The Pot Calling the Kettle "Black"

Over at Reformation21 Todd Pruitt wonders out loud about Tullian Tchividjian's ministry called Liberate and his coalition of churches.  He asks the following questions:

"What is it these days with pastors feeling the need to lead movements?  In seeing the Liberate site today, a friend asked me what sadly seems to be an increasingly unthinkable question: 'Why can't we just serve our denomination?'  Silly man."

"I serve a church of around 1,000 souls.   That challenge is daunting and most days I don't feel as though I'm doing a very good job.  Perhaps my gifts are vastly more miniscule than I previously thought.  But how does a man pastor a large church and lead a movement at the same time?" 

These are fair questions and they have crossed my mind as well.  But it is a little inconsistent of Mr. Pruitt to point the finger at Tullian and not some of those affiliated with The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

For instance Rick Phillips is not only a pastor but has been deeply involved with the Alliance for years.  On top of that he is also a council member for The Gospel Coalition and he is also a member of The Gospel Reformation Network.  So, on top of his pastoral duties he is involved with three other ministies/movements/coalitions.  The same could be said for many others involved at the Alliance or the Gospel Coalition or any number of other good ministries.

Though Mr. Pruitt doesn't wish to pick on Tullian, unfortunately I think he has.  I have no idea why Tullian wants to start another network of churches but it seems to me he has every right to do so.

Back to the books and my congregation.

  

Worship Wars - A Lutheran Spin

The title sounds old hat, doesn't it.  These wars have been going on for the last three decades with more and more churches throwing in the towel and going contemporary.  Confessional Lutheran churches are not immune to this trend and pastors who stand in the way become vulnerable.

Lutheran Pastor Hans Fiene has a helpful article about this topic.  He writes:

When advocates of historic Lutheran worship argue against the widespread use of contemporary worship, in particular the use of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) in the Divine Service, they often do so using a syllogism that looks something like this:

Major Premise: Music that focuses on the objective work of Christ is beneficial for use in worship, whereas music that focuses on the subjective feelings of Christians is not.

Minor Premise: Most historic Lutheran hymns focus on the objective work of Christ, whereas most CCM songs focus on the subjective feelings of Christians.

Conclusion: Therefore historic Lutheran hymns are beneficial for use in worship, whereas CCM songs are not.

He continues by noting that most critics focus on the minor premise and the conclusion.  They do so by arguing that "there are plenty of bad hymns" and that somehow justifies their preferences.  To read more of Pastor Fiene's comments go here.

It is without question that there are plenty of bad hymns out there (bad theologically and/or bad musically).  The solution isn't to chuck all hymns - it is to retain that which is good and write new ones that are equally good (Part of what our church is doing is going back to the Psalter and getting acquainted with the Psalms themselves and the tunes sung by our spiritual forefathers).    

Marva Dawn's book Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down is a good place to begin studying this topic. There are other works out there too but I've found this one particularly helpful in my ministry.

Pastor takes a Sabbatical from Church

Over at Out of Ur I read about a pastor who is taking a three month sabbatical from church.  His goal is to understand how "spiritual" people live - e.g. those who believe in God but don't gather for corporate worship.   The pastor who is the subject of the article is quoted as saying...

I'm a preacher. I'm all wrapped up in the system. From the inside, it is truly difficult to gain perspective. Conceptually, I get why an increasing number of younger generations are flocking away from -- well, the "flock," but frankly, just seeing and acknowledging the "hypocrisy" (among the other issues to which they correctly point as the problem with church) isn't enough; I need to do something about it. So, it's time to get some "perspective." 

I don't know about you but to me this guy needs to get perspective on the theology of worship.  Church isn't about programs nor should it ever be.  God's people gather to receive His good gifts as His Word is expounded and as the Sacraments are administered.  Worship is doxological (offering praise) but it is also a dialog between God and His people.  He summons us and and we gather.  He arraigns us as His law is read and we confess our sins.  In response He declares that our sins are forgiven because of Christ's work.  He speaks in the sermon and we respond.  He strengthens us through the sacraments and we respond with praise.  Finally he dismisses us with His blessing (benediction).  I would hope that this pastor would give some attention to the purpose of church and what God promises to do in worship.  

