A few years ago when I started reading about the emergent church there was one staple that I kept reading about: the pain and hurt that fundamentalism causes. It seemed that no matter which leader of the emergent church I was reading, there was always a story about how they were hurt by fundamentalists, or how a person they knew was driven away from their faith because of the actions (most often legalistic) of some fundamentalist on a rampage for Jesus.
I sympathized with such stories because I know that fundamentalists can (and do) cause a lot of pain to people in their zeal to uphold their legalistic law code. I have been in situations where I have been called to repentance because I left my soap on the soap tray in the shower during my time at a particular Baptist institute. The logic behind such a call for repentance was: a) you know that leaving the soap on the soap tray is against the rules (which I never really understood why…what else is a soap tray used for?), b) you left the soap on the soap tray anyway, therefore c) you knowingly violated a rule and need to repent of your rebellion.
Needless to say, you don’t have to live with this type of legalism too long before you start being repulsed by it. Why is it that the love of God displayed in the Gospel can motivate some people to act so unlovingly? Instead of turning into grace-filled disciples of Christ who spread his message and love to a broken world, they become perpetual finger pointers who rarely encourage and more often rant about how everyone is violating the rules. Their rules.
In the end, legalism, at its root, is the result of the same sin that caused the fall of humanity in the Garden. God is replaced with us, his rules for our rules, in a prideful transaction in man’s heart. Instead of fighting against idolatry, they end up practicing it.
Believe me, I understand what these emergents are talking about. But that still didn’t make their movement make sense to me. Just because someone acts like the voiceless cousin of Balaam’s ass doesn’t mean that we should walk away from them theologically, which is what I saw many within the emergent movement doing. There are going to be jerks in everyone’s camp, that’s one of the downfalls of living in a broken world. There are jerks in fundamentalist circles, emergent circles, atheist circles, agnostic circles, etc. The move the emergents were making because some KJV-Only, crew-cut sporting legalist made them mad just didn’t seem justified.
And then I came to the PCA…and I understood everything the emergent movement was talking about.
As a member of the PCA and a student at a conservative, Reformed seminary going through a really tough time (on all sides), I can feel the desire to just walk away. Who needs to be part of a community that spends its time fighting over the interpretation of the words of a bunch of churchman nearly 300 years ago? Who needs to be part of a community that justifies unloving speech and actions by claiming that they are “defending the gospel”? Who needs to be part of a community where you could be addicted to porn, but know the right theological words to say and, as a result, fly under the radar while others, who are perhaps more sanctified, are thrown under the bus because they ask the wrong questions about the Confession or the Bible (which are both functionally the same in this community)?
I’m not only sympathetic of the emergent’s feelings towards fundamentalists (Reformed or otherwise), but I am now empathetic. I get it. I understand it. And I want to run.
I understand the logic behind their thinking: orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inherently connected. If the orthodoxy that is espoused in a certain community leads to arrogance, legalism, and a lack of love towards another sister or brother in Christ, doesn’t it follow that something is broken? If a God honoring orthodoxy is supposed to manifest itself in a God honoring orthopraxy, and yet the only orthopraxy that is being manifested is a bunch of rotten fruit, wouldn’t it follow that something else must be rotten? A good tree, as one wise sage once said, does not bear bad fruit.
Even as I type that, I cringe. I cringe because I love Reformed theology. I cringe because I love presbyterian ecclesiology. I cringe because I love being part of such a rich tradition of revolutionaries, defenders of the faith, theologians, scholars, and churchmen. I cringe because I know of some within the PCA who understand what I am talking about: they have been hurt too and I would much rather stand by them then tear myself away.
But I’m not quite sure I can do it. I’m not sure I can deal with people constantly criticizing and pointing fingers instead of encouraging and shaking hands. I’m not sure I can deal with the intellectual arrogance and close-mindedness instead of humility and a willingness to learn. I’m not sure I can deal with all of the intramural fights instead of spreading the Gospel.
I’m just not sure.
13 April 2008 at 5.52 am
I’ve been a part of the PCA for about four years, and three of those years were spent with the PCA in Canada, which seems to be quite disconnected with the PCA down here, though has its own set of problems, to be sure. But even being down here I haven’t been personally affected (yet) by what you talk about in this post, though I’ve been privileged to hear of all kinds of things. In principle I’ve always had a bit of a problem with non-denominational churches, but sometimes the desire rages pretty strong in me to jump on their bandwagon and only have to contend with a local church. But, I suppose as long as we’re all sinners there will always be something to deal with.
13 April 2008 at 8.17 am
Let me tell you a simple story of Goldie Locks and the three Presbyterians…
Goldie Locks was wandering in the woods in hopes of finding a church. The first church she came across was the PCA. After entering she found it nice, but “too hard” to make sure that she would always fit in. So she embarked on another walk to find her church home. That is when she came across the PCUSA. When she entered there she felt welcomed but after is little while she realized that they were “too soft.”
