Book Review: Shepherds for Sale, with responses to Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Steffaniak

The book Shepherds for Sale by Megan Basham has taken the American evangelical church by storm, as it documents and charges various evangelical leaders of pushing leftist positions. Is this a political book, or rather, as the author says, it is a book designed to expose politicking in the church? Well, I have finally read the book, and have written a review about it from a non-Western and non-American perspective. I have also included responses to two book reviews of sorts from Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Steffaniak, both of which in my opinion misrepresented the book and its author. Steffaniak in particular even get page numbers wrong, so take from that what you will.

Without further to do, here is the book review. An excerpt:

American evangelicals in the early 21st century are truly a sight to behold, as compromises one after another flare up within her. One is shocked to find professing Evangelicals promoting immorality such as LGBTQ, as David French does. One is puzzled as to how American evangelicals can tolerate such people, who in earlier centuries would be immediately excommunicated by orthodox churches, and even heretical groups as well. The flood of sewage coming out of American Evangelicalism is shocking to evangelical Christians around the world looking in, but ‘Murica being focused on itself, they could not care less about what the world thinks.

Megan Basham in her book seeks to peel away the secrecy behind the shift in American Evangelicalism. ...

[more]

Oh, also, since the book mentions political issues, you can find my thoughts on political issues and the church here as well.

Confessions of a former strict confessionalist (Part 1)

[I am currently busy with work commitments and preparing for my next phase of life, so updates here will be sporadic]

My life has been quite a journey, and with my current progress in the Christian life, I thought it would be helpful to tell parts of that story here.

Introduction

How does one relate to God in this world? To the church? What should a Christian do in order to glorify God? All of these are questions that I struggle with, especially after I have been awakened to the things of God by the Spirit of God. Having brought up in staid traditionalism, I was exposed to Charismatic influences. It is admitted that there are many biblical problems with the Charismatic movement, and the particular strain that I was eventually exposed to, the Third Wave New Apostolic Reformation, is heretical. Yet, for someone raised in staid traditionalism, this was a breath of fresh air. In particular, it cannot be denied that, through focusing on the imminant and the practical, Charismatic Christianity preserve an important aspect of Christianity, which is that Christianity has to be practiced and not relegated to mere cognition. Christianity is a whole person faith. The idea that one can be Christian in mere intellect is not biblical, but more on that later.

As a biblically deficient movement, Charismatic Christianity left me feeling dry over time. God graciously led me to Reformed teaching and Reformed theology. Through seeing the latitudinarian approach in much of Singapore Christianity, I was led to reject New Evangelicalism, which I see as the movement allowing false teaching like the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) to infiltrate the church. In a sense, I became a Fundamentalist, Fundamentalist in approach not in doctrine. If New Evangelicalism is marked by toleration of false doctrine under the guise of charity and respectful disagreement, then the reaction is to be strict on doctrine. Laxity of doctrine is spiritual adultery, leading to spiritual destruction applauded by those going to heaven under the guise of charity. It was evidently clear that New Evangelicalism is a movement of spiritual negligence on the part of its pastors at best, so the way to combat it is to be its opposite.

I notice quickly of course that Fundamentalism does not work, noting the problems and church wreckages it has caused. If everything is important and one must separate from other Christians on almost every doctrine, then everyone will eventually form a church of one. Yet it is evidently clear that New Evangelicalism does not work either. The so-called triage method promoted by Albert Mohler, when I heard about it, does not work either. "Triage" presumes that one can rank doctrines in order of importance, but where is this ranking found? Who gave us this ranking list, and upon what basis should we grant that list authority? "Triage" is basically an intellectual version of New Evangelical compromise, allowing pastors to feel less guilty or not guilty while being indifferent about other people going to hell.

The Promise of Confessionalism

New Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are a dialectical pair, with the one feeding into the other. Those who reject New Evangelicalism veer Fundamentalist, while those reject Fundamentalism veer New Evangelical. It is a zero-sum game either way, and in no way is Christ's church and Christians properly served. Believers are destroyed by false love and unity under the banner of triage or whatever term New Evangelicals use. Christ's sheep are broken by fundamentalist attack dogs slashing the sheep they were meant to protect, guide, and feed. While wresting with this dialectic, I came to hear of Confessionalism, which holds itself to be a third way in the dialectic.

What is the allure of Confessionalism? Confessionalism asserts that the problem with evangelicalism is that it does not have a true center of unity. Evangelicalism fails in its struggle to be coherent and proper because it is in some sense a false construct. By rejecting the historic creeds and Christian confessions, and trying to create a pan-"Protestant" movement, Evangelicalism cannot truly function as a Christian church. "Evangelicalism" as a movement must be deconstructed, argues historian D. G. Hart, because it has become a "seemingly large and influential religious body, but it lacks an institutional center, intellectual coherence, and devotional direction." [D.G. Hard, Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 176]. Hart in that book was focusing on the New Evangelicals, but the issue of a true center of unity or lack thereof affects the Older Evangelicalism as well. The only difference is that Old Evangelicalism had denominational legacy and thus had a more stable identity despite their trans-denominational slant. The dialectic between doctrinal separation and doctrinal compromise exists because there is no real substantive center in evangelical churches. All claims to be centered on the "Gospel," whether of the older evangelicalism, the New Evangelicalism, or the New Calvinist version (e.g. TGC) have failed because the words "the Gospel" have no substance in themselves. Over time, as it has been shown time and again, a unity "around the Gospel" results in either doctrinal splits or doctrinal compromise and eventual apostasy. The former comes as one group found to their astonishment that error and heresy lies within the camp, and sought to eradicate it, as for example Charles Spurgeon and the Downgrade Controversy, and the various modernist-fundamentalist controversies of the early 1900s. The latter is seen in the evangelical moderates collapsing to the forces of Liberalism in the PCUSA and other mainline denominations. It is seen also in the modern horror story that is TGC, as it is currently capitulating to the anti-Christian lies of LGBTQ+ and wokeness.

Confessionalism's promise therefore is to re-orientate doctrines around a core, forming something that looks like "triage" without the triage. Instead of asking questions about what doctrines are core and what are not, believers are to understand the form of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13) and link themselves to the historic Christian faith. Christians link themselves to the historic Christian tradition, choosing the historic Confession that they hold best approximates to that tradition, the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Christians unite around a common Confession of faith and the historic creeds of the church. What the Confession states is core; what it does not there is room for disagreement.

Of course, this does not solve every problem. There is a sense in which we argue from the Confession for logical deductions from that Confession. There is a sense in which inferences from the Confession partake in the derived authority of the Confession for us, yet are less authoritative than the Confessions themselves, especially when the inference is not direct. Nevertheless, the promise of Confessionalism is an escape from the dialectic between New Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. In it, the believer can rest, more assured in the truths of Scripture and protected from wolves.