I understand that evangelicalism with its mega-churches, rock-star pastors, and massive youth programs can be a rat-race.  If that's you, then look outside your tradition.  Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.  Consider that since the Protestant Reformation these documents have guided many to a right approach to church.  My hope and prayer is that this pastor and many others will discover what I have articulated above. 

Horton Weighs In - Update

Over at Modern Reformation Dr. Mike Horton has posted a couple of helpful articles that relate to my two previous posts.  The first article addresses the attraction of Rome.  The second article speaks to the question, "Which Church Would the Reformers Join?"  I found articles to be both balanced and charitable.

At least one other article is promised.  I will add updates accordingly.

Update 6/14/12

Mike Horton has posted his third article on this topic entitled, "Who's in Charge Here?  The Illusions of Church Infallibility."  

Mike Horton on Multi-Site Churches

Over at the The White Horse Inn Dr. Mike Horton weighs in on the multi-site church model that is now sweeping across the land. 

Unfamiliar term?  Well consider this thumbnail sketch: well-known pastor of a mega-church wants to expand his ministry.  Through the 'miracle' of technology he can do that without leaving his own congregation.  Through a satellite uplink he can broadcast himself and his sermon to any number of locales either within a metropolitan area or beyond.  The local site may or may not have its own worship leader and praise band.  Usually there is an assistant pastor from the main church present -- Why, I'm not sure except to oversee the administration of the Lord's Supper.  Thus, people don't need to drive 30 miles to hear their favorite preacher they only need to find the closest site where the sermons are downloaded live. 

Horton addresses this topic from the perspective of church government.  He finds it to be heirarchical, which is contrary to both Presbyterianism and Congregationalism.  The former is predicated on shared, representative leadership expressed through elders.  Such churches are 'connected' to other churches through Presbyteries (regional bodies) and General Assemblies (national bodies).  The latter is predicated on the belief that the local church governs its own affairs with every member having a vote.  His analysis, like always, is worth reading. 

I have written about this as well coming at it from a slightly different angle.  In the multi-site approach I see entrepreneurism being expressed as churches employ the 'franchise model' of doing church.  The well-known pastor and his church are the 'product'.  They seek to expand 'market share' by opening up new sites where the 'product' can be 'sold'.  Franchising is predicated on consistency of product and service.  The satellite link provides the first ingredient.  The assistant pastor (read 'hired hand') provides the second. 

You can read my earlier posts here and here.  Also click on "Church Growth" at the right to find similiar articles. 

The Business of the Church - Reflections on the recent Willow Creek Leadership Summit

Fellow PCA minister Eric Landry, wrote a thoughtful piece about the recent Willow Creek Leadership Summit.  For those who do not know, this is an annual event hosted by Willow Creek Church in suburban Chicago, designed to spark enthusiasm and entreprenurialism among the evangelical church.  The pastor of Willow Creek is Bill Hybels.  Landry attended the event as the guest of a friend. 

Landry writes:

"I’m sitting in South Barrington, Illinois (in the western suburbs of Chicago) taking a break from the Willow Creek Association’s Global Leadership Summit, an annual event hosted by Willow Creek Community Church and its pastor, Bill Hybels. I joked to my facebook friends that I was undercover this week and that’s partly true. I’m the guest of a national corporation who—through a friend—paid for my registration and my nametag says I’m an employee of theirs! Well, no harm done. Not many people here read Modern Reformation or listen to White Horse Inn anyway…at least not yet!