So, discouraged, Goldie Locks set out again to find a good Presbyterian Reformed church to belong to. She had to search high and low since she had already visited the two biggest and most well known churches and they were either “too hard” or “too soft.”
Then one day she came across a church. She entered and discovered that they were a reformed Presbyterian church who, as a denomination, was intentionally seeking what it means to become missional. She noticed that their motto was the famous quote “In Essentials, Unity; In Non-Essentials, Liberty; and in all things Charity.”
This seemed like where she was looking for, but was it real. So she checked around. On the essentials they have not wavered and they are even the refuge for some PCUSA churches who like New Wine and desire a fellowship with others who want to be missional and hold to the essentials of the faith. In regards to the liberty, they offer each church the autonomy and the responsibility to practice their conscience in areas like women in leadership or the expressions of spiritual gifts in worship. And in all things charity she asked around and found that, even though they were far from perfect, they were known for being charitable most of the time.
So it looks like Goldie Locks journey was over. Her new church, though its not big, and it isn’t perfect, she felt that who it is and where it is going was “juuuuust right.”
So she joined the EPC (epc.org).
13 April 2008 at 9.03 am
Art, why do attribute the sins of fundamentalism to the Reformed communions? Everyone knows that in the PCA you can drink, smoke, dance, and go to movies. I grew up in a fundamentalist home, and the PCA is no fundamentalist church.
Could it be that you don’t like the drawing of boundaries or exclusion? But on definitional grounds, everyone excludes. The emergents aren’t exactly cooperating with Bill Hybels. Rick Warren isn’t exactly trying to join the United Reformed Churches. Doesn’t everyone exclude? Is it possible even to use language without excluding definitions of words?
13 April 2008 at 10.24 am
Jake: That’s one thing that I am also thinking about: no matter what denomination or church you are a part of, there are going to be issues. I guess you have to pick and choose which issues you really want to be caught up in. I’d rather argue about the best way to reach the community for Christ: feeding the poor or cleaning the neighborhood parks or running sports leagues? At least then the focus in on building the kingdom, not about sabotaging brothers.
Ken: Great story.
Dr. Hart: Perhaps you should read my post again.
I did not attribute the sins of fundamentalism to the Reformed communion. I attributed arrogance, finger pointing, and intramural fighting with the Reformed communion, which have been the negative experiences of my time in the PCA. There have been some positive experiences as well, which is why I am struggling with staying or leaving. I said nothing about dancing, drinking or smoking.
Could it be that you don’t like the drawing of boundaries or exclusion?
????
When did I say anything like this in my post? Asking questions like this makes me think that you are honestly not commenting here to actually have a conversation, but that you have some axe to grind against me personally or those who support Pete or those who read my blog because this question has nothing to do with what I wrote. I said nothing about boundaries or exclusion.
13 April 2008 at 1.01 pm
Great article! Good Luck in your searching…
13 April 2008 at 3.41 pm
Art, chillax. You began a piece where you say you’re leaving the PCA by talking about the sins of fundamentalists. You later talk about how you understand the emergent critique of fundamentalism after your time in the PCA. Why wouldn’t one think that you were accusing the PCA of fundamentalism? You don’t really have a modernist hermeneutic, do you, that disregards any meaning of the sub-text?
The reason for bringing up exclusion is that this is usually the way people talk about conservatives who draw the line and say something/someone is beyond the pale. Good conservatism is only positive and does not exclude. Bad conservatism, the kind that excludes, is fundamentalist. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you haven’t been wild about Enns’ being suspended (a form of exclusion) from WTS. Would it not be fair to see any connection between your casting aspersions on fundamentalism and on WTS for criticizing Enns?
I am actually interested in conversation, Art. And I keep hoping to learn something that I haven’t heard before. I keep trying to figure out the kind of commitment to being Reformed that you exhibit. It is different from mine. So maybe I’ll learn and become better about the way I understand being Reformed.
I also hang out and intervene in order to try to keep you honest, to try to see that the way you say things may have implications you don’t want to own. Believe it or not, listening to you keeps me honest. I still disagree with you decisively on many things. But I actually think that I can fairly describe Enns’ supporters rather than simply casting them into the dustbin of folks who went off the rails. I’m still wondering if my interactions with you have changed your perceptions of conservative Reformed. To lead a post about the PCA with the subject of fundamentalism suggests that you have not.
13 April 2008 at 4.39 pm
Dr. Hart: For the second time, I was not labeling the PCA as fundamentalist. Again, I did not attribute the sins of fundamentalism to the Reformed communion.
I was drawing an analogy that I thought was clear: just like the emergent movement has been hurt by some within fundamentalist circles, I have been hurt by some within PCA circles.
That is the analogy. I’m not saying that the PCA is fundamentalist or that I am emergent.