[to be continued]

What does repentance and faith look like in a fascist or communist?

The furore over Tim Keller's promotion of third way-ism is just another glipmse into the corruption that is mainstream evangelical Christianity in America. After David Wood wrote a sympathatic critique of Keller, the liberal David French, a political commentator who claims to be conservative while corrupting the faith, has attacked such criticism of Keller's compromise as "moral devolution" of the "new Christian right." Rod Dreher in turn criticized French as misreading American society and for creating a false dichotomy between love of enemies and truth.

As a non-American, I try not to comment much on American social issues. However, insofar as it deals with morality, it is an issue that transcends national borders. On this, there is a larger issue than politics here. The issue is what intellectual sin looks like, and what repentance looks like as it pertains to intellectual sin. That sadly has been missing from the discussion so far.

Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God (WSC Q14). The human person is a whole person, involving the intellect, the will, emotions, and actions. We are to worship God will all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Lk. 10:27), precisely because we are whole human persons. Sin affects all our faculties, thus affecting the intellect, the will, the emotions, and our actions. Therefore, it stands to reason that repentance ought to affect all our faculties too, including the intellect.

Intellectual sins therefore are sins that ought to be repented as the person turns to Christ. On intellectual sins, there are sins due to ignorance, and sins due to sloth. But there are also grievous sins due to extreme rebellion. Just as in practice, there are sins that would call into question one's profession of faith (e.g. incest e.g. 1 Cor. 5:1), so likewise there are grievous intellectual sins that would call into question one's profession of faith. An example of grievious intellectual sin is belief in any system that denies Jesus is God.

Intellectual sins are present when one holds to systems that expressly rejects biblical standards and supplant biblical morality, regardless of whether one goes all the way into full-fledged conversion to that system of belief. In fact, holding to anti-biblical systems while paying lip service to the true God is the very definition of syncretism. Anti-biblical systems currently in vogue are fascism and communism, or a fusion of the two - corporate wokeism. These systems are so anti-biblical they call good evil and evil good. For example, what God calls abomination, they celebrate as virtuous under the vacuous slogan "love is love."

What does repentance and faith look like therefore for a fascist or communist? Given the extreme anti-biblical nature of theses systems, part of being a Christian is to repent of these anti-Christian sysytems of beliefs. There is no way one can be a repentant Christian and still hold that homosexuality is good or neutral in society. Therefore, a Marxist or woke person who has undergone the new birth will renounce their fomer beliefs as false, and turn in new life in the life-giving truths of Scripture.

The furore over Keller "third way-ism" obscures this most important fact: What currently goes under the label progressivism is sin. The solution is not conservatism (a sociological conversion), but true biblical repentance from all these anti-biblical ideologies. When David French promotes Drag Queen Story Hour, his main sin was not going against the sensibilities of conservatives, but in normalizing wickedness in the eyes of God. The issue is not sociological, but harmatiological. That is why Keller's third-way, and French's "moral winsomeness" fails, because they ultimately rejects what God says as sociological and political, rejecting the final authority of God's Word for their own political positions. Just because one side politicizes biblical morality does not mean God's standards suddenly become political, and attempting a compromise with an anti-biblical position under the guise of "third way" and "not being political," "not being partisan," moral witness," and all other empty slogans, is sin. The key issue is not "Is it political?," but "What does God say."

Mark Galli, formerly from Christianity Today, admits what we always knew about Big Eva

Mark Galli on his Substack platform recently admitted in his report what we always knew was the case: That Evangelicals love the accolades of the world and lean left while punching right. An excerpt:

Elite evangelicalism (represented by CT, IVPress, World Vision, Fuller Seminary, and a host of other establishment organizations) is too often “a form of cultural accommodation dressed as convictional religion.” These evangelicals want to appear respectable to the elite of American culture. ...

...

I saw this accommodation dynamic as CT managing editor and then editor in chief. We said, for example, that the magazine did not take a stand in the complementarianism or egalitarianism debate. But we rarely if ever published an article that endorsed complementarianism; we did offer many that assumed egalitarianism in family and church life (not to mention the many women pastors who we published).

Then there was the six-day creation/evolution debate, in which again we said we took no stand. But try to find an article in the last three decades that argued for or assumed six-day creation. And yet we published several pieces that simply assumed a billion-year time span for the history of the earth.

It’s not a coincidence that complementarianism and six-day creation are anathema to secularists, features of a religion out of touch with reality.

Is it any wonder that Evangelicalism has always drifted towards doctrinal and moral corruption over time? Galli puts forward TGC (The Gospel Coalition) as the successor to New Evangelicalism. Unfortunately, the same dynamic is busy at work in TGC, just at a less advanced stage.

Big Eva, Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, and passive aggressive posturing

Christianity Astray Today (CT) had put up a series of podcasts on The Rise and Fall of Mars Hills quite some time back. On the surface, the series does highlight problems with the defunct Mars Hill Church and especially its founder Mark Driscoll. The toxic "hyper-masculinity" and pornification of religion promoted by Driscoll is indeed contrary to true Christianity. The podcasts promote egalitarian views, but that should be expected of the broad evangelicalism that is CT, so the podcasts should be fine, or are they?

The problems with the podcasts come about when you consider the timing and context of the podcasts. First, consider that Evangelicalism had no problems with Driscoll back in 2009 when Driscoll was all the rage. When John MacArthur, a complementarian pastor by the way, criticized Driscoll for his degradation of the Songs of Songs, he was criticized by Evangelicals. Evangelicals had no problems with Driscoll back then, and the reason why CT can run this series of podcasts now is because Driscoll has been disgraced and out of mainstream Evangelicalism for a long time. "After all, who are you to judge Pastor Mark Driscoll?" Where was CT when MacArthur criticized Driscoll for his disgusting treatment of the Songs of Songs? Nowhere! CT only attacks people when they are out of power and influence in Evangelical circles, kicking them when they are down. This is not a defence of Driscoll, but rather a statement that shows how Evangelicalism (Big Eva) deals with people they disagree with. CT applies "judge not" to those in power and influence even if they disagree with them, but go after them when they are out of power and influence.

