Like any and all Riffs, these are simply some of my thoughts inspired by other posts and discussions. Not a throw down, etc.

This morning at evangel, Joe Carter voiced some of his frustration at the way the “law/Gospel” distinction sounds to his ears. I’ve wrestled with this myself on this site. Then, in the comments, Carter responded to Jared Wilson- and quoted him- in regard to the relation of the Gospel and sanctification, which he described as “behavior change.” (Quote follows)

Indeed, you did and I think you did a good job. But I also think you added in some stuff that leads to the very problem I’m referring to. For example:

Then, why, for the love of God, do we preach all manner of behavior modification, none of which could save a single one of us, when only the gospel saves.

You seem to be implying that “behavior modification” (i.e., sanctification) is not important. Now I know that this is not what you are saying. But how should other people who may think this statement is to be taken quite literally, be expected to respond? You are creating what could be considered a false dichotomy. Yes, only the gospel saves. But does that mean that Christians are not required to modify their behavior?

[Continue reading]

I asked for permission to reprint an entire editorial column from the always provocative and frequently dead-on-target Patrol Magazine. It’s entitled “Get Over It.” It’s the latest installment in The Coming Evangelical Collapse, as far as I’m concerned. There aren’t enough ways to say “Yes” and “Amen” to this editorial. I’ll have more to say about this on the podcast.

Patrol Magazine is consistently on top of the current evangelical evolution. David Sessions and the Patrol staff have been doing outstanding journalism for two years now. It’s a young evangelical Rolling Stone, the magazine Relevant would like to be. There’s more to say, but this is a true note amidst the confusion that surrounds us. Expect this editorial to get the “people who criticize the beautiful bride of Christ are pathetic” treatment, but don’t be deterred. Evangelicals have their strong suits, strong churches and worthy messengers, but overall, this is what mainstream evangelicalism is cooking. Add Patrol to your feed and stop in frequently.

(Reprinted with permission from Patrol Magazine)

HOWEVER LONG it may take to relinquish its hold on American culture, evangelicalism in the United States—still probably best defined by the British historian David Bebbington as a movement whose members adhere to conversionism, Biblicism, activism and crucicentrism—faces near-certain extinction. It has been blinded by its symbiotic relationship with the Enlightenment, and has perpetually failed to see beyond its hopelessly Western perceptions. Confined to the paramaters of liberal rationalism, it has mounted no challenge to the present political order and offered no intellectually acceptable explanation for how one is to live and think in the postmodern world. As this magazine has chronicled, its brightest children are throwing up their hands in record numbers, defecting heavy-heartedly to less temporal churches, or to no church at all. [Continue reading]

This is a bit of old news to theological news hounds out there, but it fits in with this week’s discussion and yesterday’s post rather well.

IVCF at George Washington University has split over reformation theology. There is plenty of interesting reading here, btw. Good article.

Short version: a sizable contingent of students with concerns about a lack of precise reformation theology and overtures to Catholics by their George Washington University IV chapter have split off and formed their own campus ministry.

Collin Hansen, whose objectivity in this kind of story has to be somewhat questionable, gives the historical perspective to make it clear that the theological acumen of the current crop of GW IV students is considerably higher than in the past; high enough that the difference between IV’s statement on justification in 1960 and 2000 caused alarm.

InterVarsity’s Bear Trap Statement, adopted in 1960 at the national staff conference, specified that sinners are justified “by the Lord Jesus Christ through faith alone.” By contrast, the Doctrinal Basis of 2000 said that InterVarsity believes in “justification by God’s grace to all who repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.” [Continue reading]

UPDATE: Fr. Dwight Longnecker has a great analysis of what the new RCC/Anglican arrangement will mean and how it will work.

The 9 Marks blog is increasingly, uh…interesting….from a post-evangelical perspective.

Jonathan Leeman writes about the danger of seminary profs being disconnected from the local church, a point that I fully agree with based on scripture and my own experience in a Christian school. But when you are reading reformed Baptists, you never get a free lunch. Along with his thoughts about seminary professors and churchmanship, Leeman comments on what he heard at a recent conference at Gordon-Conwell.

Most of the speakers seemed only too happy to treat Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox as “brothers and sisters in the faith,” as easily as a Baptist might refer to a Presbyterian. Now, I trust that some RC and GOs are Christians, but such unqualified, unnuanced passing remarks effectively dismiss the Reformation and jeopardize souls. Don’t you realize the effect your passing comments have on sheep?