I’m still wondering if my interactions with you have changed your perceptions of conservative Reformed. To lead a post about the PCA with the subject of fundamentalism suggests that you have not.
It has changed my perceptions.
But once again, let me be as clear as I possibly can: I am not, and did not, equate the PCA or conservative Reformed communions with fundamentalism.
I was simply drawing an analogy between the experiences of those in the emergent movement with fundamentalism and my experience with conservative Reformed communions.
The experience was the same, not the people that we have interacted with, those people’s theology, or the actions of those people.
People in the emergent movement were hurt by legalism and pushed away from fundamentalism.
I have been hurt by arrogance, close-mindedness, and intramural fighting.
It is fair to draw a connection between the Enns situation and this post. That looms large in the background.
But I have no problem with exclusion. For instance, if someone wrote a book on Arminianism or Open Theism, I would clearly say that they are excluded from a confessionally Reformed communion. There is no way to interpret the WCF to support either theology.
But that is something altogether different from the situation at hand.
13 April 2008 at 8.35 pm
I’ll pray for you and your decision.
13 April 2008 at 10.04 pm
First Art let me tell you that I do in fact enjoy what you had to say. I know that that the current debate is one that has affected you personally. I at times wish that working with Christians would look something like working with pagans. Pagans are so much more loving. I guess I have noticed that on any front there are discussions of orthodoxy. We could drop all this and turn to love, but then what would we have. There will eventually be an issue that we must stand for or against. However, the difference with institutions is that the questions are much harder for them to answer. They now have to answer the question out what is more intrinsic to the institution rather than what is good from “me” personally. The PCA is a big beast and as such it will make decisions and progression and a much slower rate of speed, than any one sect of the emergent church.
The question that stands to be reasoned then is when will my sect of church as a question or make a decision that I am not comfortable with, and will I then choose to be part of the solution or part of the “problem”.
I speak as an individual that has chosen to leave fundamentalism and have no plan to return. I do not like their hate, but what part of their doctrine do I ascribe. I do currently attend a PCA church, but I am not PCA. I have no idea what the PCA believes on any one issue. I do know what I believe. Am I reformed? On some Mondays I am. The real question is where am I most capable of using my gifts? I know that at this juncture it will be hard for you to see the PCA as anything but the Westminster tragedy, but my hope is not found in a movement.
That said to label myself emergent is down right scary. To say that doctrine does not matter makes me shake at my core. There are truths that I will not forsake. There are truths that matter. There are many more truths that do not matter to me, but that have to matter to a big organization like the PCA.
I am on a board for a orphanage and we recently had to wrestle with the question of whether or not we would allow an intern to work at the orphanage with long hair. While at the root this seems like it could very well be a legalistic concern, the concern is much more rooted in culture than anything else. Unfortunately we have to be concerned with not only what is Christian, but what will be the implications of a decision in either direction. Is it possible that we could lose respect from the government. While I do not like to even ask the question it becomes a question that must be asked, not from the stand point of what is best for me and what I believe, but what is best for the organization. What will make this organization able to thrive in its environment.
Honestly I care zero about what a person wears of looks like, but as a member of a board my questions become much broader. All that to say even when a board makes a decision that I hate, I need to look at the reason that it is there and ask the question if they are protecting something worth protecting. While the length of hair may not be worth protecting, the organization and its mission may in fact be more valuable than letting me flaunt my liberty.
I know very little about this tragedy you are experiencing, but I challenge you to look at all sides. What if a professor was in fact saying something very different that what Peter is saying, what if he were taking an atheist perspective on scripture, would that be a less messy situation and would there not be damage on all sides. I understand that what Peter says in his book is orthodox in both mine and your opinion, but we are individuals not an institution.
Art you have the right to leave an institution for any reason that you want to, but at some point you still have to answer the question of what is orthodox for you personally. Once you have answered that question find a place that lets you use you gifts to the fullest and reach as many people as you can. Pastor or teach somewhere and let the stupid issues fall to wayside. Who cares if people speak in tongues or if women are leading in ministry, those are not questions that matter to me, but will my church perform a gay wedding or not, that question matters. Let me not be so shallow to believe that when I stand against a gay wedding in my church that I will not upset people, however, it is my right and not only my right to stand for that which I believe at my core is orthodox. May we not be so blind as to believe that if we fight against an institutions right to stand for orthodoxy that we are also fighting against our personal right to make an uncomfortable stance in the future.
I do believe that there is a loving way to make a stance and an unloving way, but let us be careful when we make the decision about the right to stand, for without a stance where will the truth be and who will be held accountable.
13 April 2008 at 10.12 pm
Art,
I can totally understand. Mid-seminary, I left another denomination and joined the PCA.
When you say stuff like “the only orthopraxy that is being manifested is a bunch of rotten fruit” you take a jab at alot of great people, people who love Jesus. That offends me, man.