The two-day conference is an intentional effort to combine the wisdom of business leaders with the wisdom of ministry leaders, with the hope that these two different kinds of leaders could learn from one another. The difficulty of that enterprise was demonstrated yesterday when Bill Hybels had to announce that Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, had cancelled his scheduled appearance at the summit because of an online petition by a gay rights groups upset by Willow Creek’s prior relationship with Exodus, Intl, which advocates that gay people can change their sexual orientation. Business leaders have different agendas than ministry leaders and that difference is spelled out in quarterly profit reports, reports that depend on keeping many different segments of the marketplace happy with your product. I wonder if many of the thousands of registrants here and at dozens of sites across the country watching by live video feed caught that lesson.

The product that the Summit is offering is enticing: success...The unmistakable message is that applying leadership principles that are common to all leaders (no matter what “industry” you might be part of) will result in that most powerful of aphrodisiacs, success."
Landry asks the following questions that grew out of the conference:

 * Do the kind of leadership principles that are necessary for a business to be successful belong in the church?

*What business is the church in?

* So what does success look like in a church?

You can read the rest of his analysis here: The Business of the Church

For my part I've shied away from this conference even though we have a local church that has hosted it via satellite.   I share many of Landry's conclusions about the wisdom of applying business thought and business models to the church.  I've been a pastor for 15 years and I've also worked in a Fortune 50 corporation.  My growing up years were marked by a series of corporate transfers as well.  I guess I just don't see how the average CEO has much to say to me and the vocation that God has called me to.  Word and Sacrament is what God uses to build his church, not the management techniques of Peter Drucker, or what one will clean from MBA classes. 

Jesus, Bombs, and Ice Cream

There was a time, quite a few years ago , when I read Leadership Journal.  Every so often I read their blog just to see what's up in the world of broad evangelicalism. 

Today an article was posted by Emerging Church guru, Shain Claiborne, entitled Jesus, Bombs, & Ice Cream.  In it he explains a cooperative effort he has set up with Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream to put in a plug for world peace.  No joke. 

I guess I have to say that I'm baffled: First by the event itself and secondly by Leadership Journal.  I don't understand what the event will achieve.  It will not stop war nor will it reduce military spending.  Furthermore, it strikes me as incredibly naive - about the world in which we live, about the problem of evil, about the sinfulness of man, and about the church. 


This brings me to my second point: There was a time when Leadership Journal was writing articles about pastoral ministry that were generally helpful to pastors.  Sure, a lot of it was based on managerial techniques, pragmatism, and the budding church growth movement.  But it was written by pastors for pastors with the aim of strengthening Bible-believing churches.  I honestly don't know what Leadership's mission is today, given the potpouri of articles that are posted.  I guess what I'm saying is that I don't recognize the evangelicalism the Leadership espouses.   Am I the only one?


Jesus, Bombs, & Ice Cream - Out of Ur

Central Carolina sends Overture for PCA to leave the National Association of Evangelicals

News has just come out that one of our presbyteries is sending up an overture to the General Assembly for our denomination to sever its ties to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).  I've read the overture and am supportive. 

Part of the rationale has to do with the NAE and some of its political proclamations.  In the recent past it has made declarations on behalf of its members on the environment and immigration.  Lest you doubt its political aims visit this page. 

The NAE was founded in the 1940s in response to the National and World Council of Churches that excluded Bible believing folk (read fundamentalists) who stood on the inerrancy of Scripture.  Since that time evangelicals have tried to distance themselves from fundamentalism by focusing on evangelism and cooperation between denominations by minimizing doctrinal differences.  Of course the parachurch movement is also a huge component of evangelicalism.  But anyone can see that "mission creep" has found its way into the NAE and now it find itself speaking on matters where Scripture is silent.  Our confessions are pretty clear about when the church ought to speak to the magistrate or intermettle in civil affairs.  The political statements of the NAE often conflict with those standards.

Read the overture for yourself.  Also read up on evangelicalism too.  I would suggest this book as a good place to start.  Here is a good explanation of the overture by one of my colleagues.