Second, consider that in episode 5 entitled "The Things We Do to Women," feminists are brought in to critique Driscoll, while those who had criticized him before like MacArthur were overlooked. Here, we see CT has an agenda in mind when it comes to the timing of these podcasts. American society had its #MeToo movement and the airing of former President Donald Trump's past misogynistic remarks. It is clear that CT is using this to push egalitarianism, noting that it has the Americo-centric social "historian" Kristin Du Mez in the podcast commenting on the evolution of the emphasis on men and male headship in the American church. I say "historian" because Du Mez does not actually do history. She starts with a conclusion and reads her thesis into history, since it is clear from Reformation writings and even patristic sources that patriarchy (understood in its neutral sense) of some form is the historic Christian view of gender relations. CT is capitalizing on the current social moment (celebration of victimhood and the dismantling of "hegemony" and oppressive systems of power) and bashing Driscoll (who does deserves to be bashed, but that's not the point of contention) in order to stealthily promote egalitarianism. Instead of dealing with Driscoll's error, complementarianism is tarred by association with Driscoll, such that anyone defending complementarianism is seen as a misogynist who promotes porn and "rape culture" by default. The worst thing is that CT is right in its exposé on Driscoll, but its narrative poisons the well against complementarianism, and all this by appeal to emotions without any appeal to the mind.

To go deeper into the tactics of Big Eva, we see here the way Big Eva deals with those they disagree and/or dislike. Many Evangelicals today prefer to be non-confrontational. Calling people heretics is considered socially unacceptable. Talking frankly about disagreements, disagreeing and fighting openly — these are rejected by Evangelicals. But it is not as if Evangelicals are all about love and fun and roses. The human heart does not change, and disagreements still happen. But instead of the open confrontations of the past, today's Evangelicals engage in passive aggression and other forms of scheming and politicking as a way of dealing with their problems and disagreements. Instead of openly and honestly confronting Driscoll in 2009, CT waited until 2021 to bash Driscoll, when it is more or less socially acceptable to do so. Instead of openly discussing the debate between complementarianism versus egalitarianism, they underhandedly used their podcast to create a visceral antagonism against complementarianism, all under the banner of caring for women. Does anyone seriously think that the passive aggressive posturing, the scheming, the conniving, is way better than open confrontation and disagreement?

Much has been said against the bad and horrible "white conservative evangelical men." While certainly "white conservative evangelical men" are not perfect, I prefer their company over the schemers and passive-aggressors where pretense is everything and backstabbing is laudable. Better a straight talker than one of those politicians.

On abuse and the responses to the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal and the responses to that scandal from within Evangelicalism, I would like to offer this article as a way to think more about the issue of abuse and Evangelicalism's failure to deal with abuse. An excerpt:

The Ravi Zacharias scandal rocked Evangelicalism, since Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist until his death in 2020. In response to the scandal, Evangelicals reacted with sorrow and grief over the wickedness of Zacharias’ sins. The more common refrain from many leaders however is some variant of “there but for the grace of God go I,” as seen in Michael Brown’s article, and reposted on Charisma News, a leading news source for Charismatics. While they sorrow over the victims of sins, the focus is on “not throwing stones” and empathizing with Ravi Zacharias to some extent. The most egregious piece here can be found in Singapore by Rev. Edmund Chan of CEFC (Covenant Evangelical Free Church), who ended his note with a confidence that Ravi Zacharias is indeed in heaven now, an article which epitomizes a major problem within Evangelicalism

[more]

On the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal, I have written my thoughts on the issue here. An excerpt:

Ravi Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist and founder of the ministry that bore his name (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries – RZIM). His global reach means that his ministry was known worldwide, regardless of the merits or demerits of Zacharias’ apologetics. Zacharias passed away last year in 2020, seemingly a godly man who has reached many people for Christ. However, shocking revelations of sexual abuse have surfaced, and an investigation that has just been completed by Miller — Martin was shocking in its validation of the credible nature of many of these accusations. RZIM has in turn wrote an open letter apologizing for the misconduct of its founder, promising restitution and reform. These revelations have troubled many Evangelicals. With Zacharias’ reach being global in nature, the revelations of his immorality have resonated around the world.

[more]

The "Doctrinal Triage"

For his Masters of Divinity degree, Eric Powers has written a thesis entitled "Is there any Biblical Warranty for the Doctrinal Triage," which can be accessed here. In this 2016 thesis, Powers argues that there is no biblical warrant for the doctrinal triage: the view that doctrines can be split into first-order, second-order, and third-order doctrines. Citing Al Mohler, among others, the triage is described as follows: first-order doctrines are those that are non-negotiable; second-order doctrines are those that are "denominational distinctives" and are doctrines that, while serious, Christians can disagree with without calling salvation into question; third-order doctrines are less serious doctrines that Christians can disagree on within a church (pp. 13-14). Powers engages some of the texts used to support this notion of doctrinal triage and shows that they do not in fact promote this teaching. Rather, any claim of order of doctrine is one of the relation of foundation to the building. In this view, the foundational doctrines are required for the other doctrines, yet there is no sense in which we can say that the doctrines built upon that foundation is any 'less important' or 'less essential' than the foundational doctrines required for them. Interestingly enough, Powers appealed to the unity (and simplicity) of God to ground his view that all doctrines are "relevant to the believer and are equally true" (p. 68; pp. 68-73).

Coming from a confessional perspective means that I do not start with a view of doctrinal importance based on some notion of triage. At the same time, the doctrinal triage is practiced in broad Evangelicalism, under various names, and it is clear that it has been used (or abused) to allow for toleration of doctrinal errors within the church. This thesis is indeed a helpful piece of work as it addresses the tendency within Evangelicalism to water down and downplay doctrinal differences among professing Christians and churches.

Book Review: Divided We Fall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity

Unity is something that God desires in his church (c.f. Jn. 17:21), yet the Christian church seems to be growing more and more fragmented. How then ought we to seek and fight for Christian unity in a divided world? Luder G. Whitlock Jr. had this question in mind as he wrote his book promoting Christian unity, in Divided We Wall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity, published in 2017. I have read the book and reviewed it in a book review here. An excerpt:

The history of the Christian church concerning the cause of Christian peace and unity has not been very glorious. Over the centuries, there have been many divisions within what is purported to be the one catholic and apostolic church. It is common among Roman Catholic apologists to attack Protestantism for all the divisions in the church ... [continue]

On Reformed Piety

Earlier this year I started a series on Reformed piety, in contrast to Evangelical piety. I had then decided to take the project offline and finish it first, so here is the completed document. Two excerpts, one from the introduction:

What is Reformed piety? Or is there such a thing as Reformed piety, as distinct from Evangelical piety? For those of us who do not identify as "Evangelicals," and that even before the term has become politicized during and after the election of US President Donald Trump, we do see a difference between Reformed piety and Evangelical piety. We do this, not out of a blind following of tradition, but because of what we see as being taught in Scripture and in light of the implications of Scripture.

And another from the conclusion:

Reformed piety stems from Reformed theology, while Evangelical piety stems from the social settings of Evangelicalism. The distinctives of being Reformed is to be confessional, orthodox, reverent and orderly, while the distinctives of being Evangelical is to be conversionist, activist, Biblicist, and crucicentrist. ...