[Continue reading]

PLEASE keep this discussion on topic. No Baptist bashing.

First, read Matt Schmucker’s short piece regarding his advice on “special needs” church members. (Note to commenters: be respectful of Matt, please. If you disagree, do so graciously.)

In 1983 I was finishing seminary and serving as youth minister at a church near the seminary and populated by mostly seminary students and their families. Among the non-seminarians was a single mother and her 15-year old son Bryan. Bryan was what some would call “special needs.” Severely autistic, Bryan gave no outward signs of communication. He lived in a self-contained world of a few repeated movements.

Bryan and his mother had been part of the church for years and were much loved. Bryan accompanied his mom to adult Bible study, worship and Wednesday fellowship meals. She gave him commands for everything. To any observer, it appeared that nothing much registered with Bryan and nothing came from him in any form of communication.

One day, Bryan’s mother came to see our pastor and asked that he baptize Bryan. While we could not see his faith in Christ, she could, and as his mother, she was asking that he be baptized and be included as a professing member of the congregation. [Continue reading]

UPDATE: This has been a great conversation, but we’re starting to get some drive-by comments with little substance. Keep the tone and content to a high standard please.

WATCH: This short video- 8 minutes- of the building of a Gothic worship center for Covenant Presbyterian (PCA) church in Nashville. Don’t comment without watching, please.

Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville is a new church (1990) with an incredible worship center.

Jesus didn’t build cathedrals – or impressive temples- on earth. The New Covenant is explicit: the old temple worship and ALL its externals- are gone.

I don’t believe God wants most churches to build cathedrals to worship in. Most churches, as I see the cross cultural church planting task, should consider whether they even need a building, at least for a very long time. There’s a lot of reasons not to do this.

The resources spent on a Gothic Cathedral like this are mind-boggling. The economics of Jesus seem plain enough. the commitment to upkeep is massive. Such expenditures could fund missionary church planting efforts of monumental significance, print millions of Bibles, eradicate vast hordes of poverty and revolutionize the mission of the church in many places. (I have no idea what CPC’s resulting commitment to missions is, by the way, and I’d like to know.)

But I have changed my mind a bit on this subject, so stand by and take notes if you are tracking my inconsistencies. [Continue reading]

Karen Armstrong (pronounced Car-en, if you care) isn’t a religion scholar I’d normally recommend, but I think she makes a fairly good description of what appears to be a good bit of the situation we find ourselves in as regards the relationship of religion and science.

In short, religion hasn’t always carried around the obligation to “prove” God and his ways. As far as Christianity goes, it was a buy-in into rationalism that produced the kind of rationalistic fundamentalism that is, in my opinion, driving a lot of evangelicals into positions of increasing hostility to the findings of science. It’s common to read intelligent Christians, sometimes those who work in fields requiring technical proficiency, talking as if our default position toward science must be absolute skepticism or worse.

This morning at church, a little child sang “Jesus loves me….cause the Bible tells me so.” I wondered if that same child, wanting to be a doctor or an astronomer someday, will find out that they need to add verses like “The earth is 10,000 years old….” and “All scientists are lying….” Thankfully this isn’t true in every Christian communion. Please speak up if it’s not yours. Someone surely needs to know. [Continue reading]

We should always be ears up when The Episcopal Church speaks of heresy. Here’s the presiding bishop of the TEC coming out swinging at the recent general convention.

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Not being a confessional church, this sort of thing isn’t quite as surprising as it would be if a Baptist said it, but it still underlines why the rifts in the Anglican Communion are about truly significant issues. I can spin these words to where they are better or worse, but what’s actually being said here? Let me suggest it’s something like: “Those of you forming the ACNA are no longer real Anglicans. You’ve become fundamentalist revivalists.”

You can read the whole address here.

My lowest of the low ecclesiology has the following essentials: 1) Keep the truth about Jesus safe, especially from smart Christians. 2) Constantly encourage me to be a Jesus follower in my sphere, not your church. 3) Assist me in those aspects of following Jesus that can’t be done alone, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 4) Know your place in God’s missional playbook and don’t act like you’re the whole show. 5) Don’t make stuff up to justify what you’re doing, then carp at me for not buying it.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Riffs are commentary on other blog posts that Michael feels are particularly significant.