Is Tenth Pres. simply bad apple? Is Liberti just rotten grapes? Are the 8 sites of Harbor simply rotten peas on a pod? Is Redeemer a big fat wormy watermelon?
Is a trial a conviction? If its the Enn’s thing then why not wait it out?
Where would you go?
13 April 2008 at 10.43 pm
Hey Sam: I don’t think Art is speaking (not that I’d speak for him) about every voice in the PCA. He’s talking about a consistent dynamic within the PCA that does tend to squabble. Lots of the metabolism of the PCA gets used in border squabbles instead of more worthwhile things. I’d say a place like Redeemer is a perfect example of the way to do it.
13 April 2008 at 10.56 pm
Well, I for one completely understand everything you’re saying. I haven’t been totally in the PCA, but I have friends and family who are/were, and I’ve attended PCA churches for a short time. I’m not sure if I’d classify myself as fully “emergent”, but I definitely lean that way. Please do not be taken-in by rumors and exaggerations of what a few people in the Emerging Church say…the thing is, it’s not one big church where everyone believes the exact same thing and has rules on how you do things. (like pca) It’s nothing more than a conversation among many people, so some you will disagree with and some you will identify with. And that’s ok. And yes, you will offend people with your words, but I feel like I understand your intentions and your heart behind it… it is hard. Of course there are wonderful people and ridiculous people in any church… but that’s not to say that certain denominations don’t have over-arching tendencies that may or may not be healthy and biblical. Why don’t you just have a little look around at what else is out there, it doesn’t have to be this big “leaving the church” thing right now, does it? Look around, keep reading, keep learning, talk to people… be open to where God’s leading you. I reccomend reading some http://www.internetmonk.com, I think it will really reasonate with you.
13 April 2008 at 11.11 pm
Interesting to read. I mentioned on an earlier post that I’d heard folks rumbling about the PCA apparently moving right. Our current church left for the EPC. When we first started Redeemer (another story), some presbytery guy (when Redeemer didn’t have its own presbytery) started writing me letters about why women shouldn’t be deaconess, etc. (and I wasn’t even a deacon, but did teach adult sunday school). He seemed like an outlier at the time, but not so much now? I became a Christian in a PCA church (Annapolis EP), so my heart is there, too. I have heard really good things about Bryan Chappell (sp?) at Covenatn that he is solid.
14 April 2008 at 12.08 am
Well, around the world, the church is facing a lot of these internal problems lately. I’ve seen friends get severely discouraged and church attendance plummeting. It’s sad when the church keeps their flock away. But pray and keep persevering; the righteous road is a tough road.
14 April 2008 at 12.32 am
Sam: I did not mean to offend you. Amy said what I was thinking. There are some shining lights in the PCA, and those lights are why I don’t want to leave. I love churches like liberti, Redeemer, City Church, and Harbor. If it weren’t for them, and those like you, in the PCA then I would already be gone.
And, in this case, the trial definitely seems like a conviction…since the conviction (”suspension”) preceded any kind of trial. It seems that “guilty until proven innocent” is what is being followed in this situation. If not, then I’m unsure how to interpret what is going on.
Nathan: Thanks for your comments and your testimony.
Emily: Thank you as well for your comment. I have checked out iMonk and Boar’s Head. There are often some great conversations on both.
Hal: I envy your prayers. Thank you.
longing: Like I said to Sam, there are some very solid, charitable people in the PCA. I wish that was the rule instead of the exception.
dormiens: At this point the problem is trying to figure out what the ‘righteous’ road is: staying or leaving. Once I figure that out, I will not be afraid to follow that road, whichever it may be.
14 April 2008 at 12.35 am
I’m not sure what the PCA is, Presbyterian Church of America?
How about trying the Orthodox Christian Church. I jumped around a lot trying to find a church rooted in history and truth and found the Orthodox Church. There are many different ethnic Orthodox, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.
Find and read a book titled “Becoming Orthodox” by Peter Gilquist, he was huge into Campus Crusade for Christ and converted to Orthodoxy. Just a suggestion without being “religiously political”
14 April 2008 at 12.36 am
Sorry to hear about that ‘really tough time (on all sides)’ Mighty hard, huh?
But your God is with you, in it…
I had 8 years of the charismatics, 8 years of the Reformed, and then, a patch work, since.
The reformed doctrines — at least the ones I was privielged to be introduced to — were/are some of the greatest truths in existence. The charismatics, (of the ’70’s at least,) had the greatest sense of community closeness. I think I’ve been trying to find the blend, ever since.
I’ve taken a look into the Emergents, and find their impatience or disinterest in doctrine to be concerning.
There’s loads of other church choices out there…just because your denomination is acting (childish? — certainly in things of the Lord!) doesn’t mean it’s wise to do a 180 turn.
