creationism, that distorted the relationship between the creator and creation, and that mistook flimsy exegesis and stunted theological reflection for sound reasoning. If Noll’s and Wells’s books were not enough, in the final year of the decade the founding trustee of Scotland’s Banner of Truth Trust, Iain H. Murray, came out with Evangelicalism Divided (2000). Although written with developments in British Evangelicalism in view, Murray’s book provided yet another indictment of Evangelicalism, this time for a failure of nerve. According to Murray, “The health of the Church has always been in proportion to the extent to which, in her teaching, the difference between Christian and non-Christian has been kept sharp and clear. Once the line is blurred spiritual decline is a certainty.” And part of what Murray perceived in evangelical history since 1950 was an overreaction against the belligerence that characterized fundamentalism in exchange for a form of charity that was ultimately false because it overlooked explicit departures from central Christian verities. High Hopes hese books all exhibited a degree of disappointment that also implied higher expectations for Evangelicalism than what the movement actually delivered. No doubt, part of the frustration was that for serious Protestants Evangelicalism appeared to be the only option for preserving orthodoxy. With Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy out of the question, mainline Protestantism was the only other choice. But for Wells, Noll, and Murray, the liberal Protestantism embodied in the mainline churches was exactly the sort of danger posed by Evangelicalism’s lack of theological vitality and nerve. In other words, Evangelicalism was threatening to become no different from mainline Protestantism; it was becoming managerial and political at the expense of doctrine and witness. And if Evangelicalism was no longer trustworthy, where were conservative Protestants to turn? Yet the real problem may go deeper than Evangelicalism’s recent defections. It concerns the very notion of regarding evangelical Protestantism as a conservative form of Christianity. From its origins in the revivals of the eighteenth century, Evangelicalism has displayed a novel understand-

1 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

ing of the Protestant religion when compared to the chief characteristics of Reformation Protestantism. Perhaps the best way of describing Evangelicalism’s innovative ways is by noting its ties to pietism. To put it simply, modern-day Evangelicalism is the English-speaking version of the seventeenth-century reaction against formalism and creedalism in Protestantism when the heart triumphed over the head, ethics over doctrine and spiritual zeal of the Word and Sacrament. Definitions of pietism vary, in part because of the different historical circumstances in which it emerged. Technically speaking, pietism originated among German Lutherans during the seventeenth century, and its defining characteristic was to locate the essence of Christianity in “the heart.” This is why pietistic Protestants stress the conversion experience where the heart is “strangely warmed,” small group or individual Bible study where God speaks to the heart, and moral earnestness which reflects a changed heart. Ironically, a Roman Catholic, the Jansenist, Saint-Cyran, may have offered the best definition of pietism when he said, “The essence of piety is in the right ordering of the heart . . . in a heart living in this dependence and peace. It is not in the sacraments, not even in that of the body of Christ.” Another Roman Catholic, James Tunstead Burtchaell, recently and perceptively added that pietism is known above all for “the primacy of spirit over letter, commitment over institution, affect over intellect, laity over clergy, invisible church over visible.” As such, the heart religion of pietism, Burtchaell adds, “repressed any strong sense of the visible church.” Evangelicals may have trouble finding themselves in this portrait of pietism, but thanks to their reliance upon revivalism and the transforming experience of the individual’s decision for Christ, evangelical Protestants have neglected creeds, rituals, and Church order because these religious formalities are superficial and do not affect the heart. As the inheritors of pietism’s emphasis on the subjective side of Christianity, evangelicals have been unlikely exponents of the things that Protestants have historically conserved. Evangelicalism’s natural instincts, for instance, are to disregard those matters, such as creeds, liturgy, and Church polity, that the Protestant reformers implemented as part of their effort in reforming the Church. Evangelicals have made conversion and a high view of the Bible the tests of orthodoxy rather than theology, worship, and ordination. As such, over the course of the twentieth century, conservative Protestantism has been defined more by the kind of mass meetings at which Billy Graham speaks than by the practices in which pastors typically engage such as preaching, the Sacra-

ments, and church assemblies. In other words, pietism, the innovator in Protestant history, through Evangelicalism’s sway has become synonymous with religious conservatism. This is ironic at least because pietism was not designed to preserve Protestant orthodoxy or church structures but was to be an engine of renewal. Two important Protestant theologians of nineteenth-century America saw the tension between Evangelicalism’s innovations and Protestantism’s traditional ways. The first was William Julius Mann (1819–1893), an emigrant to the United States in 1845 and minister at St. Michael’s and Zion’s Congregation in Philadelphia, who defended Lutheran confessionalism against Protestant revivalism. In A Plea for the Augsburg Confession (1856), Mann argued that historic Lutheran beliefs and practices, such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, catachesis, and the legitimate authority of pastors could not be sustained by the theology and methods of revivalism. In sum, Lutheran piety, according to Mann, was essentially churchly and involved participation in the forms and doctrines of Lutheranism as opposed to Evangelicalism’s appeal to the solitary convert endeavoring to lead a holy life. Perhaps even more penetrating than Mann’s analysis of Evangelicalism’s weakness was John Williamson Nevin (1803–1886) who in The Anxious Bench (1843) diagnosed the revivals of the Second Great Awakening with breathtaking insight. Of course, part of this book’s importance stems from Nevin’s astute criticism of Charles Grandison Finney’s “new measures.” But in his conclusion, Nevin offered powerful observations about general trends within American Protestantism. “Two different theories of religion,” according to Nevin, were “at war.” Finney’s anxious bench stood for a shallow system of Christianity in which converts pulled themselves up by their experiential bootstraps. “With very little instruction, and almost no examination,” Nevin wrote, “all who can persuade themselves that they are converted, are at once hailed as brethren and sisters … and with as little delay as possible gathered into the full communion of the Church.” The rival theory of religion was that of the catechism. By this he did not mean simply the catachesis of young Christians. Instead, for Nevin the catechism symbolized a comprehensive and churchly system of Christian teaching and practice that revolved around sermons, teaching in the Church, pastoral visitations, and, of course, catechesis. In sum, the catechism symbolized “patient perseverance in the details of ministerial work,” that is, in the “agencies, by which alone the kingdom of God may be expected to go steadily forward.” The differences between these two ways of

religion were so great that Nevin could conclude, “The Bench is against the Catechism, and the Catechism against the Bench.” The Genuine Article o ingrained in perceptions of American religion is the idea that Evangelicalism is essentially conservative that it is hard to know what to do with Nevin and Mann. If they are conservative Protestants and opposed to the pietism that has defined American Evangelicalism, then, what are they? The word that best describes the form of Protestantism represented by these Reformed and Lutheran theologians is confessionalism. Confessional Protestantism has been one part of the American Protestant mosaic, although often overlooked, that in contrast to pietism emphasizes the corporate and covenantal dimensions of the way Christianity is passed on and appropriated. To put this difference simply, whereas pietism stresses the sovereign individual who makes Christianity his own faith, confessionalism emphasizes the ingrafting of the believer into the community of faith. Consequently, instead of making the individual’s experience the defining feature of genuine faith as pietism tends to do, confessionalism reverses the process and makes those things that bind Christians together in the body of Christ—creed, worship, and polity—the norms for individual Christians. Although some may want to minimize the contrast between confessionalism and pietism—and to be sure it is not absolute—this tension is important for assessing American Evangelicalism and what, if anything, went wrong with the movement over the last decade. Because of its debt to pietism and its subsequent suspicion of religious structures and forms, Evangelicalism has not been well suited to be the standard-bearer for conservative Protestantism. In fact, had Evangelicalism’s critics and supporters been more aware of the movements’ anti-clerical, anticreedal, and anti-liturgical tendencies, they might have had lower expectations for the movement and perhaps looked to other sectors of American Protestantism for encouragement. But they did not, and the main reason is that evangelicalism continues to enjoy the reputation of being the only conservative option. Until Evangelicals and observers of the movement recognize that Evangelicalism has been in important ways corrosive of those aspects of Christianity that the Protestant reformers held dear, we will likely see many more books expressing severe disappointment with born-again religion. ■

D. G. Hart (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University) is academic dean and professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

MODERN REFORMATION TURNS TEN

How My Mind n 1939, the editors of Christian Century assembled theologians and Church leaders to discuss the ways that their minds had changed over the course of a decade that had witnessed the Great Depression in the United States and the rise of dictators in Europe. We do not pretend to suggest that the 1990s were as bad as the 1930s, but with the tenth anniversary of Modern Reformation we thought it might be useful to ask several theologians and pastors to comment on the differences between the way they now understand things and the way they did ten years ago.