Read Tim Brister’s post, Where Extraordinary Grace and Celestial Joy Meet.

I’ve been around Tom Ascol on occasion for more than 20 years. If you know much about the (dreaded) Founder’s movement, then you know everything I am about to say here, and everything that Timmy says in this post on an incident of restoration at Grace Baptist, Cape Coral, Florida, last night.

If Tom Ascol were Michael Spencer, or just about anyone else, the Founder’s movement, and the good fruit that has come from it (and you have no idea, folks. Really) would have almost certainly never come about. Grace Church would be on pastor five and the big issue would be whether to turn the music up to 11.

Tom is smart and articulate and ten other things, but he’s a pretty average guy in a lot of others. With all due respect to Tom, he’s what we call where I work “a plodder.” He’s not slow, he’s just not in a hurry. He does what’s right today, and twenty years later he’s still doing what’s right. He’s not out to grab hold of the next new thing or be credited for jaw-dropping innovation. He’s content to do the faithful thing that others have given up on, to show you that it can be done. When you’ve given up, quit, burned out and otherwise become of little use, Tom is still there, doing what he was doing when you started, keeping his hand to the plow and not looking back. [Continue reading]

Bill Kinnon looks back on his contribution to being a worship leader and has a bit of lament. He notes what we’re now hearing and not hearing. A post well-worth reading.

Several years ago, I wrote a critique of some of the most often heard theology of contemporary praise and worship music. I love good contemporary worship. I don’t like what you hear in between some of the songs.

I haven’t put this essay over here in the current post format, so some of you may have never read this one. Remember, it’s an oldie, with quite a few references to things that aren’t true anymore (like me leading worship at a church on weekends.)

iMonk 101: Looney Tunes: “Praise and Worship Theology” is goofy

I defend myself from false accusations

Nothing stings the iMonk quite like the charge of hypocrisy. As a man of principle, I seek to avoid having the wagging finger of the disappointed public in my face, accusing me of phoniness.

So I must answer a recent charge made by a nameless autograph seeker who was briefly allowed inside the Internet Monk compound. With shock and not-a-little awe, this friend observed the Monk’s collection of contemporary Praise and Worship music. “Hey! I thought you were, like, really down on all this contemporary Christian music? How come you’re listening to it in the same office where you write all that stuff saying it’s bad for the church?” [Continue reading]

Read: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness by Peter Masters.

The current reformed and Calvinist revival loves Spurgeon, as well they should. It’s a regular feature of the most influential new-Calvinism web sites and ministries to quote Spurgeon for and against whatever the issue of the week happens to be. Spurgeon’s face is as much a brand logo of the new Calvinism as you will find.

Spurgeon’s church, The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, is still in business, and that church has a prominent pastor, Dr. Peter Masters, who has a very influential voice for Calvinism across the pond. Dr. Masters isn’t a major voice in America, but many of the Calvinists you like, especially of the Macarthur variety, have been to the Tabernacle and preached at Dr. Master’s conferences.

His newsletter is still The Sword and Trowel, an obvious indicator that it remains the voice of Spurgeon’s kind of Christianity. It is not an exaggeration to say that Dr. Peter Masters sees himself as a successor to Spurgeon’s brand of particular Baptist Calvinism, and he writes and preaches with this responsibility frequently in view. Be careful. I am not saying Dr. Masters claims any of the authority of Spurgeon, but he does not run from representing his views on Biblical Calvinism as in line with the Calvinism and overall theology of Spurgeon.

So, if you will, please take a cold drink, follow the link to Dr. Master’s column on the current condition of American Calvinism, and when you’re done, return to this web site for a few observations. [Continue reading]

BeAttitude gives his reasons for Why He Walked Away From Christianity. Don’t skip this. Read it carefully and don’t start talking. Just listen.

1. I always want to commend anyone who moves to a position of authenticity for themselves. If you don’t believe the claims of your own Christian community, then by all means please move to a position where you are able to say “This is what I do believe.” What you don’t believe is a step along the way. We’ve got thousands of Christians who are actually unbelievers, agnostics and atheists. We’d all be better off to ring a bell and go to our real position. Even if it makes mom and dad cry, which it will.