If you have to leave, find something you can respect both theologically as well as relationally.
btw – you aware of the Sovereign Grace churches? CJ Mahaney, Josh Harris, etc? Worth your looking into… Reformed, and bunch of real godly guys… (as with Piper, too…)
Don’t jump ship too quick.
btw – if you haven’t read Desiring God yet (Piper) I’d encourage you to do so…you’ll find a great mind who knows that our christianity CAN NOT have the great thoughts, without the great behaviour and actions, from the depths of the heart, attached. We decieve ourselves, to think this.
His fiery passion for both truth, and experience are a needed flame today.
God bless you —
p.s. when your environment fails, God doesn’t.
14 April 2008 at 12.44 am
hilda: I haven’t heard of that book. Perhaps if I ever start thinking about the Orthodox Church then I’ll give it a read.
n craig johnson: I have read a lot of Piper and enjoy his work. One of my father’s favorite books is Desiring God, which he gave me to read shortly after Christ brought me to himself. I am also aware of Sovereign Grace and the work of Mahaney. His book on humility is great.
I’m not sure where I’ll end up right now, but I know that I still want to be part of a rich community of faith. I’m still thinking about the whole situation and wrote this post as a way to get some things “out there” and see what others have to say. So far comments like your own have been very helpful in this process, for which I thank you.
14 April 2008 at 1.15 pm
I came across this blog several weeks ago and have appreciated the discussion of the WTS/Enns matter. This most recent post moved me to reluctantly leave the realm of the lurkers and enter the conversation because I do not want to see you leave the PCA. In thinking of how to respond I will simply reflect on what has been of help to me in the almost 30 years since my ordination (RPCES, now PCA). These are just snippets that you can follow-up if they sound helpful.
1. F. Schaeffer – The Church At The End of The 20th Century: “What God wants from us is not only doctrinal faithfulness, but our love day by day. Not in theory, mind you, but in practice.” Schaeffer went through the battles and his wisdom is welcome now.
2. Bonhoeffer – Life Together and his discussion of the danger of a wish dream about community.
3. R.J. Neuhaus – Freedom For Ministry: “The tension between the theological or spiritual definition of Church and the sociological fact of Church is acutely embarrassing.” “We are the ambassadors of a sovereign who is to come; who, until he comes, is enthroned on a cross, exhibiting his majesty in love that suffers with a world that suffers because its defiance delays his rule. Around that cross and the hope of his coming a community has gathered. It is the institution called the Church, fathered, we believe, by the Spirit, in continuity with the apostolic witness….the embarrassment of it, the absurd ambiguities, the seeming uselessness of it – all this we despise, indeed all this we flaunt, for the joy that is set before us.” (you may quibble with his language but get the point)
4. Elijah – I’m the only one left. Best not to go there. This Church, with all its “thus and so-ness” (Neuhaus) belongs to Jesus. And following Him we minister in hope.
14 April 2008 at 1.16 pm
N. Craig J.: Art can’t read Piper..if Enn’s is outside the WCC then Piper really is! He is one of those filthy Credo-Baptist!
D
(Fellow Credo-Baptist and Fellow BGC pastor with J.P)
14 April 2008 at 1.33 pm
Cal: I’m glad you decided to comment because I really benefited from your reflections. I have read Bonhoeffer’s work in the past. It would be interesting to read Life Together again in the midst of my current struggles. I’m sure different passages would stick out to me at this point.
poop: hahaha. I’m not sure ‘filthy’ would be a good term for a credo-baptist. You certainly get more clean by immersion than by sprinkling!
14 April 2008 at 2.05 pm
Art,
Have you ever read Keller’s paper about the original lines of the PCA, I would highly recommend it. If I can find it I’ll email it to you.
If this is Jesus’ church then he is going to fix the stuff we mess up. I think everyone in the leadership of the PCA is seeking to follow Jesus, the difference comes in what we think he has called us to do.
My pastor recommended that I listen to a class that Jerram Barrs gave about Schaeffer, where he talks about how Schaeffer viewed division in the church. I hear its very helpful.Its on covenant’s site for free.
On a different thought: Im guessing you’re a candidate or intern in the Philly Pres. Why not see what the guys in your presbytery think. Especially the guys at your church. In general you closest connections will be with them, its their views of you that matter. And their interpretations of events that are most central to your ministry in the PCA. Im not really worried about the fringe, 5% on either side of the PCA, that think that by yelling really loud, they will become the majority. I hope you seek to be united to men that you can stand next to even when you disagree with them on major issues. It sucks dude, I hate devision, I hate the sins that seek to tear Jesus limb from limb. I can totally understand the desire to bail, but id urge against it.
14 April 2008 at 3.01 pm
Art,
Before I get into any of my personal comments, let me say that there is a definitional problem going on here with the word fundamentalism. It seems that in the posts above, Fundamentalism can be defined as “The things I don’t like about Christianity or how certain Christians act”.