The Insufficiency of Scripture by T. D AV I D G O R D O N If someone had asked me a decade ago about the sufficiency of Scripture, I would have given a zealous defense of the historic Reformed position. I will do the same today; I still affirm the historic Reformed view without any variation from its expression in the Westminster Confession’s first chapter: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge … that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of

1 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (WCF 1:6) I clarify, however, that “faith and life” must be taken in its religious sense. I also clarify that the entire matter would have been better expressed had the divines articulated a more manifestly covenantal statement, indicating that the Scriptures are a sufficient guide to the various covenants God has made with his various covenant people through the centuries, and that the entire canon, taken in its entirety, is sufficient, therefore, to govern the members of the new covenant made in Christ. By “faith and life” the divines intended what one is to believe and do as a member of the new covenant community. To demonstrate that such is a correct reading of the Assembly’s intent, I call attention to the qualification near the end, regarding “circumstances con-

d Has Changed cerning the worship of God, and government of the church,” which are to be governed not by Scripture, but by the light of nature and Christian prudence. Why would the divines have added this qualification regarding the life of the covenant community (“worship … government of the church”), if Scriptures were an otherwise complete guide for all of life? Are “circumstances” about automobile mechanics governed by Scripture, but circumstances regarding worship and church government not so governed? Of course not. Rather, this latter clause qualifies the intent of the previous, that “faith and life” are shorthand references for the beliefs of the covenant community and the duties of the covenant community. Now, the covenant community consists of humans, and it is true that the Scriptures also contain information about the created purpose/mandate of the human race in its entirety; so I am not denying that the Scriptures contain some general instruction to the human race. I am merely denying that “faith and life” is intended to suggest that Scriptures are an adequate guide to the various particulars of our lives and callings as humans. The Bible is sufficient to guide the human-as-covenanter, but not sufficient to guide the human-as-mechanic, the human-as-physician, the human-as-businessman, the human-as-parent, the human-as-husband, the human-as-wife, or the human-as-legislator. Where the big change has occurred in my own thinking has been to the disastrous consequences that follow the common misunderstanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. We appear to have lost

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

In Print January/February Book Recommendations The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind Mark A. Noll This critical yet constructive book explains the decline of evangelical thought in North America and seeks to find, within Evangelicalism itself, resources for turning the situation around. Noll ends his book with an outline of steps by which evangelicals might yet come to love the Lord more thoroughly with the mind. B-NOL-1 PAPERBACK, $20.00 No Place for Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? David F. Wells This is the book that crystallized the issues of our day for many evangelicals. It argues that the evangelical church is either dead or dying as a significant religious force because it has forgotten its theology. B-WE-6 PAPERBACK, $18.00 Evangelicalism Divided Iain H. Murray Why has Christian unity proven to be such a divisive topic? In the 1950s two movements— Evangelicalism and ecumenism—offered differing paths to unity in the Church. But as the decades have passed, the influence of ecumenism has exposed a fault line in Evangelicalism. B-MUR-6 HARDCOVER, $21.50 Putting Amazing Back into Grace: An Introduction to Reformed Theology Michael Horton What does it mean to say that we are saved by grace? Does our salvation come as the result of making a decision, or are we saved because of God’s decision? Michael Horton re-introduces us to the doctrines of God’s grace, and explains why it is so amazing. B-HO-7 PAPERBACK , $15.00 Made in America: The Shaping of Modern America Michael Horton In this book Horton contends that American Christianity, once distinguished by passionate, warm-hearted orthodoxy, has largely become a popular religion of shallow assertions and legalism. B-HO-13 PAPERBACK, $17.00 The Democratization of American Christianity Nathan O. Hatch Notre Dame professor Nathan O. Hatch offers a provocative reassessment of religion and culture in the early days of the American republic, arguing that during this period American Christianity was democratized. B-HAT-1 PAPERBACK, $19.00 To order, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or, use our secure e-commerce catalog at www.AllianceNet.org. For phone orders call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). 2 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

On Tape From the Alliance Archives The Reformation Then and Now What were the central issues at stake during the Reformation? What parallels can we make between the Reformation and our own day? In this ten tape audio cassette series featuring Alister McGrath, Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, and W. Robert Godfrey, you will see how the Reformation can invigorate modern Christianity. C-RTN-S 10 TAPES IN 1 ALBUM, $53.00 Cambridge Summit These sixteen tapes include the formal papers, plenary addresses, and round table discussions of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals delivered in Cambridge, Massachusetts in April, 1996. Speakers include David Wells, James M. Boice, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Sinclair Ferguson, W. Robert Godfrey, Ervin Duggan, Albert Mohler, Gene Veith, Alistair Begg, and others. C-ACE-S 16 TAPES IN 2 ALBUMS, $86.00 Mind Renewal in a Mindless Age In this word-by-word application of Romans 12:1-2, James M. Boice offers an insightful analysis of social values and provides practical help for avoiding conformity and living a transformed life. Christians can remain faithful and fruitful in a society infused with materialism, secularism, and mindless pursuits. The principles for discerning and following God's will are clearly spelled out and a ringing challenge is given to offer ourselves to God as living sacrifices. C-MRMA 5 TAPES IN AN ALBUM WITH GUIDE $32.00

A Confessional Understanding of Law and the Gospel In this new series the White Horse Inn hosts visit one of the foundational tenants of Reformation theologyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the distinction between Law and gospel. Special guests panellists Mark Talbot, John Nunes, and Mark Dever from the Alliance Council join the program for the first two tapes. Be prepared to have your eyes opened to continuity in Scripture that you may have never seen before. C-CULG-S 3 TAPES IN 1 ALBUM, $18.00 Great Debates in Church History In this eight-part series, the White Horse Inn hosts discuss how leaders in Christian history left their mark on the evangelical church. Theological issues spanning many centuries caused church friction when certain men stood firmly upon their convictions, and the resulting debates were instrumental in bringing the Church to its present state. The White Horse Inn hosts talk about the debates of Athanatius and Arius, Augustine and Pelagius, Anselm and Abelard, Luther and Erasmus, and Machen and Fosdick. C-GD-S 6 TAPES IN 1 ALBUM, $33.00 What Still Divides Us? Are we justified by faith alone? Are the Scriptures sufficient? These were the two issues discussed in a lively debate between Protestant and Catholic representatives. The debate features Michael Horton, W. Robert Godfrey, and Rod Rosenbladt defending the Protestant side, and Pat Madrid, Robert Sungenis, and William Marshner supporting the Roman Catholic position. C-WSD-S 8 TAPES IN 1 ALBUM, $43.00 V-WSD-VS 2 VIDEOS, $45.00

Subscribe to Modern Reformation Magazine Six times a year, Modern Reformation will sharpen and challenge you. Why not subscribe today?

U.S. One year $22 (MR1YR) Two years $40 (MR2YR) U.S. Student One year $15 (MRS1YR) Two years not available Canada One year $25 (MR1YR) Two years $45 (MR2YR) Europe One year $40 (MR1YR) Two years $75 (MR2YR) Other One year $45 (MR1YR) Two years $85 (MR2YR) To subscribe, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). All subscriptions must be paid in U.S. currency.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1 7

the historic Protestant understanding of the importance of natural revelation, and have tended to function as though such revelation were not necessary. If anything has changed, then, it is that I would now argue with equal zeal for the insufficiency of Scripture in other than religious or covenantal areas. As such, Scripture is not a sufficient guide to many aspects of life, other than in the sense of providing religious direction and motivation to all of life. This change has occurred as a result of three considerations: two theological and one practical. 1. Wisdom Ours is a profoundly unwise generation. The intrusion of many electronic media have virtually driven contemplation and conversation from most homes. Dr. Samuel Johnson, if alive today, could surely say daily what he said only rarely in the eighteenth century: “There was talk enough, but no conversation.” Surprisingly, however, the evangelical and Reformed communities have appeared not to have resisted these changes, and most of their critical analyses of media are more concerned with their content than on their influence on the social and home environment. Whatever the complex reasons that have caused this to be such an unwise generation, I would submit that our erroneous assumptions about the sufficiency of Scripture are among them.

FYI

from listening to advice (Prov. 12:15; 19:20), from entertaining the opinion of a variety of people (Prov. 11:14; 18:17; 24:6), by listening to older people (Prov. 13:1), and by observing the natural order itself (Prov. 6:6). Wisdom does not come easily or quickly, but through a lengthy, prolonged effort. Most importantly, it does not come exclusively, or perhaps even primarily, through Bible study. Solomon promotes listening to parents, elders, a variety of counselors, and even a consideration of ants, badgers, locusts, and lizards (Prov. 30:24–28). Nor will we concur with a pietistic interpretation of James’s counsel that those who lack wisdom should pray for it (James 1:5), as though such prayer would be answered by some sort of special revelation. Jesus also counsels us to pray for our daily bread, which we do, but we also then labor to acquire bread by ordinary means, and, when successful, we offer prayers of thanks. Similarly, we should pray for wisdom, but then labor for it by the ordinary means by which it is found. We will not acquire wisdom without consulting a variety of points of view, without thinking long and hard about life, without being perceptive. Most importantly, we will not acquire it by simply reading the Bible.

2. Theonomy Theonomy is not merely an error, though it has manifestly been regarded as erroneous by the Reformed tradition. It is the error du jour, the characterisTheonomy literally means “God’s law.” Theonomists insist that Old Testament tic error of an unwise generation. It is the error of a genlaws, especially civil ones, are still valid today. eration that has abandoned the biblically mandated quest for wisdom on the assumption that the Bible itself conThe biblical literature commends wisdom in the tains all that we need to know about life’s various strongest terms: enterprises. It is the proof-textual, Bible-thumping, literalist, error par excellence. It is not merely the • Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, view of the unwise, but the view of the never-toinstruction, and understanding (Prov. 23:23). be-wise, because it is the view of those who wrong• To get wisdom is better than gold; to get ly believe that Scripture sufficiently governs this understanding is to be chosen rather than sil- arena, and who, for this reason, will never discover ver (Prov. 16:16 ). in the natural constitution of the human nature or • The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wis- the particular circumstances of given peoples what dom, and whatever you get, get insight must be discovered to govern well and wisely. (Prov. 4:7 ). • Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and call 3. Evangelical Divorce insight your intimate friend (Prov. 7:4 ). The large practical matter that has influenced my thinking about the matter of the sufficiency of Yet, according to the biblical testimony, how does Scripture has been the publication of findings that one acquire wisdom? Well, in part, by heeding the evangelical divorce rate is roughly the same as God’s commands in Holy Scripture (Prov. 10:8; that of non-evangelicals. If we ask why evangeliEccl. 12:13). But more commonly, wisdom comes cals divorce at the same rate as those who do not