2. The hand of the new atheists is heavily apparent here. If you don’t believe their assault on the Christian faith and religion in general are making an impact, you’re out to lunch. Their arguments may be weak and answerable, but they are persuasive to millions of ordinary people. Most Christians won’t be professional apologists and they aren’t coming to your seminar or class. For many people, a Chris Hitchens or a Sam Harris are devastatingly confident voices of self-proclaimed reason. Investigation may prove otherwise, but that’s hardly well-publicized or well communicated.

3. The hand of shallow evangelical thinking is just as apparent. Does this read like Bart Ehrman’s discovery that inerrancy wasn’t true? Yes, and I say where are the evangelicals with the courage- and that’s what it will take- to say that simplistic inerrancy isn’t the default Christian position? Where is the awareness that the vast majority of the Christian world isn’t playing by the rules of a minority segment of evangelicalism determined to make their ideas of inerrancy the definition of Christianity. Read the Catholic Catechism on the inspiration of scripture, for goodness sake. Find out why you don’t have to have your faith detonated like Ehrman did, by a bomb that was defused long, long ago. [Continue reading]

The Next Evangelicalism by Soong-Chan Rah

Soong-Chan Rah is assistant professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago. He has been a church planter and a consistent voice for recognizing the cultural captivity of the evangelical movement and recognizing the contributions of an ethnically and culturally diverse present-future evangelicalism.

I was interested in this book for two reasons. First, it intersects with some of what I have written in “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” Secondly, it was cited by Leith Anderson in his criticisms of that article. [Continue reading]

From Scot Mcknight’s Kingdom Gospel series at Jesus Creed. I did a bit of creative editing.

I wonder what John would think of the gospel I sketched at the beginning of this chapter:

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
But you have a sin problem that separates you from God.
The good news is that Jesus came to die for your sins.
If you accept Jesus’ death, you can be reconnected to God.
Those who are reconnected to God will live in heaven with God.

Every line of that statement is more or less true. It is the sequencing of those lines, the “story” of that gospel if you will, that concerns me and that turns Jesus’ message of the kingdom into a blue parakeet. And it is not only the sequencing, it is the omitting of major themes in the Bible that concerns me. What most shocks the one who reads the Bible as Story, where the focus is overwhelmingly on God forming a covenant community, is that this outline of the gospel above does two things: it eliminates community and it turns the entire gospel into a “me and God” or “God and me” gospel. Who needs a church if this is the gospel? (Answer: no one.) What becomes of the church for this gospel? (Answer: an organization for those who want to do that sort of thing.) While every line in this gospel is more or less true, what concerns many of us today is that this gospel makes the church unimportant.

I believe this gospel can deconstruct, is deconstructing, and will deconstruct the church if we don’t change it now. Our churches are filled with Christians who don’t give a rip about church life and we have a young generation who, in some cases, care so much about the Church they can’t attend a local church because too many local churches are shaped too much by the gospel I outlined above.

[Continue reading]

UPDATE: Bryan Cross responds to Comrade here. Thanks Bryan.

Three great posts today. I’m too drained to riff much on either one, but both are very much worth your time and discussion.

First, Fearsome Comrade at The Boar’s Head Tavern, a Lutheran blogger of some note who has written for this site in the past, has taken up my challenge to engage the apologetic method of Catholic apologist Bryan Cross. I’ve been urging the Comrade to do this for some time and he’s been too busy with political blogging to take the challenge, but he finally did so. Cross is an RC apologist with a different voice than the usual ex-Protestant ranting. But his apologetic method is the kind of Catholic presuppositionalism that takes in so many Protestants wandering in the evangelical wilderness.

Cross blogs here at Principium Unitatis.

Read: An Analysis of the Catholic Apologetics of Bryan Cross.

Then Scot Mcknight says what more and more of us need to say: the Gospel that dominates evangelicalism is right. It’s just not right enough. It’s not the Bible’s story.

Provocative and on target, as Scot increasingly is these days. We have a Gospel that overlooks, even deconstructs community and leaves many of us who care about the Gospel looking for anyplace that seems concerned to embody it.

Read: The KingdomGospel 1.

Finally, the 9Marks blog discusses the statistic that spells “Coming Collapse” for many SBC churches: 60% of adult baptisms are rebaptisms. We had a major discussion on that subject here at IM. Southern Baptists and their numbers are a big joke to me. I’m completely cynical on anything any church claims regarding baptism numbers.

Thanks to those who helped me restore the post.