Who in their right minds would do a little “push back” with Carl Trueman???

Okay, there’s my disclaimer.  Right up front: I’m not in my right mind.  This is crazy.  Really.  It’s stupid.  He’d hate my saying it, but Carl Trueman is one really, really smart dude.  If I were sensible, I’d leave this alone and cave in to the fear of man.  I’d at least have someone read this before posting.  But I’m not in my right mind this morning.  Blame it on too much Caribbean sun.  But here we go.

I read with profit  a couple of Carl’s recent posts about American celebrity pastor culture (here and here).  All his warnings are basically correct.  The heart is an idol factory, and it’s happy to make idols of nearly anything–pastors included.

But c’mon Carl… this is a uniquely American phenomena?  Our waist-coat wearing brethren across the pond are immune to this, or more discriminating about this?  From what I can tell–admittedly a small sample compared to your more native knowledge of the land–there’s as much hero-worship in England as the States.  And guess what?  The heroes our British friends worship are very often American pastors.  What does that tell us?  If we don’t grow our idols at home we’ll secretly import them from the Canaanites?

When Keller or Piper or any of the “rock stars” (deplorable term) visit the U.K., people throng the meeting places.  If I peruse the evangelical blogs across the pond, they’re filled with the same video clips of popular pastors, book reviews of the latest best-selling authors, and person-dependent “____ says” arguments that fill most American blogs.

Your recent conference sounded refreshingly free of much of this, but I did wonder if there simply wasn’t another kind of homogeneity and conformity at work–”We’re the guys who aren’t cool, who don’t wear funky glasses, and who would never quote that guy.”  Parts of the post sounded like we’re making the “not-so-in-crowd” the new “in crowd.”

I’m with you in spirit–and to some degree strategy, as well–but I have a suspicion that laying this flatly at the doorstep of American evangelicals might suffer a bit from speck and log syndrome.  Or perhaps the grass always looks greener “back home.” I don’t know, but it seems a fairer appraisal warrants either condemnation of “hero worship” wherever it exists and/or more charitable judgment of American evangelicals.  For all our warts, I’ve yet to meet the person worshiping a conference speaker.  Respecting, appreciating, even being a fan ought not be confused with idolatry.  Surely we can esteem others–even esteem them highly–without being tagged and blasted with “hero worship”?

I’m greatly indebted to many of the conference speakers I have the privilege of hearing.  And I would gladly hear them any chance I get.  But I’m not worshiping them.  Nor am I denigrating the so-called “ordinary pastors” or unknown pastors that I also appreciate and regularly listen to.  Like most of you, I could name several faithful pastors who have at one point or another shepherded my soul and fed me spiritually that no one else is likely to know.  I love them all, respect them all, and gain much from them.  There’s no “either/or” here.  Love and respect all the faithful brothers the Lord blesses you with, whether well known or plowing the fields in relative anonymity.

I had the privilege of spending time with a faithful brother from Kent, England during the TGC conference.  He’s leading a small congregation with all the problems that suggests.  He’s also a Keller fan.  His assessment after the conference: “I don’t know that I’ve ever been to a conference where I was both well-instructed and felt so full (of Christ).  I’ve been to conference where I’ve been instructed but not really full.  And I’ve been to conferences where I’ve felt full, but not very instructed.  I don’t think I’ve ever been to a place where I received both.” I have to agree.  I felt the same way–”celebrity” marquee and all.

By the way, how many brothers do we know who are trying to be ‘celebrities’?  Quite frankly, if we knew that or observed that in a man’s character, wouldn’t we be repulsed?  I can’t name a man at the conferences I attend that I can say is self-seeking in that way, who wants the celebrity spotlight.  That’s the real difference between Jerusalem and Hollywood “celebrity”–in Jerusalem no one is seeking the photo op and no one would really respect them if they were.  For that reason, isn’t “celebrity pastor” a bit of an unnecessary slur?  Doesn’t it suggest a motive that we’d have to question in these men?  A motive we ought to have some evidence of before we assign the tag?

So this is a little friendly push back.  Give honor to those to whom honor is due.  Let’s outdo one another in showing honor.  Give double honor to those who serve well in the word.  And let’s at least be suspicious of the inclination toward what we might call “hero envy.”  One has to wonder why there is so much protest over another brother being known to preach and teach God’s word well, and people desiring to hear him.

One last question: Anyone going to this conference?  If I were in the area, I certainly would!  I would love to hear Carl Trueman address these issues.  Really.  I’m in my right mind when I say that.