2 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

necessarily recognize the Bible as a source of function as they do. And the Bible will answer authoritative guidance, the answer must be some- none of those questions with sufficient directives. ■ thing like this: that whereas Scripture teaches us that marriage is a lifelong commitment, Scripture is manifestly not sufficient to teach people how to The Rev. T. David Gordon (Ph.D. Union Seminary,VA.) is attain that end. Oh yes, Scripture contains some a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and associbroad principles, such as those encountered in ate Professor of religion at Grove City College. Ephesians 5 or in Proverbs 29. But for all the evangelical talk about roles of men and women, such talk has obviously not produced happy or successful The Westminster Confession of Faith, along with the marriages. We divorce as frequently as those who do not Westminster Longer and Shorter Catechisms, make up the recognize these divinely established principles regardWestminster Standards, and are the creedal basis for most ing male/female roles, despite the fact that we believe divorce is sinful under most Presbyterian churches around the world. The Westminster Assembly, a body of pastors and circumstances. It is quite possible that theologians who produced the Confession, met from 1643 to 1648 at the request of the because of our mistaken sense that the Bible is more English Parliament to provide a theological norm for the nation. It was and remains the best sufficient than it is, we may falsely assume that men and summary of Puritan theology. women who are committed to Scripture will have successful marriages on that ground alone; and we do not expend the time, energy, reflection, and discussion necessary to discovering how to make such relationships work. Solomon may well have felt the same way: “Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden” (Prov. 30:18, 19). It is possible that the proverb merely means that these are all wonderful things, but it is more likely that part of the wonder is due to the mysterious nature of these realities: How does the eagle soar so effortlessly? How does a legless serpent move along the rock as he does? How does a frail vessel remain afloat on the seas? And how does a man relate to a woman? I would suggest that part of the reason our unbelieving friends succeed as often in marriage as we do is that they are never hoodwinked by any misunderstanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. They are never counseled to “read two verses and call me in the morning.” They know that if a marriage is to work, it will require patience, conversation, reflection, and understanding. It will require that men attempt to understand how and why women function as they do; that women attempt to understand how and why men function as they do; and that individual men and women attempt to understand how and why their particular spouses

FYI

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

Thinking Like an Exegete by PA U L R . R A A B E In the past ten years, I have become a husband and a father and that has changed my thinking in many ways, but perhaps even more pertinent for theology is the recent opportunity I had to write a commentary on the book of Obadiah for the Anchor Bible series. Obadiah is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bible. With only 21 verses it is easily overlooked. But the small size gave me the opportunity to interpret a book of the Bible with detailed thoroughness, looking at the material with both a wide-angle lens and a magnifying glass as it were. The experience of writing a technical commentary taught me some things about what is entailed in serious study of the Scriptures. Churches need serious exegesis, certainly churches that claim to let the Scriptures dictate what they believe, teach, and confess. The term exegesis designates the discipline and art of expositing the Scriptures in a careful way. It is not the only discipline involved in theology, but it is an essential part. Everyone serious about theology should be able to think and operate as a competent exegete. To exegete a biblical text is a difficult task that demands certain skills and habits of mind. It requires reader competence. It is not enough to read the Bible. Do we read it competently? What do we look for in the text; what kinds of questions do we ask the text; and are they legitimate questions? The competent reader focuses on the phrases, sentences, and paragraphs that actually appear in the text. Ideally one should know Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic), but even readers of a good English translation can notice the basic grammar of the sentences and paragraphs. What constitutes the subject, verb, and direct object of the sentence? How does this prepositional phrase fit in? Why is that verb in the past tense? We should study the meaning of the phrases and clauses. How does a given author use his terminology? We should also read the text holistically and contextually. Carefully follow the flow and argument of each chapter. How does the chapter move from verse 1 to verse 2 to verse 3? Where does a given passage fit into the whole book’s structure or argument or narrative? Competent reading entails historical reading, attending to the then-ness and there-ness of

2 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

these ancient texts. Observe the text’s impact. What was the author trying to do through this text and how was he trying to move his original readers? Read the text theologically by examining the theological accents of a given text and how the different accents relate to each other. In short, every Christian should strive to become a competent reader of the Scriptures by carefully attending to a given text’s phraseology, grammar, literary style, historical setting, and theological message. It is easy to theologize on the level of broad generalities when it comes to the Bible, to paint with broad strokes. One is easily tempted to over-read, to interpret a text by free association of ideas in a stream of consciousness. Such undisciplined over-reading reminds me of my first sermon, in which I tried to pack the entire body of doctrine and the entire church year into one passage. But an exegete must not import into a given text all sorts of things, even things that may be true. Rather, one has to concentrate on the particularities of a given text. What does this specific text say and how does it say it? Let each text say its piece and meditate on that particular topic. Exegesis deals with what my colleague James Voelz calls the “messiness” of the text. This “messiness” forces the reader to investigate matters that may not be of great interest, such as grammar or ancient geography. The exegetical task at times can be tedious and boring. But God is in the details, and the Spirit of Christ works mightily through the text in all of its specificity and particularity. To think like an exegete is to recognize the strangeness of the text. These texts were not written yesterday, and they were not written in postEnlightenment North America. They were written 2,000 plus years ago, in a different place and a different culture. Very often a biblical writer was addressing concerns and questions quite unlike the concerns and questions the modern reader may have. Exegetes must not try to coerce or co-opt the text to address our American pragmatic concerns. I doubt that Jethro in Exodus 18 was giving Moses principles for leading a large suburban congregation. Not every passage teaches how to become a better

parent or how to establish social and economic justice in society. We must put our own questions on the shelf and let the biblical writer speak to his concerns and interests. As we discover the strangeness of the biblical text, we will soon find ourselves demoting the importance of our own pragmatic concerns and instead wrestling with the weighty questions and concerns of the biblical author. Furthermore, to think like an exegete is to take seriously all the voices of the scriptural choir. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable” (2 Tim. 3:15–17). Reductionism remains an ever-present temptation. It is the temptation to take one particular text and then run to town with it, ignoring all the other texts relevant to the discussion. Or one may simply trivialize the first three-fourths of the Bible by treating them as just so much background material. But an exegetical mindset notices the various themes and texts in the biblical material, refusing to discount text that will not fit the reader’s preferences. An exegetical mindset seeks to extol all the voices of the scriptural choir. It eschews the notion of a canon within the canon that sets aside the stuff that one may not like or that contradicts the current Zeitgeist. Rather, it desires to incorporate into our theology all sixty-six books of both Testaments with their many different accents and emphases, even a small, unknown book such as Obadiah. A Christian who hears the many voices of the scriptural choir becomes interested in a wide variety of theological topics, including topics that one may not be familiar with, such as: creation theology; the theology of Old Testament wisdom literature; the theology of holiness

and all the materials about priests and tabernacle and cultic rituals; the lament psalms; the history of Israel; the exorcisms and healing ministry of Jesus; all the texts that deal with prayer in both Testaments; all the texts that address the Christian life of good works; and the apocalyptic literature of Revelation. We should recognize the profound unity in the Scriptures, that with their rich diversity and variety all the voices of the Scriptural choir are singing one song. That song testifies to the one Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. Both Testaments belong together as parts of one Bible with its center in Christ. Especially today in our fragmented and balkanized postmodern context we need to concentrate on the overall theological coherence and unity of the Scriptures. As exacting as the work of exegesis is, the exegete does not come to Scripture simply as an objective scholar. Rather, the best exegesis approaches the text with humility and faith. Because the Scriptures are so important for the health of the Christian and the Church, they deserve our most serious efforts at studying them. And because the Scriptures belong to the whole Church, past and present, we should read them not in individualistic isolation but in conversation with other competent readers and with the theologians of the Church’s past. As my little toddler says for just about every activity, “Let’s do it together.” ■

Paul R. Raabe (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is the chair of the Exegetical Department at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

From Rags to Riches by D O N M AT Z AT Almost thirty years ago, I got involved in the charismatic movement. And that involvement has continued to influence my thinking over the last decade. In 1971, I visited the prayer and praise gathering of a charismatic community in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I was impressed, to say the least. Why, I asked, would a mixture of 500 Bible-toting Catholics and Protestants gather on a very hot night in July in a nonair-conditioned gymnasium to pray, study the Bible, and praise God? They obvi-

ously had or knew something that was foreign to me and to those who attended the Lutheran parish I was serving 35 miles to the north. After that night I began to study the New Testament, especially the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the Epistles. My study was joined to a fervent prayer for the Holy Spirit. I wanted to know if everything I witnessed in that hot gymnasium was scriptural. Later that same week I returned to Grand Rapids and visited with the priest

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

who headed up the Catholic community. I asked him to pray for me and ask Jesus to baptize me in the Holy Spirit. He laid hands on me as I knelt at his desk, but nothing immediately happened. When I got up in the pulpit the next Sunday, the words just poured out of me with exuberance and excitement. Some of the people commented, “What happened to Pastor?” I continued to attend the Wednesday night prayer meeting in Grand Rapids, and within a couple of weeks began to speak in tongues, uttering a variety of what seemed to be nonsense syllables as a “prayer language.” Space would not allow me to describe for you everything that was to happen in the years that followed, but I taught the experience in my congregation with phenomenal results. The following year I attended the First International Lutheran Conference on the Holy Spirit in Minneapolis and discovered 15,000 Lutherans who claimed to have had the same experience. By 1974, I joined the leadership group of the Lutheran Charismatic Renewal. I traveled throughout the country speaking at conferences, putting on seminars, and being a guest speaker at Full Gospel Businessmen’s gatherings. I developed a television teaching program called “Bread of Life.” Out of that came a little magazine by the same name. It was “For and about Lutherans in renewal.” At one point we had a mailing list in excess of 7,000. Of course, my charismatic involvement did not sit well with the powers-that-be within my Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Yet, I was dedicated to seeing renewal take place within my church. Throughout the years of my involvement in the charismatic movement I did a great deal of reading and studying. I was very sensitive to the possibility of deception since I was in a movement where experience was foremost. I did not wish to be “fitted for a millstone.” I had vowed never to teach anything that I could not base upon the Word of God. As far as I was concerned, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and the other gifts of the Spirit were biblical. Still, several questions haunted me. How do we know what we claim to know? What is the relationship between the objective knowledge gained from the study of Scripture and the inner experience of the Holy Spirit? I concluded, after much study of Luther, the Lutheran Confessions, the later reformers, and even Calvin’s Institutes, that the Holy Spirit’s work was to give believers knowledge of that which is already contained in the Word of God. In other words, the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to the gospel, reveals Jesus to us in all his fullness, and works faith in the heart. I coined the phrase, “the Holy Spirit is our teacher, but the Bible is his only textbook.” Little did I know that this