You can access the entire document here.

R Scott Clark on the issue of Spiritual Disciplines

Dr. R Scott Clark not too long ago did a podcast with a couple of guys on their Theocast on the topic of spiritual disciplines, which can be listened to here. From the time I heard about them after I became a Calvinist, I was uncomfortable with the issue of spiritual disciplines, even in their New Calvinist form in Donald Whitney's book Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life, which is better than others like Richard Foster's (a Quaker) Celebration of Discipline. I was wondering whether and when I would have to analyze the issue further, but Dr. Clark has done all the work, so I guess I can just link to that podcast where he deals with the topic.

The Young Gnostic Messiah (ADD)

It wasn't so long ago when radical liberals lined up attacks upon Christianity during the season of Good Friday and Easter. Liberals would be on media programs to promote (discredited) theories that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, or that the resurrection did not actually happen, and other such nonsense. Now however, Satan does not have to rely on the liberals and their attacks, which were so outrageous the attacks convinced no one but their liberal proponents themselves. Instead, Satan dresses up as an angel of light and is now attacking the Christian faith from within.

So what is the Trojan horse? This Good Friday/ Easter season, we have the so-called Christian movie The Young Messiah. To say that the movie is unbiblical is an understatement. Just from the trailer alone, there is enough material to indict the movie and its producers as being agents of the devil, willingly or unwillingly. It is unbiblical, blasphemous and Gnostic. Yes, it is Gnostic, with a capital "G." It is astonishing that supposedly many Christian leaders have endorsed this movie. I know Evangelicalism has little if any depth in it, but these endorsements have stricken a new low for Evangelicalism, which is saying a lot since my estimation of the Evangelical movement was so low I thought I had reached rock bottom — even supporting the nativist and vulgar buffoon Donald Trump was not as bad as this!

The first and major problem with this (anti-) "Christian" movie is its Gnosticism. Gnosticism was an esoteric and eclectic movement in the first few centuries of the Church that attempted to fuse Eastern mystical religion, Greek philosophy, and elements of Christianity into a syncretistic religious soup. Gnosticism, like Neo-Platonism, elevates the spirit over matter. Matter is considered evil, and thus creation (matter, the universe) was made by a lesser and lower deity. The problem with man is not sin, but creatureliness. The body is the prison of the soul, and salvation is achieved by learning the path to liberation, towards pure spirit and towards the One, God. This path involves the gaining of secret knowledge (gnosis), and thus the movement is called Gnosticism.

As a false religion loosely affiliated with, and competing against Christianity, Gnosticism attempted to subvert the Christian faith and message. Spurious gospel accounts were written that made it seem as if Jesus were a Gnostic. Since the four Gospels were well distributed, Gnosticism tried to insert its message by "filling in the blanks" of Jesus' life and ministry, and the first 30 years of that life would prove an excellent place to embellish the character and teaching of Jesus in their favor.

One such Gnostic text was the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an anonymous text falsely ascribing as its author the Apostle Thomas. The text claims to fill up some of the unknown years of Jesus, during his childhood. In the trailer to the movie, we see an enactment of, or an allusion to, the scene from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1:2-3. In that text, the Gnostic writer claimed Jesus fashioned birds out of clay and then they came alive. In the trailer, we see Jesus at the beach rising to his feet with clasped hands and then opening his hands to reveal birds which flew away, so, while it isn't clear in the trailer, it seems likely that the full scene in the movie will show Jesus making birds from clay, or rather sand.

The movie is thus Gnostic in its use of a Gnostic source, and in its "filling in the blanks" (basically lying) about the life of Jesus. This is not just plain artistic license and embellishment, but it is the whole movie, the creation/ adaptation of a totally fictional story about Jesus with no basis at all in the Scriptures and in real history. For the Christian leaders who endorse this blasphemous (in more ways than one) movie, is it their intent to state that the historicity of Jesus' actual life and work do not matter, since a fictional tale about him is evidently just as valid as the biblical truth?

The second problem, a theological problem, lies in its portrayal of the young Jesus as someone struggling with existential angst concerning his calling. There are so many things wrong with this portrayal of Jesus. First of all, the trailer seems to indicate that Jesus came to realize his calling not from himself but through Mary. Secondly, Jesus was portrayed as someone learning how to become the Savior. Yes, the trailer cited Philippians 2:6-7, but, as far as I know, even the worst of the kenotics (those who hold that Jesus emptied himself of his divine attributes in the Incarnation) would balk at this portrayal of Jesus! If the trailer is accurate, the movie's Christology is totally messed up. To say that Jesus learned to be the Messiah puts Jesus out as a man who became the Messiah, which is basically an Adoptionist Christology. This kind of doubting and angst, while making "Jesus" relatable to an angsty postmodern audience, is a practical denial of Christ's deity and a rejection of Scripture's actual portrayal of the young Jesus. The text misused in this trailer, Philippians 2:6-7, did not say that the Son ceased to be God in the Incarnation, but rather that He divested Himself of His heavenly privileges and glory, thus becoming a servant (as opposed to the Lord of heaven). The Son as a servant divested Himself of the exercise of his regnal authority, but He never ceased being the Son. Jesus continued to be God even while on earth! In the one section where we were given a glimpse into Jesus' childhood (Lk. 2:41-51), we are shown a Jesus who already knew of his calling even at the young tender age of 12.

Yes, a young "Jesus" struggling with angst might be more relatable, but it is a false idolatrous representation of the real Jesus. The real Jesus from young knew who he was and what he was sent to do. The life of the historical young Jesus would not make for a good movie, but then Jesus came not for our entertainment but for our salvation! While Jesus was indeed human and suffered on this world, that does not mean that he faced the same angst as we do. In fact, ancient civilizations tend not to face our postmodern angst, for most people in ancient times struggle daily to put food on the table, while living in constant fear appeasing gods and spirits among them.

I am sure the actual movie would yield even more problems, as the footage concerning the Romans seem to indicate. But just from the trailer itself, we see a person portrayed that behaves all too differently from the biblical Jesus. It is manifestly shameless for the director of the film to think that this movie has anything remotely to do with the true Jesus. In an interview with Christianity Astray Today, the director even had the gall to denigrate orthodoxy, stating that one just have to have an emotional connection to the people on firm. While that might be fine with normal movies, this movie is marketing itself as a Christian movie about Jesus, which means it should be truthful at the very least, which this movie isn't.

The Young Messiah is a work based upon false stories of Jesus. As such, all Christians should be warned against watching this Gnostic trash. If God did not see fit to give us details on Jesus' first 30 years, then perhaps we should likewise not peer into the secret things of God.