Sticks and Stone May Break My Bones...

So get this.  The Gospel Coalition, is by most accounts, going very well.  To those who are more confessional it comes across as "Reformed Theology Light."  

Recently the Gospel Coalition released a 10 minute video discussing "New Calvinism."  Seated at the table were Al Mohler, Kevin DeYoung, and Ligon Duncan.  Nothing particularly earth-shattering was said and I came away with an appreciation for the fact that there is a significant move afoot among evangelicals who are discovering some of what I hold dear.

Imagine my surprise when I came across the story:  Is New Calvinism Really New Fundamentalism?
Click on the link and you can watch the video and read one person's take on the movement.

I remember J.I. Packer saying in his little book, The Fundamentalism and the Word of God, that the term fundamentalist was basically perjorative.  The word conjures up images of William Jennings Bryant and the Scopes Trial.  Evangelicals shed that image by playing nice and minimizing theological differences amongst its various branches. 

A couple of questions come to mind.  First, I wonder what men like Tim Keller, Bryan Chapell, and others think about being called 'fundamentalist'?  Perhaps they never thought in their wildest dreams that someone would stick that label on them. 

Second, if many see The Gospel Coalition and New Calvinism as Fundamentalism in new clothes, I wonder what they think of those who embrace confessional reformed theology?  Would they call them Neanderthals?  Would they categorize their beliefs to be on par with Wahhabism? 

Broad evangelicalism is the problem, not New Calvinism or fundamentalism of any sort.  Sadly, broad evangelicalism cannot carry on a conversation with any person or traditon except itself.  Worse, it has forgotten what being Protestant is all about.

Congregations Gone Wild - New York Times

One of the members of my church forwarded a short and important article published in the New York Times over the weekend.  The article concisely explains why ministers are burning out - they are trying to please the ever changing tastes and desires of their congregations.  He writes,

The pastoral vocation is to help people grow spiritually, resist their lowest impulses and adopt higher, more compassionate ways. But churchgoers increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them. It’s apparent in the theater-style seating and giant projection screens in churches and in mission trips that involve more sightseeing than listening to the local people.


As a result, pastors are constantly forced to choose, as they work through congregants’ daily wish lists in their e-mail and voice mail, between paths of personal integrity and those that portend greater job security. As religion becomes a consumer experience, the clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy.

I think that this is something often overlooked by most of the people in the pews.  Church has become a consumer experience for most Americans.  They 'shop' around to find the best deal for music, programs, teaching and facilities paying little attention to doctrine or denomination.  Sadly, we have seen it in our own community when people with a PCA background move to town and choose to worship somewhere else because 'we aren't the flavor of PCA that they prefer.'  Now, no one comes out and actually says this, but it it is pretty obvious that after a few questions you learn that they are choosing a church home for something other than reformed theology.

This article has bearing on what occurred at my denomination's recent General Assembly in Nashville.  By day we debated the Strategic Plan and whether or not the denomination needed a major overhaul (those backing the plan argued that we are losing young people and the plan must be implemented).  By night the worship services featured innovative formats that pushed the envelope on what constitutes faithful worship.  To me it became apparent that those backing the Strategic Plan planned those services as a means to lobby for their point of view.  This was most clear on Wednesday evening when Dr. Bryan Chapell served as worship leader with Indelible Grace handling the worship music.  I do not wish to debate the merits of their music.  I only mention them because the implicit message of that evening was this: young people like this form of worship.  If we are going to attract and keep them we have to give them what they want.  This supports the thesis of the NT Times article - give people what they want or else they will walk. 

I'm saddened that many in my denomination have surrendered to consumerism.  I saw this play out when the Baby Boomers came of age and it happened when Gen-X arrived on the scene.  Now it is happening with the children of the Boomers.  This surrender reminds me of the book, "No Place for Truth".  Is this where we are heading as a denomination? 