2 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

position would be at odds with many within the members of the Lutheran Charismatic Renewal. I happened to discuss the issue of religious certainty with one of the Lutheran leaders of the charismatic movement. He directed me to the writings of Episcopal priest Morton Kelsey, a man who was one of the first interpreters of the charismatic experience. As clearly set forth in Dave Hunt’s 1985 bombshell book, The Seduction of Christianity, Kelsey interpreted theology through the eyes of Dr. Carl Jung and made no distinction between occult experiences and the so-called gifts of the Holy Spirit. This was major deception. About this same time I learned that one of my fellow Missouri Synod charismatic pastors, a man who is still a leader of the “renewal” within Missouri, had introduced “inner healing,” or the “healing of memories” into his congregation. This was the Christo-therapy of the late Agnes Sanford and is a derivative of Jungian psychology. I took a trip to Chicago and met with this pastor, a dear friend, and pleaded with him and his elders not to teach socalled spiritual experiences that have absolutely no basis in the Word of God. They did not listen. My eighteenth-month study of the inner healing experience produced my first book, Inner Healing: Deliverance or Deception. As a part of my research, I corresponded with a charismatic husband and wife team from Idaho who were prominent in the movement. In one of his letters, the man told me that he was a prophet and warned me that if I continued to speak against the experience of inner healing God would bring judgment upon me and my family. By this point I no longer wanted to be a part of a movement that seemingly had no regard for truth or the source of truth. In 1986, I was a workshop presenter at a Lutheran charismatic conference in Albany, New York. I attended the plenary sessions. I was amazed by what I was hearing and seeing. Speakers did not teach Scripture but offered their opinions as if they were God’s truth. People were being “slain in the Spirit.” One speaker spoke of visualizing new waves of the Spirit and thereby bringing them into being. As I left the conference, the chairman greeted me at the door, thanked me for coming, and promised to have me back the next year. “Forget it,” I said. “I’m no longer a charismatic!” As I left the conference center and went outside, I literally jumped for joy: I was free. The next morning, something strange happened. At the time I was the pastor of a parish in Queens, New York. None of the members of the congregation knew what had happened the night before. After the service, one of the women who had been somewhat disturbed by the “I’ve-gotsomething-you-don’t-have” attitude of the charis-

matic members, looked at me strangely as she greeted me at the door. “Pastor, something happened to you,” she said. “That was the first sermon I have heard you preach in which I felt included.” Over the next four or five years I was reprogrammed by the Word of God. My experience was not unlike the experience of those who come out of cults. By no longer hanging around with the charismatic believers, I was able to evaluate the teachings more clearly. For example: • It became obvious that when the Lord Jesus used the phrase “baptize in the Holy Spirit” he was merely comparing his ministry with the ministry of John the Baptist. Although the book of Acts describes those who were filled with the Spirit, no one is ever “baptized in the Spirit.” • It was obvious from the text that the tongues at Corinth were known foreign languages. How else would a person know whether or not there was someone present to translate (1 Cor. 14:28)? I also believe that there were cultural issues present at Corinth that are unknown to us. • I questioned the definition of the so-called gifts of the Spirit taught by charismatics and pentecostals. Where did these definitions come from? The Bible does not specifically define prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, and so forth. If you read 1 Corinthians 12 in the context of the entire epistle, it is obvious that these so-called “revelatory gifts” were spoken

insights into the gospel and centered in Christ Jesus, not a form of “spiritual” extrasensory perception. Conclusion hirty years ago I discovered the dynamic combination of Word and Spirit. Fervently studying the Word of God and praying for and depending upon the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the richness of God’s truth. The Bible became a new and living book. This is not strange. In defining his “tower experience,” Martin Luther wrote: “All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light.” What Luther describes is the only way any sinner can grasp the life-changing reality of a righteous God imputing to him the very perfection of Jesus Christ. Without this enlightening reality of the Holy Spirit, the dynamic truth of God’s Word degenerates into dead dogmatism. By rejecting the clear definitions of the Reformation and embracing pentecostal terminology, I lived in theological rags for nearly 20 years. What a great joy it was for me to leap out of the rags and put on the riches of the gospel in all of its beauty, truth, and purity. ■

Don Matzat (D.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary) has been an ordained minister in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for 35 years. He is an author, apologist, and speaker. He also hosts two radio shows.

How My Mind Has Changed on the Centrality of the Congregation by M A R K D E V E R Ever since becoming a Christian in high school, the role of the local congregation has been important to me. I remember spending some (ok, many) hours the first summer I was a Christian in my church’s library, compiling statistics about the growing membership of our church and tabulating that in comparison with our shrinking attendance. The accompanying pre-computerera graphic I made from my research was simply a poster

board with carefully drawn lines for membership and attendance, diverging markedly somewhere in the 1940s or 1950s. Though I did spend hours and hours on that poster, it had only the most limited of engagements on a prominent wall in our church. I put it up without authorization (I hadn’t considered that). Duly and quickly authorized, however, was its being taken down. As I grew as a Christian and my understanding of

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

God’s grace expanded during my undergraduate and seminary years, my concern about nominalism in the Church also grew. Many reported conversions came to seem obviously false to me. And I grew suspicious of the evangelism that had generated these inflated figures and, more importantly, these people both so assured and so inactive. During my doctoral studies, however, about ten years ago, my mind began to focus even more on the topic of the Church, and especially on the centrality of the local congregation. I remember having a jarring conversation one day with a friend who worked with a parachurch ministry. He and I attended the same church. I had joined when we first moved to the city; he, a couple of years later, had chosen merely to attend. And even in his attendance, he would come only for the morning service, and then only halfway through, when it was time for the sermon. So one day, I decided to ask him about this. He responded with his typical honesty and transparency. “I don’t really get anything out of the rest of the service,” he said. “Have you ever thought of joining the church?” I asked. Genuinely surprised, with an innocent chuckle he responded, “Join the church? I honestly don’t know why I would do that. I know what I’m here for, and those people would just slow me down.” Those words sound cold when I read them, but they were uttered with the typical, genuine, humble warmth of a gifted evangelist wanting not to waste one of the Lord’s hours. He wanted to put his time to the best use possible, and joining a church seemed utterly irrelevant. “Slow me down”—the words reverberated in my mind. My mind raced with various thoughts, but all I could respond was a simple question—“Did you ever think that if you link arms with those people, yes, they may slow you down, but you may help to speed them up? Have you thought that might be a part of God’s plan for them, and for you?” The conversation went on, but the crystallizing portion of it for my own thinking was done. God intends to use us in each other’s lives—even at what would sometimes appear to be a spiritual cost to us. Around the same time, my studies in Puritanism were affording me opportunity to read the developing theological debates about Church polity in the Elizabethan and early Stuart periods. The Grand Debate at the Westminster Assembly was particularly interesting. I was attracted to the contention of some of the Independents or Congregationalists that, essentially, pastoral authority be tied to pastoral relationship. Their arguments that the local congregation was also the final judicatory in matters of discipline and doc-

2 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

trine seemed biblically persuasive (see Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2; Gal.; 2 Tim. 4). The role of both the pastor and the congregation seemed to be taking on a new importance. Then, in 1994, I became a senior pastor. Although I had always respected the office of elder and had already served in two churches as an elder, taking on the role of the only recognized elder in a congregation caused me to reflect further (and closer to home) on the importance of the office. Texts such as James 3:1 (“judged more strictly”) and Hebrews 13:17 (“must give an account”) loomed large in my mind. Circumstances conspired to emphasize to me the importance with which God regards the local church. I remember reading a quote by John Brown, who in a letter of paternal counsels to one of his pupils newly ordained over a small congregation wrote, “I know the vanity of your heart, and that you will feel mortified that your congregation is very small, in comparison with those of your brethren around you; but assure yourself on the word of an old man, that when you come to give an account of them to the Lord Christ, at his judgment-seat, you will think you have had enough.” As I looked at the congregation over which I had charge I felt the weightiness of those words. This lesson continued to be brought home to me through my regular weekly work. In preaching through the Gospels, and then the Epistles, I had occasion again and again to refine notions of Christian love, pointing out that whereas some texts do teach that we Christians are to love everyone (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:12), many of the texts classically used to teach this really have to do with our loving one another. I remember preaching from Matthew 26, pointing out that the instructions about giving cups of cold water were for “the least of these brothers of mine,” and having one person come up afterwards and tell me that I had ruined her “life verse”! To me, however, all the “each other” and “one another” passages began to come alive and flesh out the theological truths that I had known about God caring for his Church. As I’ve preached through Ephesians 2–3 it has become clear to me that the Church is the center of God’s plan to display his wisdom to the heavenly beings. When Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders, he referred to the Church as something that “God bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). And, of course, on the road to Damascus earlier when Saul was interrupted on his course of persecuting Christians, the risen Christ did not ask Saul why he persecuted these Christians, or even the Church; rather, Christ so identified with his Church that the accusing

