I’m Presbyterian. I’m Reformed. I’m Confessional. I’m Evangelical. I’m also sometimes tired of hearing much the same language and theological boilerplate over and over again in sermons, in Christian devotional literature, in essays by Christians, etc. This is a complicated issue that bears more discussion than we can give it, but I can say right now that I sometimes grow weary of hearing A) How Depraved We Are and B) How Depraved the World is.

I know I need to be reminded, constantly, about my own depravity and need for grace in all matters. I know I need to be reminded that the world is Fallen. But that’s what happens when you’re Presbyterian - at least the Evangelical kind of Presbyterian. You hear a lot about depravity and fallenness. That’s what we do. That’s what we talk about.

When I was in the Church of Christ, all I heard all day long was How We’re All Supposed to be Baptized or We’re Going to Hell and Why We Don’t Play Pianos in Church. When I was at a Vineyard Church, I remember hearing all about Why Theological Details Don’t Matter and Why Congas Are Really Awesome in Church. Churches are made of people, and people are broken, and the way we do church is broken. Every church, even the ones who’ve got things mostly right, does a lot wrong.

So, my question: What does your church do wrong - which is to ask, what are you tired of hearing about in sermons and in the pews? What’s the dead horse that your denomination beats? Tell us the name of your denomination, too, so we can compare notes.

Alan Jacobs, a member of the faculty at Wheaton College, writes a terrific essay about the higher standard of Christian faculty at Christian institutions of higher learning. He writes in the context of a tough call: Wheaton fired one of his colleagues for getting a divorce. Now, before you freak out and call Wheaton the Home of the Grand Inquisitor, read this, and see what you think.

Kent wasn’t fired for getting a divorce, as so many of the headlines say. Though Wheaton, in keeping with what it believes (and I believe) to be historic Christian teaching, sees divorce as a very bad thing, indeed often tragic, it does not fire people for getting divorced. We have a number of faculty who have been divorced while employed here; in the past dozen years or more, only one has been asked to leave. But the college authorities do ask to interview employees who are getting divorced in order to understand the circumstances. It was this interview that Kent declined to accept, and that’s where things unraveled.

Now, why would a college want to pry into such personal matters? Well, for a very good reason. If colleges and their faculties and staffs are in loco parentis - and they are still in that role at the best colleges - then that’s reason enough. But don’t take my word for it. Read the essay, and Jacobs’s defense of why it was okay for Wheaton to fire his good friend.

Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican’s number two man in the Apostolic Penitentiary, spoke recently about seven “modern” sins that might be added to the list of seven “mortal” sins.  Lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy, and pride were first enumerated by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, and made immortal in the most convicting film I saw in college.  The new sins would make a far less interesting movie (in no particular order):

1. “ruining the environment”
2. “carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments” and/or “allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos”
3. “taking or dealing in drugs”
4. “social injustice which caused [sic] poverty”
5. “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few”
6. abortion
7. pedophilia

The archbishop acknowledged the Catholic church’s culpability on that last one.

The Atlantic Monthly says American evangelicalism is getting A) more moderate and B) more powerful.  An interesting combination.  Evangelicalism, says the magazine, has its core convictions, but “this religious tradition seeks above all to be relevant, to be engaged, to reach sinners regardless of their culture, their ethnic background, or their politics.”  Okay, I’m with them so far.   

These new evangelicals share many values with their secular neighbors; they and their pastors are reshaping their politics to match. The challenge is not overwhelming. In American history, evangelical churches have been abolitionist and pro-slavery; pacifist and jingoist; laissez-faire and populist. If well-educated, upper-middle-class suburban evangelicals want a “Christian environmentalism,” America’s market-driven, demand-sensitive religious culture can and will meet the need.

So, is American Christianity that changeable?   

In every way, the evangelical movement in the United States looks as if it is maturing. That means more social and political influence, not less, as the movement broadens, reaches into the elite, and develops messages with wider appeal. Yet it also means a more pluralistic and less strident movement, more apt to compromise and less likely to be held hostage by a single issue or a single party. The real story of the evangelical political movement today involves neither its death nor its triumph, but rather its slow (and ongoing) shift from insurgent to insider, with all of the moderating effects that transition implies.

And, how does all this wash with the Gospel?

This is theological post regarding matters within a particular denomination of the Presbyterian Church and as such may seem trifling to many of you. Nevertheless. Several months ago, we posted on the new “Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology” (for a primer on this theological issue, read this). The proponents of said theology have responded here, with an initial “24-theses” rebuttal by Dr. Peter Leithart of New St. Andrew’s College. His first thesis:

It’s long been a frustration that there is no forum for theological discussion and debate in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Presbyteries sometimes devote time to such discussion, but that’s too rare. And General Assembly (GA) is simply not a place where theological debate can be expected to happen. The General Assembly debate on the Federal Vision (FV) was a case in point. Nearly two hours were devoted to the committee report, but virtually no theological claims were made or disputed. The Assembly quickly determined that justification by faith was the issue, on the assumption that some in the PCA are denying it (which is not true). Once the debate went in that direction, the outcome was predetermined, as we Calvinists like to say. We all know what we think about justification by faith; we in fact know all that needs to be known; no need to discuss; let’s vote.

For those with an interest in this debate, you will enjoy parsing out these points.

It’s no secret that most American Christians get harpooned on The Love Issue, which is to say: We are chided by the world for how we treat one another during theological disagreements and during encounters with the world.  We get so wrapped up in defending intellectual propositions that we negelct the pathos of Christian love that should accompany any healthy rhetoric.

This gem from the Touchstone archives discusses one 20th century man who endeavored to show love while holding many well-defended positions in the realm of the intellect.

Francis Schaeffer articulated a double-edged ethic which the Body of Christ sorely needs: the practice of purity within the visible church, with the simultaneous practice of love, especially toward Christian brothers, but also to non-Christian neighbors. “It will not come automatically,” he wrote. “It takes prayer. We must write about it in our denominational papers. We must talk about it to our congregations; we must preach sermons pointing out the necessity of standing for the holiness of God and the love of God simultaneously, and by our attitudes we must exhibit it to our congregations and to our own children.”

We see this failing all the time here at WMB.  I see it in my own conversations, especially during college and graduate school.  It’s something that will always be hard to do, to stand up for Love and for Truth.  But to stand only for one is to stand for neither.

The Christian Science Monitor asks, “Should Congress care if a minister drives a Bentley, flies private jets, or buys a $23,000 commode?  Yes, says Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa, if the high-spending ways violate the US tax code - especially a tax exemption for religious organizations.”  Somebody’s going to need a heavy-handed healing on this one.

The Presbyterian Church in America, as many of you know, is the conservative, Reformed denomination of the 500-year old Presbyterian tradition.  Historically, it’s a denomination known for its intellectual and theological rigor, its embracing of the historic creeds of the church, its passion for scripture, and more.  In short, the PCA often seems to offer the best of both worlds: the passion of Evangelicalism and the sound rigor of the classical and creedal (and sometimes high-church) Reformed tradition. 

(more…)

Oh, what a brilliant short essay.  Mark Galli at Christianity Today writes about how this year, 2007, was about looking for God and not finding him.  Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens, you name it: Everybody’s wondering where God is.  Not that Hitchens wants to find him, but that does seem to be his purpose: Proving he’s not there to be found.  Galli’s essay turns all this on its head by suggesting that we’re not looking for God at all, and that we really do wish, deep down, that Hitchens is right.

(more…)

The Economist acknowledges that religion, which seemed relegated to obscurity after the Modern age showed us how silly it was, is anything but obscure these days.  What it wants to know, though, is if this is a good thing or not.

(more…)