You can read the NT Times piece here:  Congregations Gone Wild - NYTimes.com

Keswick Theology - An Analysis

As one who came to faith in college and who drank deeply from the streams of broad evangelicalism for years, I was particularly interested to learn of a new book, entitled "Why 'Let God and Let God' Is a Bad Idea." The book is by Andy Naselli, someone whose name I have never encountered but by all counts is someone to learn from. The book is an analysis of the Keswick (pronounced 'Kessick') movement and its distinctive view of sanctification.

Ever hear of the Spirit-filled life? Victorious Christian living? Being totally consecrated to the Lord? The carnal Christian? Ever feel like a failure because you haven't achieved victory over sin? Have you been told that the secret of Christian living is having 'a deeper life'? Then you've been exposed to it.

Here are two articles explaining the movement and Naselli's book:

Kevin DeYoung does a nice job providing a background to the movement and names influential leaders in it Here (it is worth reading just for the names of those evangelical leaders who espouse it).

Derek Thomas has also written a nice review Here.

If you'd like to understand how the reformed view of sanctification differs from about eight other contemporary views in evangelicalism then you must do a bit of reading.  Check out these two books:

Christian Spirituality - Five Views of Sanctification. Edited by Donald L. Alexander. InterVarsity Press
Five Views on Sanctification - Academic Books, Zondervan. 

The first title has a splendid essay by Sinclair Ferguson on the reformed view of sanctification.  The second title has Anthony Hoekema representing the reformed position.  Unfortunately he takes Romans 7 as a description of Paul before his conversion which weakens his overall argument.  However, he does a nice job interacting with J. Robertson McQuilken who argues for the Keswick position.

Wrong Again

Should the church be addressing immigration reform? Should the church join in criticizing Arizona for its new immigration law? Is the church failing to seize this opportunity to reach out to immigrants with the Gospel? Such are the questions raised by many evangelicals and they answer with an emphatic 'Yes.'

As I said in my last post, when the church preaches a message other than 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from your sins' we look foolish and are unfaithful to this calling. Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom to the church.  Use of those keys leads to the declaration that sinners are either released from their sins or remain bound in their sins and are subject to the wrath of God.  We preach the Law and Gospel to both sinners and saints trusting that God will do His perfect work.  We speak where Scripture speaks and remain silent when Scripture is silent.  Use of these keys precludes comments and sermons on a host of other topics.

For some that isn't good enough.  To them silence on immigration = 'white anxiety' and a refusal to see the fact that Anglos are projected to become a minority in the U.S. over the next few decades. This cultural shift mandates that evangelicals change the way they are doing church.  To refuse to get on board is an affront to God.  Moreover it is a choice to doom your church and denomination to irrelevance.  This is the stated view of the National Association of Evangelicals and has become mainstream in the PCA.

Christ is building His church and will continue to do so wherever His Word is faithfully proclaimed, the sacraments are administered correctly, and church discipline is practiced.  Why do we doubt?

To read more on this trend in the evangelical church click on this link, Segregated Churches and Immigration.  What's hard for me to understand is that evangelicals who advocate speaking on immigration, healthcare reform, the environment, etc. are the same folks who cringed over D. James Kennedy's ministry and those affiliated with the Moral Majority.  Aren't they doing the same thing?

Disillusioned with the Church

Why I'm Disillusioned-Short from Andrew Means on Vimeo.

I saw this over at Out of Ur where they have invited people to create a short video to explain why they are disillusioned with the evangelical church.  They are batting around the term, "de-churched."  For now I will refer to such people as those disillusioned with the church. 

I can't fully agree with all that he says but I think that it is worthwhile to hear his concerns, particularly his comments about the evangelical sub-culture.  It seems pretty apparent that he hasn't encountered reformation theology and its understanding of the church.  Comments are welcome but let's keep it constructive.

Where to Put What We Sing

As the Lord's Day looms near I found an article that might be of help as you prepare for worship.