As I see it there are 4 kinds of “fundamentalism” 1 good 3 bad. I will start with the good.
#1 Historic Fundamentalism — Good. Historically, a fundamentalist is not someone who says it is a sin to drink, smoke or even dance! A fundamentalist historically is one who holds to the basic fundamentals of the faith (what we would call orthodox). Presbyterians like B.B. Warfield, Charles Erdman, William Morehead, along with Anglicans like Bishop Moule, United Free Church of Scotland guys like James Orr, Baptist (can I type this here???) like Griffith Thomas and R.A. Torrey. A.C. Dixon and G. Campbell Morgan, Bretheren like A.C. Gaebeleine, and other theologians from various communities of faith came together to combat the “modernists” of the late 19th and early 20th century and wrote essays in the series of books called “The Fundamentals”. Those who held to the truths espoused in these essays were “fundamentalist” and those who didn’t were “modernist” or theologically liberal.
#2 Separatist, Militant Fundamentalist — These people judge spirituality by who you hang around with. If you spend time with people outside of their “community” you are suspect to this group. You should only be with those who agree with you or you are “Liberal”. You should only read those who agree with you, and whatever you do, don’t go to a Billy Graham Crusade!
#3 Classic Life-style Fundamentalist — These are people who measure spirituality by what you do or mostly by what you don’t do! Spirituality is measured by a code, dertain cultural mores, I.E. I am spiritual because I don’t smoke or don’t drink or don’t dance, or by how you dress. Most people are using this as the backdrop for Fundamentalism. They compare themselves with others and always come out on top. They are PROUD of themselves and are pretty sure that the Lord is proud of them too. (On the other hand there is an equal legalistic response which goes like this “You can tell I am spiritual, I drink papst, smoke cigars and can get down on the dance floor….” or “Look at that guy wearing a suit to Church, he must be a legalist, truly spiriutal people dress down….” Again the flaw is measuring spirutality by what you do or don’t do!) As anyone who studies the Scripture realizes, true spirituality is walking with Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. By the way, this is somewhat measureable according to Galatians 5.
#4 Theological Fundamentalism– There are expressions of this within many communities of faith. Instead of holding to the historic fundmentals, there are many additional theological distincitives added. If your belief system falls within the perameters of the group, then you are in, if they don’t, you are out. For instance, I am a Baptist with a deeply reformed soteriology, which would put me in some peoples “out group”. The distinctives are different by group. In some groups it is the “confession” in others it is “Dispensationalism” in others it is “Sovereign Grace” ….you get the picture. The issue isn’t the principles within these systems, it is when these systems become totally inflexible and the people within the systems measuring others not by Biblical principles of life, but by whether they hold to their “Historic distinctives’ closely enough or not. In their mind there is no need to grow theologically becaue they already have it right. Their “community” settled that long ago, all we need to do is study “Their theology” and we will be fine. Think outside that box and you are classified as “Liberal”.
I hope that will help the discussion move along. I think Art is using the term in a combination of #3 and #4, but in light of what is going on at Westminster, mostly #4.
O.K, now to the discussion. Any commuity of faith is going to have some fundamental problems because they are comprised of people who battle with sin and sometimes lose that battle. There are 2 issues that are (should be) closely related, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. You may be able to have some of the second (right behavior-practice) without the first. The sad reality is that you can have the first (othodoxy) without the second (orthopraxy). There is only one proper response that I see and that is to strive to hold doggedly to both. We cannot juxtapose one over the other. In any tradition there are going to be struggles living out what you know. If we are all honest, we have that struggle individually, OK, maybe you don’t, but I do. I am continually seeking to live up to what I already know.
Whatever community of faith we are in, let’s commit to the truth of God’s word first and then to live it out for His glory!
I love you son, and you know that I am praying for you,
Dad
14 April 2008 at 3.25 pm
Bill, I love your list, but don’t forget Augustus H. Strong among the Baptists. I admit I’m a little partial to Strong because he and I both grew up in Rochester, NY and pastored churches in Haverhill, MA. (Strong was ordained at First Baptist in 1861 and I am currently at Ward Hill Congregational.) In terms of theological erudition, however, the differences between us couldn’t be more stark. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, Strong would be the Matterhorn and I the wart.
BTW, Bill, you’ve raised a fine son there in Art. I can only pray that my sons too will grow up to love Jesus and the Red Sox.
14 April 2008 at 4.54 pm
Manilus,
Haverhill? I grew up in North Attleboro? GO SOX (and let’s hope Big Papi gets back on the stick)
Art, Sorry to use your blog to promote the SOX……..NOPE, I am not!
14 April 2008 at 4.56 pm
Dad: You are absolutely correct in your assessment. I would be referring mostly to #4.