ADD: Dr. James White has posted a short review of the movie here. While it's good that the explicitly Gnostic elements are removed or toned down, that does not excuse the needless speculation of Jesus' early life. There is still no word as to whether this Jesus did in fact experienced angst over his calling

CT and Evangelicals forced to make a decision

Al Mohler has recently wrote an article concerning how Evangelicals will be forced to make a decision regarding the issue of homosexuality. That Evangelicals need to make that decision is true. The problem however is with how Evangelicalism as a movement is unable to halt those within its ranks from compromising on this and other issues.

The issue of focusing on a center with non-distinct boundaries, if any, is the way Evangelicalism has functioned, to the detriment of the movement. Even the term "center-bounded set" emphasizes the center while the boundaries are not clearly marked. One may want to fault Fundamentalism with having boundaries legalistically, but is the solution to legalism no boundaries that are unclear and unable to be enforced?

The desire to be "nice" and liked by all has destroyed the witness of Evangelicalism. From Billy Graham's compromise to toleration of "partial inerrancy," Open Theism and Theistic Evolution, Evangelicalism has become everything, and nothing. That the apostate Tony Campolo can ever be called an "evangelical" says it all. The statement by current CT editor-in-chief Mark Galli that "Neither will we feel compelled to condemn the converts and distance ourselves from them" was correctly critiqued by Mohler, but can all of us not "condemn the convert" (whatever that means), but more importantly, treat them as apostates that are to be called to repentance and faith?

Evangelicalism has been wary of boundaries. Ironically, their witness is sullied by a desire to be "nice." If Evangelical leaders will not disavow heretics, the movement will certainly be co-opted by these heretics.

On Religion

"Religion" in many circles is seen as something staid, formal and dead. The picture given is a bunch of moral hypocrites who claim to obey the law and impose harsh demands on others. For some strange reason, the Pharisees are seen as the epitome of what "religion" is all about, and we all *know* that Jesus condemned the Pharisees and instead call for a "heart religion." But is such a picture correct?

The association of "religion" with dead formality has been a recurring motif throughout history. There was always the State or official religion, and then there were the "mystery" religions for the common people. In the Greco-Roman world, the "mystery" religions multiplied since they promised something exotic and liberating from the official status quo. As Christianity penetrated the Greco-Roman world, the phenomenon known as Gnosticism became the "Christianized" version of the pagan mystery religions. After Christendom was established under Constantine's successors, the mystery religious impulse was partially co-opted by the Medieval Catholic Church, and thus Roman Catholicism (the unreformed branch of the Medieval Catholic Church) has been filled with all manner of unbiblical superstition up to this present day.

Closer to modern times, this mystical impulse returned in the Anabaptists, then in the Lutheran Pietists especially in the Moravian Brethren. It then become a key component of Evangelicalism as it was born in the Evangelical awakenings under George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and John and Charles Wesley. Whether through Evangelicalism or through Unitarianism and Liberalism, modern society has by and large become infected with the mystical impulse.

The problem with the mystical interpretation of "religion" is that it is at best a caricature. True, "dead orthodoxy" or nominalism is a problem, but it is not a new problem. The old way is to treat nominal believers as the mission field, while, under the mystical impulse, formal religion itself is tarred as being essentially the same as "dead orthodoxy."

It is true that Jesus promoted a heart religion, but that is precisely the point — a "heart" "religion." As James 1:27 says, what God is asking for is a religion that is of the heart. In other words, it is done sincerely out of love ("heart") in a manner that is orderly and with regard to the institutional structure of the church ("religion"). As an aside, the problem with the Pharisees is not that they were religious, but that they had a false religion, a religion that added to God's Word in the multiplication of laws, and subtracted from God's Word through their denial of Jesus Christ.

The contrast therefore should not be between Christianity (as relationship) on the one hand, and "religion" and irreligion on the other hand. While pandering to the prevailing culture's idea of "religion" might help gain sympathy in the short term, what this denigration of "religion" may very well result in is a denial of any formality in Christianity for an amorphous idea of "love," viz mysticism. And as Dr. James White has said, "What you win them with is what you win them to." If you utilize this "contextualized" manner of presenting Christianity to a public that is certainly skeptical of authority and formality, how would you be able to teach them respect for the institutional aspects of the visible church, unless of course you want to become egalitarian in church polity? Church discipline is all but impossible if mysticism becomes the default setting of members in the church. Through all these, God is not honored, and we have not corrected the false teaching concerning the church that was tolerated (or promoted) in the language denigrating "religion" and "irreligion."

"Religion" is treated as a bad word in certain quarters, but it shouldn't be. Perhaps instead of attacking "religion," we should actually be truthful and call it by its true name: "Legalism," or one can call it "Ritualism." Or, since it smacks of the return to the Law principle, we can call its proponents "Judaizers."

The revisionist history of the New Evangelicalism

One manner of dealing with historical criticism is to refute it. Another way, the dishonest and lazy way, is to do historical revisionism and read the opposition out of the records. In the history of the New Evangelicalism, the established historiography claimed only 3 sides to the conflict: the Liberals, who compromised on doctrine, the Fundamentalists, who were so militantly opposed to compromise that they lost their love for the brethren and the lost, and the New Evangelicals, or just "Evangelicals," who stood firm on doctrine yet seek to be winsome and loving to all. Conspicuously absent from the revisionist historiography is the notion of a 4th group: Confessional Protestantism, those who stood firm on sound doctrine as taught in the Creeds and Confessions of the Church, and sought to do ministry with an ecclesial focus. We reject Liberalism for its toleration of heresy, we reject Fundamentalism for its imbalance of doctrine, AND we also reject [New] Evangelicalism for its compromise of the truth.

Justin Taylor has decided to dip his toe into the issue by speaking about the "three type of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals after 1956." As we can see however, Taylor made the same revisionist error of omitting Confessional Protestantism, whether that is due to ignorance or intentional maliciousness is another question. In the interest of correcting this deficit, I have decided to add the fourth column to his chart:

	Confessional Protestantism
Personal separation from sin	advocated
Ecclesiastical separation from liberals/ modernists	advocated
Relationship of evangelism and social action	emphasized evangelism over social action
Style of combatting Modernism	militant
Attitude towards Billy Graham	opposed (less strongly), but do not necessarily regard as apostate
Attitude towards NAE	opposed
Attitude towards self-designation of "fundamentalist"	rejected
Geographical concentration	?
Representatives	J.G. Machen, Reformed churches

By defining the Confessional Protestant position out of the picture, the New Evangelicals, or its latest reincarnation in the "New Calvinism," can claim to be the moderate position between the extremes of Liberalism and Fundamentalism. Furthermore, they can claim, and do claim, continuity with the Reformation, even though they do not belong there. In the one hand, they held up the portrayal of the Liberals, which every true Christian would reject as having compromised the faith. In the other hand, they held up the portrayal of the angry Fundamentalists, using the worst excesses of that movement as an example to tar the rest. They thus seem both strong on doctrine (contra Liberalism) yet charitable towards others (contra Fundamentalism). Confessional Protestantism however cannot be so easily tarred, so it is probably better to revise them out of the picture, since after all they are generally not a big and vocal group, and some can be co-opted into their camp.