Darryl Hart has written a helpful piece about music and worship. No, its not a piece for or against contempary music. Rather, it is a call for careful examination about what we sing and why it shows up at a certain place in the order of worship. Here is a relevant nugget...

Hymnals are something that Presbyterians take for granted. Rare is the lay person who picks up the book to examine it like any other, looking say at the table of contents, then at some of the indexes, and then at one or two hymns to see which tune the compilers used for a certain text. Instead, most church members look at the bulletin at the specific time for singing in the service, find the number in the hymnal, stand, and sing the chosen hymn.


Perhaps just as rare is a church member who reflects on a hymn in relation to what goes before and after it in the service. Does it follow a prayer, a Bible reading, the sermon? Did the pastor choose the hymn for a specific reason? Was it to reinforce the theme of the biblical passage, to resonate with the sermon topic, or as is often the case for hymns before the sermon, just a way to let people stand and stretch?


And most important, did the pastor choose the hymn to function as a prayer in response to what just transpired in divine worship?


This is the most important question if the dialogical principle guides the way that we order a service. If God speaks and we respond, then the way God speaks is through word (read and preached) and sacraments, and we respond by prayer (and offering). This means that congregational singing needs to fit the category of prayer...

Now whether you agree with the rest of the article is immaterial to me.  What is important is the view that worship is dialogical and that our response in song is be a form of prayer. 

How many can say that their church's worship service conforms to a dialogical of pattern where God speaks and we respond?  Not too many.  How many can legitimately say that their music is a type of prayer?  Probably not too many.  There are those who will debate this point on the grounds that their worship service is filled with praise (stretched to mean prayers of praise).  But is that dialog or monologue?  Seems pretty one dimensional to me.  Prayers are more than praise: there are prayers of confession, prayers of gratitude, prayers requesting mercy, and prayers of application (Lord, may I not forget this message from your word).  Thus it follows that our music and where it shows up in the order of worship is very important in serving the dialogical nature of our communication with God.

I realize that many are not interested in this point of view.  But if you are one of the "young, restless and reformed" crowd then think again.  What is articulated by D.G. Hart is classic reformed theology from the pen of John Calvin. 

Click here to read more: Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Where to Put What We Sing

Take a Look in the Mirror

Scott Clark analyzes the Christmas experience of legendary DJ, Steve Dahl, who attended a Christmas service last week (with great reluctance). Here is a nitty, gritty pagan telling why he is skeptical about the Christian message.

Want to know how the world views the church? Listen to this podcast. Pay particular attention to the end of the message about the two things that non-Christians need to hear when they visit church.

The Heidelcast Learns from Steve Dahl « Heidelblog

The Manhattan Declaration and The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

A few days ago I blogged about The Manhattan Declaration.  Today I read about others who are speaking too.

Over at Reformation21, the blog of the Alliance of Confession Evangelicals has this statement from Ligon Duncan who is the president of ACE.  He explains the Alliance's stance on this declaration. 

At the same place you will find this post And why they didn't sign... by Derek Thomas.

The Manhattan Declaration

Seems that you can't go anywhere on the internet without finding a reference to The Manhattan Declaration. Even Bill O'Reilly dedicated a segment of a recent show discussing its merits.  Since learning about it on or about the date of its release (11/20) I've been somewhat ambivalent about it.  On the one hand I appreciate its willingness to stand against modernity and anything that might cause us to go against Scripture.  On the other hand, I'm a bit suspicious about its theological underpinnings.  As yet I've not signed the declaration largely because I'm a naturally skeptical person.

A few days ago Dr. Al Mohler wrote an enthusiastic piece about signing this declaration.  Similarly other evangelical leaders have signed it too: Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer, Joel Belz, Randy Alcorn, Leith Anderson, Tim Keller, Bryan Chapell, James Dobson, Wayne Grudem, Neil Neilson, and the list goes on seemingly forever. 

