Category: Uncategorized

Evangelicalism has become a cult of celebrities. Leading pastors are superstars, even cult-like figures of adoration and near-worship. Most evangelical worship encourages this imitation of the entertainer. Musicians, preachers, worship leaders all take their cues in style, dress and manner from the entertainment idolatry of our culture. Liturgical worship does not encourage this, and actually works against it by restraining the minister within the liturgy. The minister is the servant of the Word. He is ordained for the ministry of Word and sacrament, and his personality must become his servant that the Word might be heard and seen.–Michael Spencer

… is now available.

Brothers and Sisters, many people today are asking “Where is Jesus?” and many people are looking in the wrong places. They are looking for Jesus in charismatic leaders, in signs and wonders, and within themselves. But did you know that Jesus must in the Father’s house? Where is Jesus to be surely found? Where God’s Word is faithfully preached and where the body and blood of His Son is faithfully drunk and eaten. This is where the world will find Jesus. The Church of Christ opens her arms to this world for she displays most vividly and clearly the Word made flesh. This morning Christ is with us in this meal. He is present to those who eat and drink by faith. So let us come to the Consolation of the world in this meal.

Starting with this post, I will be focusing on the discussion that occurred on September 18th.

Caleb Stegall ^a writes a post called: The Accidental Ecumenicist.

His central concern is that perhaps FV ” is an outgrowth of mere Christian monologism” He adds:

One of the principle differences eclipsed by mere Christian monologism is the Catholic critique which agrees with Weber’s claim that Protestantism “disenchanted” the world and enabled the outbreak of a dominant secular materialist culture because Protestantism did not sustain a sacramental theology and an attendant “enchanted” mentality. This is the alternative, Christian and catholic story of capitalist modernity as, according to one Catholic scholar, “the repression, displacement, and perversion of sacramentality—that is, of the capacity inherent in material things to be portals into divinity.”

Though much of the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to the sacramental abuse of Rome, it must be reminded that the Reformation’s central argument at the time was against the removal of the cup from the people. It was not primarily an assault on the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist. As the quote mentions, we have long lost the capacity of seeing a mere material piece of bread and a cup of wine be what Jesus said it would be– real nourishment for the soul.

1. I am not sure who he is  (back)

D.G. Hart begins to add some fuel to the discussion. Here is where I think my previous post begins to shed some of the main differences in FV attempts for catholicity and anti-FV attempts to remain in their miniscule, ever-so small bubbles.

Hart’s reply to Leithart is as follows:

So I would have thought that the proponents of FV in their effort to correct certain features of Reformed Christianity would not end up being as comparably broad as the National Association of Evangelicals.

Hart misunderstands Leithart. It is not that we want to embrace the shallowness of the NAE, but that we want to embrace the vastness of the catholic/orthodox world. We do not adopt evangelical methods, but we accept them as evangelicals. For Hart and others, they have spent so much effort in re-enforcing their distinctions, that they have lost the centrality of the Messianic message of unity. ^a

1. John 17  (back)

Leithart seems to draw the discussion a bit more into the concept of catholicity, which is a central concern of the Federal Vision. It is true as I have mentioned in the first post that the Federal Vision may have particular theological commitments that may alienate other Presbyterian communities. However, their ultimate goal is to bring together diverse communities into a gloriously united community. Here it is important to note that unity does not require agreement in all matters. If this were the case, no families would ever stay together. To borrow the analogy, a family stays together, despite their differences, because they have come to the conclusion that if they are not united on what is central, they will self-destruct. They do not compromise their familial identity; they are still a Smith or a Brown. In like manner, the Reformed faith does not need to compromise their identity to live in unity with one another or even other families. Imagine that!

In light of my analogy, which may be more or less correct, Leithart says the following:

That means, for instance, that we’re willing to draw insights from Catholics like de Lubac, Bouyer, or Congar, or Orthodox theologians like Schmemann. More globally (and more controversially), it means that we’re not trying to formulate theological positions over-against – fill in the blank – Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodist, what have you. The resulting theology is Reformed, but it’s Reformed and catholic – or maybe catholic and Reformed.