question he put to Saul was “Why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). The Church was clearly central in God’s eternal plan, in his sacrifice, and in his continuing concern. Perhaps all this may seem like more an explanation for the centrality of ecclesiology than for the importance of the local church, but what has become clear is that Tyndale’s decision to translate ecclesia as congregation was a good one! The importance of the network of relationships that make up a local church is the venue in which discipleship takes place. Love is largely local, and the local congregation is the place where the world witnesses this love (John 13:34–35). I have seen friends and family alienated from Christ because they perceive this or that local church to have been such a terrible place. And I have seen friends and family come to Christ because they have seen exactly this love that Jesus taught and lived—the love for one another, the kind of selfless love that he showed—and they have felt the natural human attraction to it. So the congregation as the sounding board of the Word has become more central to my understanding of evangelism. The congregation has also become more central to my understanding of how we evaluate the reality of saving faith. I remember being struck by 1 John 4:20–21 when preparing to preach on it: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen…. Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” James 1 and 2 carries the same mes-

sage. This love doesn’t seem to be optional. More recently, this consideration of the centrality of the congregation has led to a new respect for the ministry of discipline. It’s clear that if we are to depend upon each other in our congregations, there must be discipline as a part of discipleship. And if there is to be the kind of discipline that we see in the New Testament, we must know others, be committed to them, and let them know us. We must also have some trust of authority. All the practicalities of trusting authority in marriage, home, and Church are hammered out on the local level. Misunderstanding this and coming to dislike and resent authority seem very near to what the fall was all about. Consequently, understanding the legitimate authority of the Church is very near the heart of God’s gracious work of reestablishing his relationship of authority and love with us. All in all, I can see why Christians in the past treated church attendance as so important a matter. And I think I can see what damage began to be done on so many levels when we began watching those membership and attendance lines diverge. Shifting decisions about church attendance from being matters of concern for the entire congregation to being simple matters of private decisions have wrought havoc in our congregation, and in the lives of many people who once attended them. ■

Mark Dever (Ph.D., Cambridge University) is pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

The Importance of Creedal Theology by C H A R L E S P. A R A N D Since arriving at Concordia Seminary my interest has been to use the heritage of our confessional writings as resources for the Church’s life today. To that end, I have sought to uncover their presuppositions, theological priorities, and patterns of thought in order to guide how we think theologically about issues today that were not dealt with in the sixteenth century. In the course of my work, I found myself drawn not only to the distinctively Lutheran Confessions like the

Augsburg Confession and its Apology, but to the great ecumenical creeds of the Church. These creeds stand at the head of our confessional corpus, as the highest authority among our confessional writings as witnesses to Scripture. Yet more often than not, I tended to pass over them quickly in order to pay attention to the more distinctively Lutheran confessional writings. There are a number of reasons for my turn to the ecumenical creeds as a

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

framework for theology. Research for a book on Luther’s catechisms, That I May Be His Own (2000), certainly played a major role. In those catechisms, the creed occupies such a central place that Luther interprets the Ten Commandments within the horizon of the First Article of the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer within the horizon of the Third Article of the Creed. In addition, Luther does a marvelous job in bringing out of the Creeds of the Reformation emphasis on the personal nature of the gospel. Another reason lies in the needs of our current transition to a post-Christian culture. Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg warned that the greater the ignorance of Christianity becomes, the greater the prejudice against Christianity grows. The Creeds have historically outlined the contours of Christian identity bestowed by the Triune name placed upon us in baptism. In a pluralistic culture where even Gnosticism is being revived as a “legitimate” form of Christianity, the Creeds become increasingly

FYI

Christianity off from all variations of platonic dualism (God creates all things, visible and invisible), but from all current monistic worldviews such as New Age philosophies and pantheistic or panentheistic environmental theologies. Similarly, the distinction between creator and creation affirms that the Creator alone is independent, self-sufficient, and self-determining. The creature is not autonomous, self-sufficient, and self-determining (contra the prevailing anthropological assumptions in contemporary ethics regarding end of life issues). Similarly, if one asks, What is the key to understanding the meaning of Christ’s life?, the Creed points the way. It does not direct us first and foremost to the sayings and teachings of Christ, nor to the humanitarian activities and miracles of Christ. That is not to say they are unimportant; they are just not as central. The keys to understanding the significance of Christ’s life lie with his incarnation and birth, suffering and death, resurrection and return. The third article deals with the Holy Spirit who Gnosticism was an ancient heresy that divided the world into spirit and matter carries on the work of Christ within the new creation of and emphasized mystical experience over Word and Sacraments. the one holy Christian — Michael Horton Church. It calls us to go beyond an individualistic approach to the Church. Nor important for defining Christian identity and shap- should congregations live in isolation when the ing Christian proclamation. Creed directs our attention to the una sancta. Since the Creeds summarize the heart of the Perhaps most importantly for our day is the fact Christian faith and proclamation, I have become that Creed does not direct one’s attention to the intrigued about the extent to which their core affir- interim state of the soul after death as our goal and mations can shape a theological method that artic- hope. Instead, it centers on the parousia of Christ ulates the comprehensiveness and coherence of and the last judgment, which is no longer a day of Christian theology. I believe that they can assist in wrath, but a day of joy. three areas: (1) they identify the central themes of Scripture over and against more minor themes; (2) The Inter-Relationship of the Articles or their unity demonstrates the interdependence of the Analogia Fidei he Creed presents a corpus of core beliefs the various articles of faith so as to comprise the that are interconnected rather than a colanalogia fidei; (3) they provide us with the big piclection of disjointed members. The articles ture or meta-narrative of Christian existence. of the Creed stand in an intimate relationship with The Chief Articles one another. This means that one article of faith y expressing the core theological affirmations cannot be expounded so as to contradict another of the Church, the Creeds answer the ques- article of faith. It also means that the various artition, What does one need to know about the cles of faith are interdependent upon one another. Christian faith above all else? As such, they distinThe Lutheran confession known as the Formula guish a Christian outlook on life from all other non- of Concord provides an excellent example of using Christian worldviews. It is becoming increasingly the Creed as an analogy of faith. In Article 1, the apparent that these same themes are once again formulators reject the error of one of their own becoming countercultural confessions of the champions, Matthias Flacius, who declared that Church and can no longer be taken for granted. original sin was the substance of human nature (he Consider the Creed’s statement about God as objected to calling it an accident as it seemed to “Maker of Heaven and Earth.” It not only marks minimize original sin as little more than a smudge

3 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

Second, the Trinitarian framework and of dirt upon the face). One of the ways in which they did so was by showing how Flacius’ position Christological focus of the Creed gives rise to a contradicted the chief articles of the Christian narrative history that is oriented toward eschatolfaith, namely, creation, redemption, sanctification, ogy. The Trinitarian framework confesses God the Almighty as the one who rules over all of history, and the resurrection of the body. One can see how the distinction between the moving it from a beginning to a final culmination. Creator and creation lays the sine qua non founda- He stands at the inception of the world and the tion for the First Commandment’s prohibition creation of life and he stands at the end with a new against false gods. Similarly, the distinction denies creation through the resurrection of the body and any necessity or obligation in God for creation so life everlasting. Christ creates the transition from that when he creates it is The Augsburg Confession (1530) is the most widely accepted specifan act of freedom. The goodness of creation is ically Lutheran confession, or statement of faith. It was prepared the presupposition for the incarnation in the second by the German Protestant Reformer Philip Melancthon, with article, the Sacraments and resurrection of the Martin Luther’s approval. body in the third article. In my own work, the Creed as an analogy of faith provided assistance for thinking through the old creation to the new creation. He is bringissues regarding the use of spiritual growth inven- ing creation to culmination at the return of Christ. tories. In particular, where the latter tend to dis- Christ is the catalyst and goal of history and the parage so-called natural talents in favor of spiritu- new creation. al gifts or play down any connection between natFinally, this is to suggest that the Trinity, and ural talents and spiritual gifts, a creedal approach with it creedal theology, does not exist as an intelsuggests that one cannot do that without dis- lectual hurdle that one must cross in order to paraging the goodness of the First Article. Thus, become Christian, a hurdle once crossed is then when we enter the Church in the third article, we left behind in order to focus on some really practido not check our personalities or talents in at the cal issues. To the contrary, the Trinity, and thus the door, but rather that the Spirit uses in the service theology of the Creed, encapsulates the confession of the gospel itself. Only in this light can one of the gospel. embrace the opening and closing lines of the The Big Picture Athanasian Creed. ■ inally, the Creed taken as a whole suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That is, to say, the Creed provides Charles P. Arand (Th.D., Concordia Seminary) is Associate Christians with the big picture within which they Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. can interpret the individual events of their lives or Louis, Missouri. within which they can interpret various features of Scripture. It possesses what theologian Stanley Grenz calls “explanatory power.” First, the Creed provides a Trinitarian framework with a Christological focus for all of theology. The Creed organizes the work of God according to the three persons of the Trinity, but in each case, the second article receives special attention as the focus of Trinitarian work. This emerges not only in the length of the second article in the Apostles and Nicene Creed, but in the structure of the Athanasian Creed as well. The Trinity cannot be understood apart from the Christology (in as much as the person of Christ and his relation to the Father provoked the Trinitarian question) nor can Christ be rightly confessed apart from his relation to the Father and the Spirit.