Between Confessional Protestantism and Separatist Fundamentalists, the major difference is the balance we achieve through focusing on the historic creeds and confessions of the Church. Separatists Fundamentalists, due to the anti-intellectualism held by many of them, tend towards imbalances resulting in factions and schisms. The prevalence of Dispensationalism in many parts of separatist Fundamentalism has resulted in a cottage industry of elaborate eschatological charts, filling in the blanks where Scripture is silent. Is it not any wonder that factions and schisms will result from such doctrinal imbalances, where belief in a pre-tribulation rapture (nowhere taught in Scripture) becomes definitive of orthodoxy in some circles? Confessional Protestantism, by focusing on the pattern of sound words, do not suffer from such schisms found in Fundamentalist circles, schisms which may be exaggerated by the New Evangelicals to prove that the separatists are short on Christian charity.

The focus on the historic creeds and confessions of the Church of course means that it is less a movement than a church, thus tied to denominations. It is understandable that Evangelicalism hate denominations, but that doesn't make the link to denominations wrong. Perhaps that is another reason why Evangelicals like Justin Taylor wish to ignore Confessional Protestantism. In all fairness, Taylor is not the only one to do so; most of the histories regarding Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in the 20th century do the same, and all of them are wrong in their omission. One wonders how many of them actually read what John Gresham Machen believed concerning ecclesiology and the Fundamentalism of his time, instead of just focusing on his battle with Modernism.

We return to the beginning of Taylor's article, where he mentions three "definitions" from Dr. Dockery. I will add in the fourth "definition," and thus we will see the different spirit in Confessional Protestantism.

An Evangelical is someone who likes Billy Graham;
A Liberal is someone who thinks Billy Graham is a fundamentalist;
A Fundamentalist is someone who thinks Billy Graham is apostate. AND
A Confessional Protestant is someone who deplores Billy Graham's compromise and lack of biblical ecclesiology, while acknowledging both the good and the bad he has done for the spread of the Christian faith.

Ref21, and the Uncommon Compromise of Richard Mouw

Reformation 21 is the online magazine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. While generally theologically sound, sometimes one read stuff that makes one cringe. The recent piece by Sean Lucas is one such example, as he praised Richard Mouw and his "uncommon generosity."

Who is Richard Mouw, you may wonder? Mouw was at one time the president of Fuller Seminary, the New Evangelical institution that decided to jettison their initial stance on biblical inerrancy to allow for toleration of heresy. Now, it is admitted that Fuller is not a church, yet it claims to be a Christian institute, so it should be reasonable to expect it to keep within the pale of orthodoxy. Thus, while it would be rather unreasonable to expect a generic Christian institute to take a position on e.g. the validity of infant baptism, I think it is reasonable to expect a professing Christian institute to actually be, like, Christian. While Mouw was president of Fuller, was there any attempt for Fuller to actually behave like a Christian institute? Judging by their continual tolerance of "partial inerrancy" and other kinds of false teachings, I guess not!

Even more pertinent to our concern here is Richard Mouw's endorsement of Mormonism as being a legitimate expression of Christianity, as documented by Dr. James R. White (here is one example). The problem with Mouw is not that Mormons believe that God the Father is supreme, but that Christianity is monotheistic, not henotheistic or polytheistic. It astonishes me that Lucas can say that Mormonism "has historical roots within evangelicalism." If by "historical roots," it means the founder was nominally from an evangelical religion, then almost every cult can claim that, including presumably Satanism. That phrase could however mean that Mormonism, because of its historical connection, can claim some form of commonality with evangelicalism, and that is patently false. Thus, it is easy for this phrase to be an equivocation which is technically correct in the first sense yet serves to mislead people into thinking Mormonism is close to the evangelical religion (in the second sense).

The fact is that in both these instances, Richard Mouw has compromised the Faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is inconceivable to me that Reformation 21 could allow Lucas to write such a piece praising Richard Mouw for his "uncommon generosity," which is more like uncommon compromise. Mouw's actions are not the actions of the apostles, who anathemized those who proclaimed another Gospel (Gal. 1: 6-9) and who call for clear separation from false teachers (2 Jn. 10-11). Mouw has compromised the Faith, and it is a travesty that any biblical Christian would even think that he is being "generous," unless one thinks "generosity" equates to apostasy, like in Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy.

UnChristian?

The greatest danger [to the Church and the Christian faith] lay in a [movement] that insisted on defining professing Christians out of Christianity. ... [Name withheld said,] In the midst of a world situation that "smells to heaven," in the presence of "colossal problems, which must be solved in Christ's name and for Christ's sake, [a certain group of professing Christians] propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their [doctrine]. What immeasurable folly!"

Quick quiz, is this statement referring to

1. watchbloggers,
2. "haters"
3. all how disagree with John Frame over "evangelical reunion"
4. none of the above
5. all of the above

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Answer: 4 (none of the above).

The full citation goes like this:

The greatest danger [to the Church and the Christian faith -DHC] lay in a fundamentalism that insisted on defining professing Christians out of Christianity. "Just now," Forsdick said, "the Fundamentalists are giving us one of the worst exhibitions of intolerance that the churches of this country have ever seen." In the midst of a world situation that "smells to heaven," in the presence of "colossal problems, which must be solved in Christ's name and for Christ's sake, the Fundamentalists propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration. What immeasurable folly!" [William R. Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 275]

Defining "professing Christians" as being non-Christians is not a new thing. It is in fact the traditional practice of both Reformed and Evangelical Christianity. Reformed Christianity defined heretics out of the Church, no matter how outwardly pious they might seem to be. Evangelicals with their revivalism define all without a "born-again" experience as being practically unregenerate, or at least that was what they traditionally did. This idea of defining professing believers as being non-Christians is clearly practiced by the early 20th century Fundamentalists, and this sort of "intolerance" is what the Liberal Harry Emerson Forsdick saw as "intolerance." Forsdick's view of course is not atypical. It was also the view of the 18th century mainstream Anglicans towards John Wesley, George Whitefield, and the Methodists.