This, in my perception, is a healthy form of catholicity embraced by Federal Vision proponents.

Chellis finally joins the conversation. He is a bit frustrated with Wilson’s emphasis on eschatology. In his own experience he left Postmillenialism due to its gnostic tendencies. (HUH?!) At any rate from his perspective he does not think that the FV debate should center around eschatological sectarianism. I agree and so does Wilson, but let us not fool ourselves, how you view eschatology is how you view the world.

I think at this point we will be turning our attention to more specific FV concerns like justification, imputation, and covenantalism.

In a previous post John Muether asks Doug Wilson: “Are you suggesting that amillennialism is an insufficiently embodied belief?”

Wilson replies:

Every orthodox Christian position affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ, and our bodily resurrection in Him at the Last Day. So on what matters, that is more than “sufficient.” But I would say that postmillennialism represents more of a desire to see the embodiment of the kingdom in time and in history than does amillennialism.

Wilson makes a valid observation. In the end, our commitment and our embodied belief and orthodoxy centers on Creedal faith, not on eschatological commitment.

Professor Joel Garver adds some interesting insights as well. Garver seems to imply that eschatology is the wrong way of approaching such questions. For instance, Amils may be fulfilling their respective roles by fulfilling their calling around the table of our Lord and preaching the message of Christ to parishioners, whereas Postmils may be over-reaching in their attempt to bring about a new Christendom.

Garver makes a helpful observation. Indeed, the desire of Christian ministers is to fulfill their roles in their respected ministries. However, it is “over-reaching” to assume eschatology does not play a crucial role in that ministry. For instance, Steve Wilkins has argued that marriage is not for the couple, but ultimately for the world. ^a In the same manner that postmillenial force is applied to worship and cultural engagement. All things are for the nations; for the restoration of the cosmos under one ruler-Christ Jesus. This appears to be a crucial impetus for ministerial work, further, it is a significant word of encouragement that God will fulfill His promises through His church.

1. From a recent sermon preached at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian entitled: Marriage is not for you  (back)

My friend John Muether joins the conversation. He writes:

I am with Doug and Peter on their anti-Gnostic and high church sentiments. I would shamelessly add that the Nicotine Theological Journal (founded 1997) was lobbying for those causes long before the infamous Auburn Ave conference of 2002.

Apart from some humorous comments/attacks concerning one of my favorite economists Gary North, which the NTJ refers to “Scary Gary,” it is a pretty good journal. However, I think John is “purposefully” missing the point in the discussion. ^a Of course, Wilson and Leithart are not using the idea of anti-Gnosticism to combat fundamentalists in their “don’t drink, don’t smoke” campaigns. Rather, they are asserting that a two-kingdom view, explicit in Lutheran theology is wrong-headed. ^b What Wilson and others argue is for a victorious eschatology; one that is firmed and grounded on the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, not merely in His death.

Muether also mentions that he agrees with FV’ers High-Church sentiments and as a defense of this he cites Hart’s book on Presbyterian Liturgy. ^c Anyone familiar with the book, (which was used at RTS/Orlando when John Fesko taught for a week) knows that the book is a defense of the Regulative Principle of worship as defined and defended by the Puritans. Professor John Frame also from RTS/Orlando responds to this approach to worship in his two books. ^d

What Leithart and Wilson argue is for a faithful model of worship that brings together the distinct elements of Old Testament worship into the New Covenant (something that many Presbyterians fear). How this takes place may vary substantially in each FV church. for instance, Leithart, following Jim Jordan, argues for a joyous communion service. They argue that when the sacraments are served it should be a moment of celebration as in a feast and not a funeral. Hence, much of the common hymnody of the Eucharist would have to be changed to accommodate to the Scriptural emphasis on the joy of feasting with Christ. These concerns are not just merely preferential, but essential in defining FV’ers interest and concern.

1. I say purposefully because he does not want to embrace gnosticism. Who in their right mind would?  (back)
2. See my discussion with Professor Muether in my post entitled: In defense of Reggie Kidd  (back)
3. The book is entitled: Recovering Mother Kirk  (back)
4. I agree with some of Frame’s critiques, though I do not agree with how he would implement worship in the church  (back)