So naturally, everyone is going to sign it, right?  Not so quick. Gene Veith reports that confessional Lutherans are ambivalent about it if not antagonistic (read the comments).  Closer to home, Tim Challies reports that he will not sign this declaration because it assumes unity on the word, 'gospel', when in fact, the word is not defined in the declaration at all.  Prof. John Stackhouse refers to it as 'a waste of everybody's time.' 

Mike Horton at The White Horse Inn has also come out against the declaration.  To him there is a certain similarity between this declaration and the ECT Declarations (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) which also assumed a unity on the definition of the gospel without actually defining it. He writes,

This declaration continues this tendency to define “the gospel” as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits.  

Horton goes on to explain how the gospel is redefined in this declaration or equated with social action (i.e. defending the unborn).  He does on to argue that this illustrates a profound confusion of law and gospel. 

Read the pros and cons for yourself.  As for me, I think that I'll remain on the curb as this parade goes by.

Carl Trueman on J.I. Packer

Here is a short video analyzing Dr. J.I. Packer's ministry and influence in evangelicalism for the last forty years. I found it to be insightful and a charitable critique. Others may find it more controversial.

HT. Heidelblog

Deconstructing Evangelicalism

Deconstructing - (verb used with object) to break down into constituent parts; dissect; dismantle.

1) To break down into components; to dismantle.
2) To write about or analyze (a literary text, for instance) following the tenets of deconstruction.

Source: Dictionary.com

For most of us evangelicalism is as common as the air we breathe. If pressed, we would have a hard time defining it because most of the time we only know it in contrast to other traditions - Mainline liberal Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, etc.

A few days ago I listened to an interesting interview of Dr. Daryl Hart concerning the book he wrote, Deconstructing Evangelicalism. He is a ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Here are some of the things covered in the interview:

- What is an evangelical?
- What is the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist?
- Should confessional denominations be considered evangelical?
- What is the evangelical doctrine of the church?
- What is the evangelical doctrine of worship?
- What is the evangelical view of church membership?
- Is the term 'evangelical' useful anymore?

This is an important subject worthy of additional study. Click here to listen to the interview. You might want to keep pen and paper handy to jot down authors and titles of some must-read books.

Gospel Coalition or Expedition?

I haven't read Leadership Journal for years. I dropped it after realizing how little Scripture was used in its articles written to encourage and train pastors. These days I occasionaly read its blog, Out of Ur, just to stay in touch with the evangelical mainstream.

Today I read this post Gospel Coalition or Expedition? and was saddened. I know a little about the Coalition but haven't boarded that train. Evangelical stalwarts like John Piper and Don Carson, who affirm reformed soteriology, are involved. So by definition the Coalition is going to tilt toward John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. Yet, this emphasis is rather mild when compared to subscribing to reformation creeds like The Westminster Confession of Faith and its catechisms or the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort). Based on the aforementioned article I guess that the Coalition is way too conservative for the evangelical mainstream.

The author is rather open about his convictions.and Leadership Journal, by publishing this article, must also share his convictions. Here he criticizes these core beliefs of the Coalition:

1) If we purify doctrine, the rest will follow.
2) We must return to the Reformation.
3) Women cannot be pastors.
4)The New Perspective is our enemy.

While I commend the author for his honesty, nonetheless, he reveals some sad trends in the evangelical mainstream. Most have lost the ability to define the word "Protestant". Most cannot explain the Gospel. Yet in their estimation they have exegeted the culture with near infallibility. Hence their prescription for the church is radically different than that of The Gospel Coalition.

If nothing else this article shows how the evangelical mainstream is adrift. While we might be grateful that today's evangelicals are not the same as those in the Moral Majority, we should be sad because they fall far short of men like Carl Henry, who forged the movement. Anyone who reads Christianity Today will know what I'm talking about -- today's editions of that magazine bear no resemblance to those published when Henry was its editor. He who has ears to hear...