Of course, without the context, the answer to my quiz could very well be 5 (all of the above). In fact, if you have actually thought through the quote without scrolling down for the answer, you might actually have thought 4 is the answer. This only goes to show how unbiblical 21st century [Neo-] Evangelicalism has become. The "unpardonable sin" among many Christians nowadays it seems is the sin of stating that such and such a person is NOT a Christian because of what He believes (or disbelieves). But of course, we have seen that this attitude of judging is integral to the Reformation and integral to the founding of Evangelicalism. So what exactly has changed since then? Who exactly is the one who's unChristian: the one who claims that those who do not believe in cardinal doctrines are non-believers, or the one who attacks those who do so? From a historical point of view, I think the answer is self-evident.

Next time anyone utilizes this same critique of "intolerance," inform them they are in the same camp as Christ-denying Liberals like Harry Emerson Forsdick

Contra Johannem Frameum: RSC's Recovering the Reformed Confession - Reformed vs Evangelical (Part 2)

In the American context evangelicals are orthodox Protestant Christians, Christians who maintain belief in the supernatural work of God to save us from sin, including Jesus' virgin birth,miracles, atoning death, resurrection, and return. The Reformed also maintain these doctrines (with some slippage on both sides). Since they hold every doctrine that defines evangelicalism, they can be regarded as evangelicals. But of course they also believe some things that do not define evangelicalism, which makes them a distinct strand of the evangelical movement. [John Frame, The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology (Lakeland, FL: Whitefield Media Productions, 2011), 95]

Historically speaking, "evangelical" is the name used by Lutherans to describe themselves. The term then took on a new meaning when it came into widespread use as a name at the time of the First Great Awakening in Britain, as a description by Christians who believe that one must personally believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, in contrast to the general apostasy within the 18th century Church of England whereby many ministers do not even believe the Gospel much less teach and proclaim it. Evangelicalism therefore as a movement is a reaction to the unregenerate state of the 18th century Church of England. Unfortunately, the rejection of the apostate established church comes about without a recovery of Reformed church piety. When the First Great Awakening came to America, George Whitefield transplanted the entire British experience over such that all professing believers must be assumed to be unregenerate unless they have a conversion experience, resulting in the split within American Presbyterianism into the Old Side and the New Side.

"Evangelicalism" and "Evangelical" from then on refer to the movement that spawned from the 18th century Great Awakening. While it generally has similar doctrines to the Reformed faith, the major difference however is where they differ: ecclesiology. Evangelicalism never has a proper doctrine of the church, only a truncated doctrine of the local church and a spiritual doctrine of the universal church.

We see that John Frame thinks like an Evangelical. That is why he can talk so flippantly about "evangelical reunion," as if "evangelical" was primary. Of course, if one thinks only about doctrine, then Reformed seem to be a subset of Evangelicalism. But historically such is not the case. The Reformation was first, then the rise of Evangelicalism.

Frame's doctrine of the Church is not Reformed. That is why he can misunderstand R. Scott Clark's view of confessionalism, because for him there is no difference between the individual, and the group. He has no concept that the group, i.e. the institutional Church, is a distinct entity separate from the individuals even though it is made up of individuals. Frame therefore is stymied when Clark criticize his views as being individualistic when he defines Reformed as being "the consensus of Reformed believers" (p. 75, 81). There is a big difference between "the consensus of Reformed believers" and "the consensus of the Reformed Church made up of Reformed believers." The former focuses on the individual, such that a modification of Dr. Clark's syllogistic representation holds true ("a number of believers self-identify as Reformed, They hold X; X is Reformed"), while the latter focuses on the Church coming to its official pronouncement ("The Church, comprising many believers who self-identify as Reformed, wrote/adopt this Confession; The Confession state X; X is Reformed"). The failure of Frame to see this is astonishing, but I guess that is what happens when individualism is taken to the extreme such that the collective is denied. Lastly, Frame objects that the Confession has to be interpreted and thus subjectivism is still present, but such is a cop-out for the simple reason that the same argument can be applied to Scripture, yet Evangelicals still believe in the authority of Scripture instead of asking "Has God said?".

Frame may not like the Reformed doctrine of the Church; that is his perogative. But it is tiresome when he continues to insist that he is Reformed. Can someone who self-identifies himself as Reformed deny Reformed ecclesiology and still be Reformed? That is the crux of the matter, and that is why Frame's main critique of Clark is wrong.

Contra Johannem Frameum: RSC's Recovering the Reformed Confession - Reformed vs Evangelical

So the true church is now broken up into thousands of denominations and varying traditions, contrary to our Lord's will. The church is still one in that it has one Lord, one faith, and on baptism. But there are divisions of theology, practice, ethnicity, of which the Reformed tradition is one.

Christians are committed first to Christ, then to the one body of Christ, and only then to a particular form of the church. They must make the third commitment only because history has made it necessary. Because of the tragic division of the church. one may not be a "mere Christian." He must join a congregation that does not have fellowship with all other congregations. So he must be Reformed or non-Reformed, not both. There should be in his heart a purpose to do something, even if he only can do a little bit, to lessen the divisions of the church and to make progress toward the reunion of the church.

If a believer is Reformed he should give due appreciation to the achievements of that tradition in theology,church government, and other ways. But the focus of his life should not be on his denomination or tradition. It should be on Christ and the Scriptures. He should feel deeply the errors of Reformed chauvinism, the attitude that celebrates and seeks to preserve the distinctiveness of Reformed Christianity from the influence of other branches of the church. He should learn from other traditions and recommend what he learns to his Reformed friends. ...

His church home, contrary to Horton's "village green" model, is the whole body of God's elect. His relation to non-Refomed Christians is spiritual oneness with Christ, not "shared interests." (Shared interests! What a trivializing of the unity of Jesus' body!)

A Reformed community that maintains its biblical heritage while seeking to grow in its love for the church as a whole is well worth supporting and recommending to others. This is not [R Scott] Clark's view of the church, and that I take to be the most serous criticism of the book under review [Recovering the Reformed Confession]. But it is one I heartily recommend to my readers. (John Frame, The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology (Lakeland, FL: Whitefield Media Productions, 2011), 117-8)

Chapter 3 of John Frame's book is Frame's attempt to interact with R. Scott Clark's book Recovering the Reformed Confession. Clark is a strict confessionalist of sorts, and not surprisingly, Frame doesn't like him or his ideas one bit.

While Frame disagrees with Dr. Clark on many things, his main contention with Clark's book is that the two of them have competing views of what it means to be "Reformed." Clark defines "Reformed" historically, while Frame defines it, well, as merely a tradition he is sortof stuck in, a tradition that is merely one fragment of Christianity, as we can see from the quote above. One wonders why Frame even want to be called "Reformed," since evidently to him there is not much difference between Reformed and Anabaptist, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy. All are merely a matter of taste, as all are mere fragments of the Church. But if all are a matter of taste, why not just discard the labels entirely and merge in one "sweet" ecumenical syrup and just focus on the "lurrveeeeee" of Christ? Why doesn't Frame just join any of the Stone-Campbell descendent churches, since that was the original intention of Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell, who desired to be known merely as "Christians"? And to his claim that one can be either "Reformed" or "non-Reformed," not both, why not just apply the Hegelian dialectic and found your own denomination, a third path if you may?

