pilgrim people

Hatch's cover goes well with Diamond's "Brother Loves Travelling Salvation Show." "Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies and everyone goes, because everyone knows that brother loves show." Let's see how e-savvy I am not...does this link work: http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Neil-Diamond/Brother-Love-s-Traveling-Salvation-Show.html

Eh, anyway, great post, Mike. Good thing my churchly confesionalism militates against activism or I'd have given in to ex-patriot impulses long ago and sworn off being an American Christian and gone...I don't know...somewhere other than here, which actually dovetails with JJS's most recent post (before he got all 80's up in there) and my point there about the category of authority, situatedness. I sure wish he hadn't given up on me.

Zrim

I guess pop culture is somewhat indebted to the rise of biblicism in this country!

I'm with you on submission to Caesar (as I understand your position). I think Jason's point about wanting to make the kingdom of the left hand better is good, since that is part of our duty to love neighbor. But because we belong to the kingdom of the right hand in a way that we do not belong to this passing age, our activism can only be very limited. In the light of Romans 13, we, as Christians, have NO right as citizens in the kingdom of the LH to take up arms against those in authority over us for things like paying unfair taxes without representation in Parliament.

But, keeping with the topic, we can see how, in America, a failure to remain confessional makes the church much more suseptible to an earthly mindset of revolutionism and egalitarianism. Understanding what Sola Scriptura actually is remains crucial.

Yes, however I also tend to think that one has to do in/directly with the other. (And I would probably use the term revivalism instead of biblicism, since you will always find biblicism in revivalism but not always vice versa. Sean Lucas talks about the PCA being "Fundamentalists learning to be Presbyterian," and I think he is correctly getting at the fact that in an ostensibly confessional denomination you can find biblicism aplenty even if you don't find revivalism.)

My ongoing point with the very right reverend is really one of accent. He still reads me to want to say one cannot be active, better the LHK, etc. I don't mean that. I mean that it is more Christian than American to submit, etc. and more American than Christian to work for betterment. I am not so much wanting to take anything away and make a point about perspective. In fact, since I see activism as legitimate one can do all he wants, I say. I just think its spirit is not conducive to a ToC.

Anyway, yes, good points all around, Mike. Keep up the good stuff.

Zrim,

I edited my previous post to read what I meant it to say. I meant to say that in light of Rom 13, we as Christians have NO right to take up arms against Caesar for unfair taxes. Unless, of course, that is an activism that Caesar allows.

Mike, coming in from left field, as I usually do, I would rather say that “creeds and confessions help us to understand the Bible.” And I say this, not having any ecclesiastical affiliation (other than “not Roman Catholic” and a strong affinity for the OPC I have attended in recent years). I think that the “populist hermeneutic” is clearly not the right way to approach the Scriptures, and although I am not comfortable with the idea of an “egalitarian ecclesiology,” I also find Reformed and Presbyterian church structures something of a mystery. (I like to look at the earliest church, keeping in mind what Bruce McCormack said, “the idea of an immediate divine imputation renders superfluous the entire Catholic system of the priestly mediation of grace by the Church." – but maybe I am getting ahead of you here.)

I very much like Reymond’s notion that Scripture is "pou sto" -- that "place to stand" from which the world may be moved (with the help of a long lever). Of course there is a desire among many of us to “get it right,” but on the other hand, Christian history is so long and convoluted that it is hard to know exactly which point in the river into which to set your foot.

In response to the question, “what should the church be today?”, I know of some, for example, who tend to look toward the conciliarist tendencies found in the 15th century, who want to say, “if we could only go back and re-live that time, and get it right at that time, we can avoid schisms of the 16th century. I understand their desire for an outwardly unified church, and maybe there is some merit (sic) in that notion, but really, we are here, in this century, and this is the point from which we have to move forward.

Confessional Reformed Christianity offers a great deal, I think. Most importantly, it offers the right hermeneutic with which to understand the Scriptures. (Here I am going to borrow from something I wrote privately to Jason): In my journeys, it has taken me a long time to stumble on the idea of "confessional Protestants" in the vein that you Westminster CA guys all hang together. I have long known of Hodge and Turretin, and Institutes. I have these works and have read chunks of them, but not all, in a search for, "what's the right thing to believe, what's the truth about what God has been doing in the world?" But there are what, maybe two million "Confessional Protestants," tops, in the world -- add up the PCA, OPC, URC, etc -- I don't begin to say I know and understand that world -- and there are something like a billion Catholics.