That’s the theme of the talks given at the Heidelberg Conference on Reformed theology. The audio is available for:

Sebastian Heck, “Convocation Address”

Dr. Derek Thomas, “The Church, Reformed According to the Word of God”

Dr. Carl Trueman, “The Confessing and Confessional Church”

Jon Payne, “The Church and the Means of Grace”

Dr. Carl Trueman, “The Heidelberg Catechism”

Jon Payne, “The Reformed Pastor”

Dr. Derek Thomas, “The Worship of the Reformed Church”

Sebastian Heck, “Planting Confessional Reformed Churches”

Looks like they’re in the process of putting up videos as well.  (HT: Feeding on Christ)

HT: Ref21.  Great discussions here.  Love the closing quote of Gaffin at the end of the first video: “Every heretic has his text.”  How true.

The Doctrine of Scripture

The Doctrine of Justification

Holiness and the New Perspective

The always readable Carl Trueman has a great post on why criticism of polemics and polemicists often is a bit too much self-loathing in Reformed circles.  He unpacks four reasons:

1. Polemic is no monopoly of the Reformed.   Talk to Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, and Episcopalian friends.  They too have their struggles.

2. The criticism of polemics often comes from those who enjoy the space that polemics have carved out for them and the safety that polemics provides them.

3. Closely related to point 2 is the fact that, 99 times out of a 100, a nasty controversy only ever erupts because, at an earlier point in time somebody, somewhere took the easy way out and chose to turn a blind eye to a peccadillo, moral or theological.

4. Finally, I simply don’t recognise the pictures drawn by the Reformed evangelical critics of Reformed evangelical polemicists.  The problem is they build grand cases about general types on very limited access to evidence.

Read the entire post to see how Trueman elaborates.  It’s well worth the 5 minutes.  Here’s his conclusion:

Let’s bin this sad, misguided self-loathing on the polemic front.  We must repent where necessary, where we have crossed the line; but, just as necessary, we must fight where we see the truth is at stake.  We should be grateful for the truth that polemics have preserved so that we have a gospel to proclaim; and we should not allow a misguided commitment to being nice to allow us, in effect, to dump huge problems on the next generation by running up a massive theological and moral deficit in the church of the present.

Polemics against polemics have a role to play in provoking self-reflection; and, let’s face it, they sound pretty cool and attractive in the current cultural climate; but they are, ironically, parasitic on polemic and polemicists; and, moreover, when they witness to, and help promote, self-loathing, they should be abandoned as serving no good purpose.

I’m greatly enjoying mornings with my daughters.  We’ve started a new routine this year.  I spend 15 minutes with each of them discussing the Bible and praying for one another.  With my oldest daughter, I’m studying Hebrews.  With my youngest daughter, I’m reading 1 John.  They chose the books, and God has been meeting with us in powerful ways.

I’m a bit of a dim-wit, because it just dawned on me this morning that these times are rich with opportunity for teaching them not just the discipline of reading (set a time, choose a book, do it regularly, etc.)  but also how to read the Scripture.  I find myself drawing their attention to the basics: subjects, verbs, similes, metaphors, repetition, and so on.  As we do that, we fight taking things for granted in the text and incredibly rich things “pop out” at us.  And we also learn to avoid the frequent mistake of simply jumping to “this is what it means to me.”

That little sentence has been the death of many well-meaning attempts to understand the Bible.  “What it means to me” ruins our understanding because it decapitates the intent of the original author.  What matters first and primarily is “what did it mean to John or Paul or Luke or whoever wrote Hebrews.”  What did the author intend to communicate.  That’s first base in biblical interpretation and its the guard rail that keeps us from driving off into the wilderness of subjectivity and a million swamps of private interpretation.

And, ultimately, we’re concerned to know what the Author–God Himself–intends to communicate with us.  If we’re hasty to rewrite the Bible with our own thoughts, we’ll ultimately write God right out of it.  A premature “what it means to me” takes the pen out of God’s hand and dips it in the ink of our puny intellectual, emotional, social, psychological and usually idolatrous wells.

Writing on a larger subject, but commenting very helpfully where this issue is concerned, Carl Trueman offers the following:

“if the intent of the divine author does not inform and ultimately determine the meaning of scripture, then three things follow: scripture has no normative set or range of meanings; theology becomes merely reflection upon human religious psychology; and God remains an unknown, and unknowable, quantity.” (Wages of Spin, p. 55).