FYI

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

F F

R O

E I

E G

| O

S S

P E

A O

C C

E C

Interviews From Our Archives

The More Things Change… PHOTO BY PHILIPPE CHENG

Dr. Ann Douglas is Professor of American Studies at Columbia University and author of The Feminization of American Culture and Terrible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 1920s. She has argued that the demise of Calvinism led to a sentimentalism in religion, which has had a long-term impact upon American culture. It is one of the most insightful critiques we’ve presented in recent years. The original interview appeared in MR March/April 1996.—EDS. MR: You talk a lot about sentimentalism. Is that part of the dismantling process in the nineteenth century? ANN DOUGLAS

Author The Feminization of American Culture

AD: Yes, it is. Calvinism had experienced sustained attacks, especially in the eighteenth century, with the founding of such groups as the Universalists and then, of course, the Unitarians. The liberals, headed by Unitarians and Universalists and some Congregationalists as well, began to say as we entered the nineteenth century, “No, if God loves human beings, he understands and sympathizes with human beings. He wouldn’t ask them to do something or believe something that would go against their own needs or desires.” There’s that line in Job: “Though he slay me, yet will I worship him,” and this was the Calvinistic ethos that the liberals simply could not accept—that idea that God is much greater and larger than our own happiness. Calvinism wasn’t saying that God wanted to be cruel, but that his plans are so much vaster and grander than anything human beings can conceive. The liberals could not accept this view of God, due in part to the humanist tradition, but it is also partly commercial: You know, if we’ve got to sell ourselves now—since the churches are now self-supporting rather than dependent on state funding—is this the ad spiel, so to speak, that will best sell our product? MR: Today, especially in what is being called the church growth movement, we hear, in varying degrees, that we must tone down doctrinal distinctives and meet felt needs, focus on healing and wholeness, and prefer soft inspiration to hard

3 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

sayings. Soft lights, soft sermons, soft choruses caressing the air, have become the rage. Instead of “Eternal Father, Strong To Save,” we sing about walking with Jesus alone in a garden “while the dew is still on the roses,” or, in the words of one chorus, “I keep falling in love with him over and over and over and over again.” AD: Right, this is straight out of the liberal Unitarian, sentimental tradition of the nineteeth century. Women, by far, comprised the largest number of churchgoers, and they were staffing mission boards, Sunday school classes, and any other church position they could, at a time when they could not vote or purchase property. As writers, moral reformers, and Sunday school teachers women transformed the church and they wondered, “Why do we have to have all this theology and an emphasis on sin and the need for redemption? Why isn’t the home the model for God? Why shouldn’t the things we do and hear in church suit us where we are and woo us where we are, rather than expecting this radical change of heart that Calvinism had required?” MR: That’s an interesting point. A few years ago, Christianity Today ran a cover story on a so-called “megashift” in evangelical theology, from the “courtroom” model that emphasizes sin, guilt, judgment, and the need for an atonement and justification, to a more “relational” model. It was a switch from the courtroom to the family room, toning down the tough theology in favor of a more therapeutic approach. Do you see this as in some way the arrival of the sentimental creed firmly within that same evangelical

Protestant establishment that ended up leaving liberal Protestantism over these same issues early in the last century? AD: Oh, it is. I could quote you chapter and verse of ministers and evangelical women writers and reformers in the 1830s who said exactly the same thing—a sense that we need a more human God, a God who is nearer and will understand us better. It’s a tough issue, and Calvinists weren’t saying that God is uncaring. The problem with this whole sentimental tradition, which you’re describing in the twentieth century and I’m describing in the nineteenth, is that once you drop the idea that God is a judge, you do seem to weaken things. To some extent, my own sympathies lie with the Calvinist tradition, because I have enormous respect for the intellectual and spiritual endeavor of trying to understand a world that, you admit, is not necessarily there just to make you happy. MR: In the nineteenth century, the Arminian revivalist Sam Jones thundered, “God never did throw a javelin into the heart of his Son,” thus attacking the classical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement as insufficiently moral and sensitive. Increasingly, there is this cry for a “kinder, gentler” God in evangelism. Then you have the “Re-Imagining” conference of mainline feminists, among whom was one speaker who declared, “We don’t need guys hanging on crosses with blood dripping and all that weird stuff.” As strange as the parallel may seem, is there a connection here between Arminian revivalists and liberal Unitarians that makes today’s evangelicals and liberals more similar than we might have thought? In reaction against the offense of the Cross, many came to see Christ more as a caring nurturer (a mother, as you say in your book), rather than as a bloody sacrifice. Doesn’t this make unlikely bedfellows? AD: Of course, it is part of the whole thing. Again, it does have to do with that sense that, “Let’s not make all of this pain and suffering.” Surely, one replies, “Of course, let’s not. Faith is also a matter of joy”—something a Calvinist would have believed also. The problem is that there is injustice in the world and there is suffering. By constantly softening Christian doctrine, there is a danger that you are simply going to efface them altogether, and people are going to be left in a real way unguided and left to themselves, as they already are.

he following are highlights from a twohour interview with Michael Horton on The White Horse Inn radio program, November 1992. Dr. Schuller was invited to appear on The White Horse Inn by a mutual friend. Later he was sent a formal invitation which explained the program. The evening of the show, he was invited to Michael Horton’s house for dinner, during which the format of the show was again ROBERT explained to him, especially SCHULLER how it emphasizes classical Reformation issues in Pastor contrast to a lot of the Crystal Cathedral popular expressions of Garden Grove, California Christianity. Dr. Schuller responded by saying, “I have no problem with shows like that, as long as I have an opportunity to respond.”—EDS.

MR: Would you be willing to address your congregation as a group of sinners? RS: No, I don’t think I need to do that. First of all, my congregation is a very mixed audience. MR: But our Lord’s audiences were mixed with disciples and unbelievers both. RS: Oh yes, but I’ll tell you, the audience is quite different that I talk to than what the Lord spoke to. I speak every week to millions, not a million, but millions of people in Russia on Channel One. And I am speaking to a couple of million people every Sunday. MR: Are you saying that it is the size of the audience that matters? RS: No it’s not the size of the audience, it’s where they are at at this time. My only concern is: I don’t want to drive them farther away than they are! And I listen to so many preachers on religious radio stations … and by golly, if I wasn’t a Christian, they’d drive me farther away. I am so afraid that I am going to drive them farther; I want to attract them, and so I use the strategy that Jesus used. I preach the way Jesus preached. I don’t preach, probably, the way Paul preached. RS: If we want to win people to Jesus we have to understand where they are at.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

MR: I agree absolutely. And they are in sin, that is where they are at. RS: They are in the state of condition called sin, which means they don’t trust. They are lacking faith. MR: I guess the difference would be our definition of sin, because what I see in Scripture is that we’re dead in sin and cannot respond to God even if we were trusting. RS: Oh no, you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And very seldom do I use this language. People who know me say, “Schuller never comes across as if he knows the answers and others don’t.” It is not my style. But I intuitively say to you, you’re wrong! The ultimate, deepest, most sinful problem that you can imagine is lack of trust. Hebrews 11:6, “For without faith it is impossible to please God.” I can show you people, they believe the Bible is the Word of God from cover to cover, they believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary … but, they really don’t have a relationship with Jesus. They have that head knowledge, that head information, and unless you have a wonderful warm relationship, which means you are mutually friends, then you really don’t have the faith. And there are people who live wonderful lives today. They don’t commit adultery and they don’t steal and they don’t kill … if you go by what is sinful behavior they seem to be leading very fine lives. But they don’t have faith. MR: But isn’t it because faith is the instrument through which we’re justified before a God who otherwise would take account of us for our sins, not just our “not trusting”? RS: We are not justified by faith. MR: No, it is by grace through faith. RS: By grace through faith, that’s right. MR: But what I’m asking is this: Justified from what? The wrath of God? RS: Oh! I’ll never use that language MR: But the Bible does. RS: Yes, the Bible does, but the Bible is God’s book to believers primarily. Listen, and then call me a heretic if you want to, but I’m interested in attracting people, and not driving them farther away. There is language I can and will use, and there are times, if we are wise, there is language we will not use…. If God is a God of love, how do we handle this concept of wrath? At the outset, on the surface, it appears to be

3 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

a contradiction; maybe it is. I tell you this, I have come to the conclusion that I haven’t stepped into the center of truth until I’ve dared to step into contradiction. The Bible is a contradiction: Old Testament—Law, New Testament—Grace. Jesus is a contradiction; totally human and totally God. MR: Of course, we would say that the dual nature of Christ is a mystery but not a contradiction. RS: It is a contradiction, but you know what? Contradictions are ultimate points of creativity.

To order a cassette copy of the entire discussion with Rev. Schuller call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only) and ask for cassette #C-WHI340, or order online at www.AllianceNet.org.

The Development Office at Westminster Theological Seminary in California seeks a qualified professional with annual fund and/or major gift experience. The successful candidate will bring vision and leadership to strengthening the financial position of the Seminary. Salary and benefits are competitive and commensurate with experience. Send a letter of application and a detailed resume with salary history, by January 31, to: Development Office Search Westminster Theological Seminary in California 1725 Bear Valley Parkway Escondido, CA 92027 760.480.8474 www.wtscal.edu

BOOK

| Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There

Middle Class Idolatry

“T

Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There by David Brooks Simon and Schuster, 2000 $20.00, 284 pages, Hardcover

hrow an egg from a Pullman,” newspaper columnist and social critic H. L.