In short, Confessional Protestantism is a very fine tradition applied to the face of Scripture – not only that “right hermeneutic,” but also good an honorable and wise and decent practices. But somewhere, at the base of everything there is just one thing for me to know: John Bugay face to face with the God of Creation, and He says, “In Christ, you are justified. Go in peace, and sin no more.” His law tells us what sin is (and is not). He even summarized it for us.

From that point onward, I have come to conclude, there is complete libertarian freedom for the Christian. I don’t see how it can be any other way. I don’t see how any one person or group can bind any other person’s conscience. Of course, we are all born into different cultures and societies. And there may be voluntary binding by certain groups of people. There is a need for humans to form and order societies, and the creeds and confessions provide a very good order for things. But at their heart, these, too, came out of a particular culture (the Reformation, with all of the good things that that implies), and these fall into the category of “traditions of men.” That is, I think, why Paul cautions Timothy to guard his doctrine. But not his practice. When a Charles Finney comes along, with all of his “must-do’s,” it is easy to see disastrous consequences.

Confessional Protestants have the beliefs that are as close to Scripture as I have found in my life, and their practices are Godly and beneficent to everyone and everything around them. That is as good as it gets here on earth. It must be a voluntary practice, though, and to consider that others need to be bound by these things risks a Finney-like consequence.

John,

I agree. Reformed Christianity seems to be the most biblical and robust expression of Christianity found on the planet. Take away the creeds and confessions, though, and we can't identify that expression, and we won't be united in the truth.

Mike, I would not ever advocate to "take away the creeds and confessions," although, without maybe having thought it all through, I think I could disagree with the last two phrases of your response. Creeds and confessions certainly do help to identify "the most biblical and robust expression of Christianity," but you could "take them away" and still recognize Christianity in other expressions. Too, I could see being "united in the truth" with others, without the creeds and confessions.

I am thinking specifically of a mentor of mine, a very old gentleman now, who grew up in Baptist churches, whose theology came to be Reformed in a broad sense, who pastors (they call it "pulpit supply" though, and he has been doing it for many years) for two small Presbyterian churches in Mississippi. I asked him, "you believe virtually everything the Presbyterians believe; why don't they just make you the full time pastor?" He says, "I could never subscribe to their teachings on infant baptism."

Though I have less discomfort with infant baptism than he does, I would never, ever consider myself not to be "united in the truth" with this individual.

Sure, we are united with him on the solas, the doctrines of grace, and other essential Christian doctrine (i.e. the Trinity, Incarnation, original sin, etc.), but without the creeds and confessions that explicitly identify those things, how could the two of you walk together in them? Otherwise, how could we even begin to say what is essential doctrine and what isn't? The creeds and confessions help us to prioritize our doctrine so that we are united in the essentials.

"Sure, we are united with him on the solas, the doctrines of grace, and other essential Christian doctrine (i.e. the Trinity, Incarnation, original sin, etc.), but without the creeds and confessions that explicitly identify those things, how could the two of you walk together in them?"

What have he and I been doing that is NOT "walking together"? If there is anything that he and I disagree on, after this list of things that you outlined, it seems very inconsequential.

"Otherwise, how could we even begin to say what is essential doctrine and what isn't? The creeds and confessions help us to prioritize our doctrine so that we are united in the essentials."

What you are calling "the essentials" here, (and you have mentioned nothing specific), but even the "walking" point seems to fall into the category of something to be done, practice rather than doctrine.

John,

My point is that creeds and confessions facilitate our unity. The church is called to protect the unity that she has been given (Eph 4), thus we confess certain things to that end. See my previous posts on how creeds and confessions preserve the church's unity and protect her from heresy.

The unity of which you speak of sharing with the Baptist brother assumes particular essentials that confessional material articulates. My point is that if we did not have those things outlined in advance, then we cannot express the truth and stand united in it. This is precisely why the Reformation gave us creeds, confessions, and catechisms, and why the Reformed tradition has sought to remain confessional.

Mike, I’ve been traveling and haven’t read your whole series closely. As you suggested, I’ve gone back and re-read your post on Church Unity.

Please understand that I am highly sympathetic to your point of view, but some of the arguments you make sound highly reminiscent of Roman arguments for authority (or, arguments in support of why they think they are in charge.)

For example, I can easily see the argument made by the Reformed Baptists, who hold to virtually all of the WCF, except for those sections concerning baptism. (I think). They can easily say, “We believe all of these Reformed doctrines, except that we choose to hold to a biblical model, rather than a traditional mode of baptism.”

There is simply no good way to arbitrate this (small) dispute other than with some appeal to some authority outside of Scripture. I admire your adherence to the WCF, and I admire the Baptist’s appeal to Scripture.

What seems more important than the governmental unity of the church that you seem to be advocating, is some form of unity of the heart, which along with a good dose of vigilance about doctrine, seems to be the best that we can do.