Now that’s a train wreck!  And it explains so well why some people “don’t get anything out of the Bible.”  In fact, they may not be reading the Bible in such a way as to “get something out,” but to always put something in–self.  Can it be any wonder that wherever we put self where God belongs we get nothing out of it?

In it’s proper place–well after we’ve done the careful work of understanding the author’s intent–”this is what it means to me” can be helpful.  It’s then  just another way of bringing home the application.  But if this sentiment forgets its place, it’ll undermine the deeper, richer blessings of Bible study that we’re meant to enjoy when we sit and let the Father speak to us.

Jim Packer and Martin Lloyd-Jones were the first two Christian authors I read as a new Christian. Packer’s Knowing God and Lloyd-Jones’ Great Doctrines of the Bible were formative right out of the gate. Recently, I finished Murray’s two-volume biography on Lloyd-Jones and learned quite a bit more about these two men, their friendship, and their parting over the future of British evangelicalism.

A few things that have caught my eye over the past few day….

1. Debate among Reformed African Americans. When debate erupts in a camp over something as basic as preaching, then one of three things has likely occured. The “movement” has grown large enough to include divergent views and healthy enough to discuss them. Or, the “movement” is potentially splintering before your eyes. I guess a third option may just be that someone has a quirky perspective that neither threatens or strengthens; it’s just different. I’m not sure what I’m watching in the comments here and here. But apparently there are now enough Reformed African Americans in the blogosphere to have a debate about expositional preaching in the predominantly African-American context (HT: Anthony Carter).

2. Useful to all bloggers, especially those debating theological matters. Martin at Against Heresies has done a three-part interview with Carl Trueman on guarding ourselves against theological error. As usual, Trueman is helpful and insightful. His comments on theological blogging and ministry are especially instructive. Here’s a snippet from part two:

Q: What signs of potential doctrinal drift and danger do you need to keep an eye out for in ministerial students?

I was convicted recently by a minister friend quoting to me 1 Tim. 1:5-7 (ESV):

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

My friend made two observations about this passage. First, the drift into dubious theological discussion is here described as moral in origin: these characters have swerved from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith; that is why their theology is so dreadful. Second, their desire is not to teach but to be teachers. There is an important difference here: their focus is on their own status, not on the words they proclaim. At most, the latter are merely instrumental to getting them status and boosting their careers.

Thus, what concerns me most is that students may simply desire to be teachers. If that is their motivation, then they have already abandoned a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith, and their theology, no matter how orthodox, is just a means to an end and no sound thing. It is why I am very sceptical of the internal call to the ministry as a decisive or motivating factor in seeking ordination. Nine times out of ten, I believe that the church should first discern who should be considering the Christian ministry, not simply act as a rubber-stamp a putative internal call which an individual may think he has.

Further, such students whose first desire is to be teachers are more likely to try to catch whatever is the latest trendy wave. Orthodoxy is always doomed to seem uncreative and pedestrian in the wider arena; if the aim is to be a teacher, to be the big shot, then it is more likely that orthodoxy will be less appealing in the long run – though there are those for whom orthodoxy too is simply a means to being a celebrity.

If a prideful desire to be a teacher, to be a somebody, is the fundamental problem, then one other aspect which is increasingly problematic is the whole phenomenon of the internet. Now anyone can put their views out for public consumption, without the usual processes of accountability, peer review, careful editing timely reflection etc. which is the norm in the scholarly world and has also been the tradition in the more theologically responsible parts of the Christian publishing industry. The internet has few quality controls and feeds narcissism. Again, I have a friend, a minister in a North American Presbyterian denomination who says that, as he reads many blogs, his overwhelming feeling is one of sadness as he sees men seriously undermining their future ministry through the venom they pour out on others. I think he is right.

Of course, all young theologians and aspiring church leaders say stupid and unpleasant things. I still blush about comments I made 15 or twenty years ago which now seem arrogant and offensive, and certainly unworthy of a Christian. But for those of us who are older, the sins of our youth are thankfully now long vanished from the public sphere; yet such sins committed today can live on indefinitely in cyberspace. I shudder for those who have not yet grasped this basic fact and who say some frightful things on the internet which will come back to haunt them the very first time a church googles their name as part of doing routine background checks on a potential ministerial candidate. But more than that: I shudder at the kind of self-appointed arrogance among ministerial candidates and recently-minted graduates which the internet can foster and intensify.

Paul’s words to Timothy seem prophetic in times such as ours. Students should cultivate pure hearts, good consciences, and a sincere faith. That way they will safeguard their theology from becoming idle speculation.

Part one, two, and three (HT: Dave)