evokes simultaneously reveal a trenchant insight or Mencken famously noted in the 1920s, “and you’re bound to hit a compelling critique. He proffers a relatively fundamentalist.” Were David Brooks to update Mencken’s observation for straightforward thesis. The “culture wars” of the previous today, it might go something like “Toss a decades, marshaling as they did the 1980s’ forces of double mocha latte from an SUV, and bourgeois order, prosperity, and virtue against the you’re bound to hit a Bobo.” But just who 1960s’ values of bohemian creativity, liberation, are these curious new creatures that and indulgence, are over “at least in the realm of Brooks describes in his best-selling Bobos the affluent” (84). Neither side can claim complete in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How victory or defeat, because the conflict ended not They Got There. Brooks coined the with a bang or even a whimper, but with a neologism “bobos” as shorthand for marriage. The 1980s’ bourgeoisie and the 1960s’ “bourgeois bohemians.” And these Bobos bohemians, lubricated by the stunning abundance have emerged, he informs us, as the of the 1990s’ boom economy, embraced the most appealing aspects of each other’s worlds to merge dominant social class in America. The subtitle for Bobos in Paradise might together as “bourgeois bohemians.” As Brooks puts be just as appropriately The New Upper it, “Marx told us that classes inevitably conflict, but Class and How We Got Here. For Brooks sometimes they just blur” (43). The common denominator from which the readily confesses that he is a Bobo. And many readers of Modern Reformation might be Bobos Bobos derive their identity and status is education. as well—at least those among us who graduated Brooks’s first chapter, “The Rise of the Educated from “elite” colleges, buy our gourmet coffee at Class,” takes as its evidence the weddings page of Starbucks, drive SUVs, shop at Restoration the New York Times (also known, he notes, as the Hardware or Pottery Barn, and strive for the proper “mergers and acquisitions page”). What seems at balance between individual expression and first glance a breezy gossip section amidst the deference to tradition. While confessing otherwise stately and sober pages of the Times Christians of certain social strata may bear a becomes instead for Brooks a fascinating striking resemblance to Bobos, however, on a illustration of the new standards for elite status in deeper level we are—or should be, at least— America. The weddings section invariably significantly different. describes four details about each marriage partner: Brooks, a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and college degrees, graduate degrees, career path, and a regular contributor to the New York Times Magazine, parents’ profession. These credentials, Brooks the Atlantic Monthly, and National Public Radio, has claims, mark the new “meritocracy” that now recently emerged as one of America’s more governs American culture, business, and politics. insightful—and often quite funny—social Gone forever is the old WASP establishment, commentators. He describes his method in Bobos in based as it was on family lineage, inherited money, Paradise as “comic sociology.” Yet while Brooks uses shared culture, and ethnicity. Bobos instead value his wit to great effect, very often the laughs he diplomas from prestigious universities—the more

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

sense of guilt), work (it defines them, as long as it provides spiritual fulfillment), the life of the mind (a fetish for Bobos, as long as it also turns a profit), pleasure (another Bobo fetish, as long as it seems to serve a higher purpose), one can almost predict what Bobo religious life will look like. “Flexidoxy” is the term that Brooks adopts to describe Bobo spiritual life, and it fits deliciously well. “Flexidoxy,” as you may have guessed, stands for “flexible orthodoxy.” Bobos are not mere New Age narcissists, after all, blissfully and ignorantly adrift in a spiritual universe of their own imagining. Such drivel is as passé to the Bobos as other religious relics of the 1980s, like the Moral Majority. Bobos desire a rootedness, a sense of tradition and order in their spiritual lives—hence the appeal of religious orthodoxy. They gravitate toward orthodoxy with a key qualification, however. Bobos may be drawn back to churches and synagogues, “but they are not interested in having some external authority—pope, priest, or rabbi—tell them how to lead their lives” (242). Bobos desire involvement with traditional religion, but they also want to pick and choose which dictates of the faith they will follow—and which they will ignore. Brooks aptly summarizes this attitude as “rigor without submission” or “orthodoxy without obedience” (243). Likewise, Bobos resist any ultimate claims of morality. They are concerned with proper conduct, of course, but only as a matter of prudence, and the greatest heresy would be to “impose” their morality on someone else. Heaven and hell and a transcendent obos desire involvement with traditional religion, but they also want to pick and divine Judge seem far removed from the Bobo choose which dictates of the faith they will follow—and which they will ignore. religious universe. “Maybe instead of a Last Judgment there will just be a Last Rainforest Café restaurants cater to eco- Discussion,” as Brooks puts it so damningly (irony sensitivities while raking in the cash. Silicon Valley intended) (250). To consider it another way, this Bobo high-tech firms permit, even encourage, casual dress and a free-wheeling work environment while generation focuses on its “felt need” for an driving their stock listing to ever-loftier highs. The authentic religious experience, and gravitates world of the Bobo, in other words, is a world of toward those traditional forms of faith that might provide the most genuine experience. The actual reconciling contrary values. Brooks proceeds to describe how the Bobo ethic content and truth claims of dogmas, creeds, and looks at, variously, consumption, work, intellectual confessions matter little. It is almost as if William life, pleasure, religion, and politics. The James meets William (Bill) Hybels. Curiously, theologically minded readers of Modern Reformation Brooks does not address the disturbing boom in who pick up this book might be tempted to skip suburban evangelical mega-churches. Offering a straightaway to the penultimate chapter on customized and nonthreatening spiritual experience “Spirituality.” But to do so would be to miss out on ostensibly informed both by cutting-edge the deceptively rigorous progression of Brooks’s marketing techniques and centuries-old Christian argument. After reading the chapters on truths, it seems that today’s seeker-sensitive church materialism (Bobos embrace it, but only with a movement would appeal precisely to Bobo degrees the better—accompanied by professional accomplishment that contributes to societal welfare or personal wealth, preferably both. Religious affiliation, membership in exclusive country clubs, and ancestors dating back to the days of early America matter little to none in the eyes of these new educated elites. (Though as a sometime reader of the Times weddings page myself, it does seem that Episcopalians, Unitarians, Jews, and Catholics predominate among those couples featured). Bobos instead comprise a definite ruling class at the top of the American social hierarchy that, purportedly, remains open to anyone bearing the requisite educational and professional credentials. Once attaining this social status, how do Bobos define themselves? Brooks believes that Bobos root their identity in a set of contradictions. As he puts it, “This is an elite that has been raised to oppose elites. They are affluent yet opposed to materialism. They may spend their lives selling yet worry about selling out. They are by instinct antiestablishmentarian yet somehow sense they have become a new establishment” (41). Bobos, in other words, try to straddle the apparent contradictions of their new value system. And Brooks believes that they largely succeed. “The grand achievement of the educated elites in the 1990s was to create a way of living that lets you be an affluent success and at the same time a free-spirit rebel” (42). Thus, establishments like Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, Eddie Bauer sportswear, and

3 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

spirituality. Likewise, the recent runaway sales of Bruce Wilkinson’s The Prayer of Jabez appears to epitomize the triumph of the “Bobo ethic” within Evangelicalism. The Prayer of Jabez offers selffulfillment rooted in tradition, pithy spiritual wisdom that can be read in an hour but promises a lifetime of change, and a crass appeal to self in the guise of concern for the common good. It seems likely that the burgeoning “evangelical Bobos” among us—rarely do we have a new trend in popular culture without Evangelicalism quickly developing its own version—would account for the stunning commercial success of The Prayer of Jabez. Brooks offers no grand sweeping conclusions or solutions at the end of his book, in large part because he doesn’t perceive much of a problem. He regards Bobos as generally a responsible, upstanding, innocuous class of elites. As he concludes, “It’s good to live in a Bobo world.” Brooks even describes Bobos as “conservative,” at least in temperament, insofar as they value good manners, orderliness, and well-kept homes. His only real challenge to Bobos comes when he calls on them to develop a sense of higher purpose, to pursue “larger national and universal ideals” such as political reform at home and promotion of democracy abroad. Fair enough—who could oppose such things? At the end of the day, it remains unclear how enduring the Bobos will prove. We might consider the Bobo class the product of a particularly abundant bestowal of common grace at this moment in time. When Brooks wrote this book, peace reigned abroad, and prosperity, tranquility, even luxury, pacified us at home. One would be hard-pressed to find another decade in history when Americans, or any other people for that matter, had it so good. This raises the question of just how much Brooks’s argument depends on a continuing economic boom. Would he write the same book today, now that we have been reminded of the bull market’s fickle timidity—let alone the tragic fragility of peace and life itself? Is “Boboism” really a sustained class and movement, or rather just a frivolous by-product of a nation saturated in wealth and too satisfied with itself? I suspect there is more to Boboism than a high NASDAQ average, however. If we take Boboism to be a comprehensive value system that sacralizes achievement, order, personal fulfillment, balance, and tolerance, then wealth seems merely to facilitate the expression of these values, rather than actually create them. The heart of this new elite appears to be a desire to reconcile, balance, and moderate different cultures and values, all the while striving to create a more perfect world here on

earth. With the clarity that only hindsight offers, Brooks might better have titled his book Bobos in Peacetime. As such, two concerns emerge. For Americans, can the soft smooth edges of the Bobo ethic steel us for national trials, such as confronted us on September 11? Perhaps not; fifty years ago Reinhold Niebuhr prophetically warned that “Our own nation, always a vivid symbol of the most characteristic attitudes of bourgeois culture, is less potent to do what it wants in the hour of its greatest strength than it was in the days of its infancy.” And for Christians, can we distinguish between the common grace blessings and the perilous idols of Boboism? Whether in peace or in war we would do well to remember that we “desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one.”