I know I’m going to face similar issues in any community of faith that I belong too, just like you said. There is always going to be a disconnect between orthodoxy and orthopraxy to a certain degree. The problem is when that disconnect goes unnoticed. You are aware of the disconnect, which makes you a much more charitable person that people want to be around. Someone who is self-reflective tends to be like that. When self-reflection isn’t occurring, the Gospel becomes stagnate in people’s lives, since it should always lead to self-reflection and continual sanctification. It seems that ‘theological correctness,’ at least in the situations I am experiencing, negates the need for self-reflection which leads to an even greater disconnect between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Your words, as always, are well spoken.
manlius: The two greatest miracles in the history of the world: the resurrection of Christ and the 2004 ALCS, 3 games to 0 comeback. The third would probably be Roberts’ game 4 steal!
14 April 2008 at 5.12 pm
Bill: My dad grew up in Providence, so not too far from your hometown.
Art: Your point struck me as a bit ominous. How many years will it be before baseball scholars (with an axe to grind against the Red Sox) start denying the historical reality of the Comeback and the Steal? I mean, surely the eyewitnesses of those events lacked any sense of objective neutrality.
14 April 2008 at 8.48 pm
O.K. Now we know where Art got his intelligence from.
Art, I’m an old guy with four wonderful Jesus loving children the oldest is 49. Just keep doing what you are doing. Don’t make any quick moves.
Keep trusting.
14 April 2008 at 8.58 pm
Art,
I’m going through some of the same things. I love reformed theology, and I love the PCA, but this whole thing at Westminster has left a bitter, bitter taste in my mouth. My wife and I have been doing a lot of discussion about whether we will stay in the PCA church. The question I am dealing with, and have not yet come to an answer for is how useful subscription to the Westminster Confession is after all.
Another question I haven’t yet settled: to what extent does what happened at Westminster reflect broader currents in the reformed stream?
The question of whether I want to stay in the PCA can be reformulated from the other perpsective. If what happened at WTS reflects broader currents in the conservative reformed community, then to what extent will that church want me if I follow Dr. Enns and others in seeking to explore the full humanity of Scripture? You and I are both looking into careers in this field; recent events have been existentially disturbing to say the least.
14 April 2008 at 10.47 pm
Can we please keep the conversation on task… enough of the Bo Sox….
I am still reeling in pain from last years meltdown (or comeback… depending on your perspective) by my beloved Cleveland Indians… Up three to one… we just needed one more game…. one more game… … … I want a beer.
14 April 2008 at 10.56 pm
Ken: Not to rub it in or anything…but the Sox pulled a 9th inning comeback against the Tribe tonight.
Ok, that was to rub it in.
Nathan: I definitely agree with your reflections. In a few years we might have a better idea of whether or not recent events will be descriptive of the PCA at-large. My prayer is for that not to be the case.
15 April 2008 at 12.04 am
Art, I know I’m new here and I’ll be mostly lurking for awhile but after that killer post I just have to jump in and say I love your Dad!!
Ditto what David B said too, and I’ll just add, keep on building bridges both inside and outside the PCA.
Adding FNCI to my blogroll.
Blessings,
Peg
15 April 2008 at 7.01 am
Is it impolite to point out here to those who are thinking about leaving the PCA because of what happened at WTS that what happened at WTS in 1929 was what kept many from leaving a modernist church, the PCUSA? The point of the question is that if you know the history behind and during WTS, you should not be surprised that theological differences exist, or that it can mean the end of appointments and the rupture of relationships. What has happened so that many WTS alums and students think that WTS is more like Fuller than the school that Machen and Van Til founded?
15 April 2008 at 8.18 am
Dr. Hart: Impolite, probably not. Irrelevant, perhaps.
2008 is not 1929. Enns is not Briggs.
If some alumni and students think that WTS is more like Fuller than like the school that Machen and Van Til founded then they are a few fries short of a Happy Meal. I’m not sure how else to put it.
Gaffin, Tipton, Jue, Gree, Oliphint, Trueman, Poythress, Kelly, Edgar, Enns…
Fuller? Really? I don’t see it.
15 April 2008 at 9.25 am
Art,
I have been amazed myself at the disconnect between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. I was always told that Orthodoxy leads to Orthopraxy. I am not convinced, however. Mainly because I have read a lot of James, and realize that even demons are Orthodox. They know the truth, and they refuse it. I am not therefore, drawinig an analogy between demons and anyone involved in these issues. I am simply saying that people can clearly be shouting all the right words for all the wrong reasons, and when done outside of love, there is nought they can do but fall on other deaf, and or angry ears (dependinig on what side they are on). As far as the leaving/staying thing goes…. hang in there. I am also in the midst of the same/similar struggle. I just want to be around people who love Christ, and want to SHOW that love to the world, not explain it in an intellectualy verifiable theological exposition.