Now, I certainly do not want to advocate a full-blown “democratization” of Christianity. But some small steps in that regard must be permitted. And I say this without being able to draw any lines as to where that must stop.

John,

I admire your adherence to the WCF, and I admire the Baptist’s appeal to Scripture.

You are actually making a false dichotomy. Both Presbyterians (I am actually continental Reformed and thus formally subscribe the Three Forms of Unity, but it is basically the same) and Baptists appeal to Scripture. I do not believe in covenant infant baptism because of an adherence to my confessions over Scripture. I believe it because I believe it is what Scripture teaches. Baptists, on the other hand, believe Scripture does not teach this. On this point, Baptists and Presbyterians are not unified. We both believe Scripture teaches something different with regard to baptism (and, actually, covenant theology).

Do we still have a "unity of the heart," as you put it? That's a very nebulous term that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but if you mean by that a recognition of one another as brothers in Christ, I would say yes. I have unity with Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., who confess the Gospel, namely, that sinners are justified by the Triune God by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. The kingdom of God is broader than the WCF or the TFU.

But you see, John, that is the point I am making: it is impossible to have even this much unity with other Gospel-confessing Christians without some sort of confession about things most essential. Otherwise we are lost in the evangelical haze that makes "loving Jesus" the chief article of faith. To such unformulated and vague expressions we have to ask: "Which Jesus? Who is he and what has he done?" And so, we are right back to creeds and confessions and their necessity for the church and her unity.

With regard to your comment: "some of the arguments you make sound highly reminiscent of Roman arguments for authority," I don't see how you are drawing that conclusion. Rome's arguments for authority is that there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura. The Reformed confessions state the exact opposite, namely, that Scripture alone is the authoritative rule for doctrine and life. We believe our confessions because they are simply statements about what we believe the Scripture teaches.

John,

Do you see a difference between confessional/doctrinal subscription, which seems to identify corporate unity regarding faith, piety, and practice and universal unity which seems to be identified by a common belief in the Gospel?

"I do not believe in covenant infant baptism because of an adherence to my confessions over Scripture. I believe it because I believe it is what Scripture teaches. Baptists, on the other hand, believe Scripture does not teach this."

Mike, forgive me if I get things wrong here, because I have purposely stayed out of arguments about baptism, precisely because of reasons I have stated above.

However, to say that "covenant infant baptism" is "what Scripture teaches" requires the adoption of a particular hermeneutic that permits you to say this. No infant is ever explicitly baptized in Scripture. And there is quite a bit of direct Scripture which upholds Baptist positions.

Now, I like that covenental hermeneutic. But I also understand why some would disagree with it. Especially serious, exegetically-minded Baptists.

"Do you see a difference between confessional/doctrinal subscription, which seems to identify corporate unity regarding faith, piety, and practice and universal unity which seems to be identified by a common belief in the Gospel?"

Adam, if I understand correctly, you are drawing a distinction between a denomination (or a confession), a somewhat localized set of beliefs, (or, a set of beliefs adopted by a particular group of people), and what is called "catholic" or universal unity (as in, the unity of the invisible church as it exists in heaven and on earth). Is that what you are asking me?

And John, many serious, exegetically-minded Reformed and Presbyterians have come to a different conclusion about what Scripture teaches with regard to baptism.

And make no mistake about John, the Baptist adopts a particular kind of hermeneutic too. No one - virtually no one - reads Scripture tabula rasa. That was precisely the error the populist-biblicists made of whom Hatch documents in his excellent book.

"serious, exegetically-minded Reformed and Presbyterians..." I've got folks like Vos and Kline on my radar screen. It takes some strenuous doing just to get to that point.

Meanwhile, I look at such statements in the Belgic confession as "we detest the error of the Anabaptists...," as being more than a bit too harsh.

I should say, "a bit too harsh, especially when compared with the errors from which both the Reformed and the Anabaptists were fleeing at the time."

John,

I've got folks like Vos and Kline on my radar screen.

Great! Read Kline's By Oath Consigned and you will see why we confess that Scripture teaches the children of believers must be baptized.

I look at such statements in the Belgic confession as "we detest the error of the Anabaptists...," as being more than a bit too harsh.

Well, first of all, the Anabaptists represented errors and false doctrine that went far beyond their denial of infant baptism. So, we must be careful to understand Anabaptists in their 16th C context. But in regard to the denial of infant baptism, yes, we detest that because we believe it is withholding the covenant sign from our children who are outwardly included into the covenant of grace with us. That might seem harsh to you, but we believe it is far more harsh (and wrong) to deny our children what is rightfully theirs.