William Inboden is a Civitas Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a doctoral candidate in history at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

What Are They Saying About Paul and the Law? by Veronica Koperski Paulist Press, 2001 $12.95 (paper), 148 pages Paul’s comments on the Mosaic law have generated controversy from his day to ours. In Paul’s time, two questions were prominent: (1) Did Paul’s claim that “We have now been discharged from the law” (Rom. 7:6) imply that “We should continue in sin” (Rom. 6:1)? (2) Since the law in this case is the Jewish law, did Paul’s claim imply that the Jews were no longer the people of God? Luther understood Paul’s claim that we are discharged from the law to mean that God justifies people not because of the good works they do but only on the basis of their faith in Christ. This reading produced intense controversy not unlike what Paul had faced: Does the exclusion of works from salvation mean that a Christian’s behavior does not matter? Does it mean that salvation is possible outside the political structures of the Church? More recently, Paul’s comments have generated controversy because some scholars have claimed that Luther imposed his own search for peace with God and his own struggle with Roman Catholic soteriology onto Paul. Luther, they say, made Paul

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

after his own image and Paul’s Jewish opponents after the image of Roman Catholic Scholasticism. Koperski surveys this debate, particularly as it has raged in scholarly journals and monographs over the last twenty-five years. She correctly locates the eye of the storm in the 1977 publication of E. P. Sanders’s volume, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders claimed that Protestant scholarship, epitomized in Rudolf Bultmann, had imposed Luther’s understanding of Paul on the Apostle’s letters with the disastrous result that Judaism was portrayed as a prideful and legalistic religion, the lowest point in human striving against the grace of God. Sanders himself believes that Paul rejected his former way of life in Judaism not because anything was intrinsically wrong with it but because it made no room for Christ—and Paul’s experience with Christ had shown him that Christ was the world’s savior. Organizing her survey into five chapters, Koperski takes Sanders as her reference point. The first chapter describes Luther’s and Bultmann’s position and the second chapter Sanders’s position. Chapter 3 gives J. D. G. Dunn’s position. Dunn thinks Paul was reacting not to Judaism as a religion of human effort but to Jewish nationalism. Chapter 4, titled “Luther/Bultmann Redivivus,” reviews the growing number of scholars who agree with Sanders that Judaism has been misrepresented in the past, but who nevertheless think that Luther’s reading of Paul was basically correct. Chapter 5 discusses scholars who have tackled the question, raised by Sanders and others, of whether Paul’s statements about the law are logically coherent. The final chapter ponders whether justification by faith alone apart from works of the law is the center of Paul’s theology, as the Lutheran consensus has traditionally claimed. Koperski’s sympathies lie with those who part with historic Protestantism on this point. She opts with many other Catholic scholars for the view that Christ is the center around which all of Paul’s theology turns. This is an accurate and overall evenhanded introduction to the recent scholarship. All but the last chapter is descriptive rather than evaluative in nature. Its descriptions are based on a faithful and intelligent reading of the enormous body of literature that has appeared on Paul and the law in the last twenty-five years. Her survey goes astray in three ways. First, she does not sufficiently emphasize the differences between Luther and Bultmann. Luther is innocent of the existentialism that informs Bultmann’s reading of Paul. Second, she gives short shrift to Stephen Westerholm’s brilliant defense of the classic Lutheran reading of Paul (Israel’s Law and the

3 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2

Church’s Faith, Eerdmans, 1988). Third, she fails to take account of Mark Seifrid’s important Justification by Faith (Brill, 1992). Seifrid compares Paul’s teaching on justification by faith apart from works of the law with Jewish texts of Paul’s own era and shows that some Jews in Paul’s time believed salvation resulted from a combination of God’s grace and human effort. This, Seifrid argues, is precisely what Paul resists in his letters. Still, anyone who has been confused by recent questioning of the reformers’ understanding of Paul will find this volume a useful introduction to the debate. Frank Thielman Presbyterian Professor of Divinity Beeson Divinity School Birmingham, Alabama

SHORT NOTICE Jeremiah and Lamentations: From Sorrow to Hope by Philip Graham Ryken Crossway Books, 2001 $34.99 (hardcover), 829 pages Biblical preaching has always driven Church reform. To be sure, programs and personalities have had their place; yet it has been expository, doctrinal, evangelistic preaching that has given Reformation longevity and depth. Though almost always under fire, expository preaching remains a foundation stone in godly parishes. Edited by R. Kent Hughes, Crossway Books’s “Preaching the Word” series offers examples of expository preaching that inform ministers and inspire readers who love biblical teaching. The series thereby attempts to help solidify churches and ministries and to reform preaching and worship where they have strayed from a biblical norm. Until now only New Testament volumes have been issued. The publication of Ryken’s Jeremiah and Lamentations: From Sorrow to Hope marks an excellent beginning to the inclusion of Old Testament expositions. Ryken preached the contents of this hefty volume at Tenth Presbyterian Church, where he now serves as senior minister. Each of the sixty-six messages exhibits his ability to be clear, doctrinally sound within the Reformed tradition, relevant, and scholarly. Short passages are almost unfailingly

divided accurately, explained in appropriate depth, illustrated from current events or Church history, and applied specifically to individuals and churches. Longer passages, such as the whole book of Lamentations, are broken into meaningful units based on theological or thematic truths found in the text. Ryken’s expositions are guided by the passage at hand, not by any preconceived notions of his own. Perhaps the book’s best feature is that it is an excellent model for expository preaching from prophetic books. Ryken handles well-known passages such as Jeremiah’s call (1:1–19), the Temple Sermons (chapters 7 and 26), and the New Covenant (31:27–40) impressively. In each case there is a careful blend of interpretation, theology, and application. He treats Jeremiah’s personal laments (e.g., 15:1–21) with pastoral sensitivity. Just as importantly, he opens up lesser-preached texts (e.g., 35:1–19), thus exposing readers to what may be for them fresh light on God’s Word. Thoughtful readers will note that the book offers them a method for examining, dividing, and applying each chosen text. They will find it easier to do the same sort of preaching—and not just repeat Ryken’s sermons—after reading this book. I strongly recommend this book. I have already given it to members of my seminary biblical preaching class and recommended it to university students interested in Jeremiah’s message. Bible preachers and Bible students will enjoy it and be enriched by it. Those who teach preaching courses will find it a helpful model for their students. May this work fuel Church reformation by encouraging more ministers to engage in expository preaching on Old Testament books! If it does so, then this first full-scale exposition of Jeremiah to appear in generations will surely have met its author’s expectations. Paul R. House Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry Ambridge, Pennsylvania

Ex Auditu

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 6 ]

In the midst of life we are in death. Yet Christ has chosen us for life in our baptism, to make us his own by the word of life, and to live by faith, and to bear fruit in the works of life. Our daily struggle is the very same battle enacted at Nain and at Calvary: death vs. life. It is the same gladiatorial combat, where either the force must be stopped or the object moved. They cannot both walk away. Either death must die, or death must win. With this in mind, St. Paul once considered the question that is in everyone’s mind when they learn the gospel of forgiveness: If sins are forgiven, what do they matter? Or, as he put it, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” But that cannot be. Not for the baptized. “By no means!” he responded to his own question. “How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” “So,” he concluded, “you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” And that is where we all live our lives, at the gates of Nain, in the cosmic spiritual struggle. It is no trivial matter, but literally life and death. Without Christ, there can only be one winner. Death prevails every time—pulling us into the deeds of death, leading us to the goal of death. But with Christ, there can only be one winner, every time. We face life’s challenges and temptations in him, and death is impotent. Amen.

Reginald Quirk (M.Phil., University of Cambridge) is senior minister of Resurrection Lutheran Church (Evangelical Lutheran Church of England) and preceptor, Westfield House Theological College, Cambridge.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

O R U M I N A T I O N S

N F R O M

A L L I A N C E

Y O F

C O N F E S S I N G

E V A N G E L I C A L S

N C O U N C I L

D M E M B E R S

Mark R. Talbot

The Limitations of Being Pro-Choice

ast summer, before the nation was rocked by terrorism, the most intensively covered

As one of Reeve’s fellowparalytics, I would respond to issue in the news media was the propriety of fetal stem-cell research. President Bush that line of reasoning like this: Some evils are so great had promised to decide whether our federal government should fund such research that they should never be committed, no matter how if it involved cells harvested from aborted fetuses. much good we think committing them may bring. Everyone recognized how high the stakes were Not every moral issue should be approached as if it because such research seems to be our best hope can be solved by merely running a careful for curing a multitude of human ailments including cost–benefit analysis. Some acts ought never to be diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and spinal-cord done, though the heavens may fall. paralysis. Among those appearing before Congress When Noah left the ark, God made a new to urge full federal funding were Mary Tyler covenant with him. Among its provisions was that Moore, who is diabetic; Michael J. Fox, who has it was now lawful for human beings to kill animals Parkinson’s disease; and Christopher Reeve, who is in order to eat meat, but that any animal or person paralyzed from his neck down. who killed a human being had to be brought to MARK R. TALBOT I watched these hearings with great interest, account. In explaining why he demanded this, partly because I am by trade a philosopher who is God reminded Noah that we are made in his image interested in ethical issues and partly because I am and so, as Calvin put it, he takes violence against Associate Professor partially paralyzed from a recreational accident human beings as violence against himself. of Philosophy Greater evils can befall human beings than that occurred more than thirty years ago. When I Wheaton College those accompanying diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, see Christopher Reeve, I don’t see him as most of Wheaton, Illinois you do; I see him from an insider’s perspective, and paralysis. Among these is the evil of losing our knowing all the problems that paralysis brings. I respect for human life; that is, for all human lives or for human life as such. In this regard, we must not know how difficult and dangerous his life is. These celebrities appealed for full funding for do evil that good may come. In fact, losing our fetal stem-cell research because of the great good respect for human life is probably the greatest that such research may bring. I’m not sure of this, earthly evil that can befall us because God’s words but I suspect that they are not utterly callous to the to Noah suggest that to lose respect for human life, evils of abortion. Many pro-choice advocates will which bears God’s image, is really to lose respect admit that, if everything is equal, it is best not to for God. No earthly good is worth this price. kill an unborn child. But, they hold, often It is all too easy for us, in feeling a proper everything is not equal; and so abortion is sympathy for human suffering, to seek solutions to sometimes the price we must pay to obtain some that suffering that God does not condone. Let us greater good. Watching Christopher Reeve, I make every proper effort to find medical solutions realized that many watching him will be tempted to ailments like diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and to accept reasoning such as this: Isn’t it permissible spinal-cord paralysis, for this is indeed part of what to sacrifice the lives of a few undeveloped unborn it means to respect human life. But let us not forget human beings if that may enable mature human that those solutions should not be sought at just beings like Reeve to walk again? Isn’t it better for an any cost. undeveloped fetus to suffer a little than for a fully conscious human being like Reeve to suffer a lot?

4 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2