16 April 2008 at 1.10 am
Art, if Enns is not Briggs, what was wrong with Briggs?
16 April 2008 at 11.37 am
Dr. Hart: I’ve answered that question before.
To answer it again:
Briggs believed that both reason and the Church could be fountains of salvation outside of Scripture.
Enns believes in salvation through Christ alone who is revealed in Scripture alone.
Briggs believed that many of the prophecies of the OT have not and cannot come to pass.
Enns, in both I&I and his Exodus commentary, puts forth a Christotelic reading of the OT which sees all things summed up and fulfilled in him.
Just to name two…
19 April 2008 at 10.58 am
[...] Boulet’s exceptional reflection on fundamentalism and the temptation to become [...]
22 April 2008 at 6.20 am
Hey Dude. I am a young-ish Baptist Pastor in South Africa going through the same process. I finished my studies two years ago and I am slowly being wearied by fundamentalism that is somehow accepted as so normal by my siblings in Christ. Praying for you, will follow your posts.
Don
22 April 2008 at 10.04 pm
I completely agree, Art. This is what kills me about smug, self-righteous Christian teachers who only care for what is right without any regard for showcasing love also. You can be right all day long but without love what good is it? Some Christians are known and pride themselves in their distain and contempt for others, which ought not to be. You can care about rightly dividing the scriptures without a slash and burn tactic.
Text:1 Cor. 13:1 “If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.”
John 13:34″A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
24 April 2008 at 10.03 am
Art, I believe that Briggs regarded church and reason as sources of truth, not fountains of salvation. It wasn’t a soteriological question. It was an epistemological one. In which case, doesn’t I&I give a lot of room for non-canonical sources?
24 April 2008 at 12.53 pm
Dr. Hart: According to the official charges that were brought against Briggs (you can see them here), you are wrong.
They clearly state in charge 1:
2 June 2008 at 9.40 pm
The post is a bit old, but I’ll respond anyway…because I share, at lest in part, the anguish that you express.
I’ve spent the last 12 years in the PCA. Although I love Reformed theology and polity, I felt myself drying up spiritually in the PCA. My last two PCA church experiences left me deeply hurt. In a PCA church in the Southeast, I was kicked out of a Bible study because I said that I believed that young-earth creationism was bunk. After moving another part of the country, I found out that people were avoidingme because my clothing style looked too gay.
In many ways, I believe that the PCA has become too permeated with a “Culture Warrior” mentality. Even though the influence of the Religious Right is waning on the national stage, it seems to be growing within the PCA. I would not be surprised if a significant number of PCA churches don’t leave for the EPC or RCA within the coming years.
My current church was once in the PCA, but left for the RCA several years ago. Our only regret is that we did not leave earlier.
21 October 2008 at 6.15 pm
[...] 22, 2008 — 12:15 am by wowy Some people (…) talk as if there was a continuum: atheism — agnosticism — deism — liberal [...]
4 December 2008 at 3.31 pm
I too am in the PCA and am wondering if I’m in the right church.
I grew up in the PCUS (Southern Pres. church). My church in the late eighties joined the PCA after a huge split. Those that left formed another church that is PC(USA).
I find the PCA to be polarizing. If one is not extremely “ANTI:” homosexuality, abortion, Democratic party, women’s rights, etc., then one probably feels bereft in a PCA church. I am an elder, sing in the choir, and try to lead a small SS adult discussion class. In thinking of the class, I came upon this description of classrooms with “backbone”while reading a book on boys in crisis (I happen to be employed in the public school system! OOPS!): “Creates classroom conducive to risk taking, critical thinking; challenges thoughts, ideas appropriately.” This is EXACTLY what is MISSING in the PCA. There is no acceptance of questioning or critical thought. We are to follow Christ, but not blindly! It is OK to ask questions! I get so sick of hearing people say, “Well, I just believe the Bible.” How in blazes can they say they believe in the Bible when they don’t question and think about it? Furthermore, we don’t BELIEVE in the Bible; we BELIEVE in the Lord! Nowhere in the Apostle’s Creed which we recite every Sunday does it say, “I believe in the Bible.” We get our theology from scripture, but scripture may have its flaws. OOPS! Can I say that and still be in the PCA?
4 December 2008 at 3.35 pm
From a previous post: “I’ve spent the last 12 years in the PCA. Although I love Reformed theology and polity, I felt myself drying up spiritually in the PCA. My last two PCA church experiences left me deeply hurt. In a PCA church in the Southeast, I was kicked out of a Bible study because I said that I believed that young-earth creationism was bunk. After moving another part of the country, I found out that people were avoidingme because my clothing style looked too gay.”
This is exactly why the PCA is heading for the dump. I am so sick of the extreme right-wing mentality in this denomination that I am seriously considering leaving Presbyterianism altogether.
In many ways, I believe that the PCA has become too permeated with a “Culture Warrior” mentality.