The problem with Frame and his idea of "evangelical reunion" is that his church history is practically non-existent. What kind of "summary" of church history is it to state that the church began with Christ, and then after the times of the apostles,

... the one true church eventually divided.Groups broke away from the fellowship: west broke from east, Protestant from Catholic, Protestant from Protestant. ... The blame, of course, is not on everyone equally but these divisions always resulted from someone's sin— either the sin of those who illegitimately left the one body, or, in most cases, both. (p. 117)

In the early church councils, the various heretical groups were kicked out of the early Catholic church. At the time of Chalcedon in 451AD, a significant number of groups were excommunicated because they refused to subscribe to the Definition of Chalcedon. The Coptic church were Monophysites, while many Nestorians fled eastwards into the Sassanid Empire, and established a foothold there, creating a vibrant center of an alternate "Christianity" outside the Roman Empire (both East and West). So even in the early Catholic church before the East-West Schism formalized in 1054, there were centers of "Christianity" besides Rome and Constantinople. The trouble is that these churches were deemed heretical by Chalcedon, and their adherents not considered to be in communion with Christ and His Church.

The Reformation of course "split" the Reformers from the Roman Church, but then the Reformers were not trying to create a new church but to reform the Medieval Catholic Church. It was rather the Anabaptists who wanted to overthrow all of Christendom, not just the political order but also the ecclesiastical order. None of the Reformers thought of themselves as a mere "fragment" of Christ's Church, alongside other "denominations" like the Anabaptists and the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, they saw themselves as reforming the Church, and there is only one church. The various denominations were created in order to give form to the one church they conceived themselves to be in. Where there are practical issues that prohibit union, like national and language boundaries, the different church bodies had fraternal relations. In having fraternal relations, they are acknowledging that the other denomination was a legitimate church body. Union would have been considered and taken place if not for practical considerations, an understanding that saw the Reformed churches eager to cooperate and merge with other church bodies of like faith and practice (e.g. the merger of the churches from the Doleantie and the earlier 19th century Afschieding in early 20th century Netherlands).

All of these just go to show Frame's ignorance of church history and the general Reformed understanding of what a denomination is. A denomination is not a "fragment" of the Christian church. A denomination strives to encompass all of Christ's churches, and to establish fraternal relations with those that are practically impossible to achieve union for any kind of legitimate reason. Denominations and churches that have no legitimate reason to remain separate from any other church bodies ought to merge. So if Frame's view of the church is correct, then all of these churches ought to combine. There shouldn't be any "Reformed" or "non-Reformed," but only the title "Christian." This was after all the dream of the 19th century Restoranionists Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell.

So why aren't churches uniting? Evangelical churches generally are not interested in uniting because they have a false doctrine of the church as to its nature being only local. Thus, Evangelicalism only believe in a spiritual unity, the unity of all believers "in Christ." For the Reformed churches, at their best they understand the inability to unite stems from differences in doctrine, serious differences in doctrine that make it impossible for ecumenism to be possible. First, we should acknowledge that there is no unity with heretical churches, which would rule out Frame's beloved example of Joel Osteen. Those with serious error(s) are also excluded, as are all Arminians and Arminian church bodies. And lastly, certain practices like the denial of pedobaptism in Reformed Baptists circles would make it impossible for a united church life to continue, even if we were to agree with the Reformed Baptists on almost everything else (which is not really true, but I digress).

There is the Reformed desire for union, which is to be based upon a shared confession of the same apostolic and Reformed faith. Then, there is the faux "Evangelical union" promoted by Frame, in which orthodoxy does not seem to define the boundaries of the Church. That is why Frame's view of "unity" is wrong. In Frame's counter-analogy to Mike Horton's "village green" model, Frame states that all who claim the name "Christian" should be treated automatically as brothers and sisters in Christ, with a corresponding "spiritual oneness." But such "oneness" advocated by Frame has little if anything to do with truth, in comparison with the Reformed view of unity. (Horton's "village green" model only makes sense when one sees the other houses as those who claim the name of Christ but who might not be actually part of Christ's church, and therefore there are "shared interests" when one interacts with them on a normal basis.)

While I do not necessarily agree with Dr. Clark on everything, he is right in linking "Reformed" to the Reformed Confessions, not because the Confessions have taken the place of Scripture, but because the Confessions confess what the Church believes to be true and biblical. (If the Church decides that certain parts are contrary to Scripture, then she is to amend them accordingly.) Frame's attack on Clark however, betrays his ignorance of church history and his ignorance of Reformed ecclesiology, and should be rejected altogether.

Contra Johannem Frameum: Horton and Christless Christianity

Back in 2011, John Frame, a former professor at Westminster Seminary California and now at RTS (Orlando) wrote a book attacking what he called the "Escondido Theology." Since Frame was formerly a professor who left under a less than favorable situation, the book could be seen as the disgruntled whining of a former employee. Frame's charges were roundly rejected by the seminary and Dr. Michael Horton repudiated Frame's (mis)presentation of his views. That said, all of these are based upon their own judgments, and for some time I wanted to look at the charges myself. When I finally read it, I was astounded. The caricatures and misrepresentations are so bad and numerous one really wonders whether this libelous book is indeed the disgruntled attacks of someone who has a bitter personal vendetta against the seminary to the point of breaking the 9th commandment in order to "get back" at it.

I have graduated from the seminary, and I had tried to learn as much as I could there. I am no parrot and no follower of anyone but Christ, and just because I have graduated there does not mean that I necessarily adopt everything my professors believed and/or taught. That said, if what they teach is the truth, then of course I hold to it. And if one disagrees with what they teach, one needs to actually do so because the Bible says so, not because one does not like what they teach, much less reject a caricature of it. Sadly, the amount of strawmen burned by Frame blackened the sky with smoke. Lots of heat is produced, but not only is no light produced, but darkness covers the land because of his hack job of a book.

Frame's second chapter is an attack on Horton's book Christless Christianity. First of all, Frame misrepresents even Horton's position vis-a-vis the American churches. Frame claims that Horton makes a blanket condemnation of ALL churches and then backtracks later (pp. 23-4). The whole representation is ludicrous and one wonders whether Frame has problems with basic reading comprehension. In which world are general statements necessarily meant to be taken to be applicable to all of the particulars? This is the logical fallacy of division. Frame next reads Horton's saying that some professing Christians focus on good things as being a subtle distraction away from Christ, and mutates it into saying that Horton claims a two-tiered hierarchy of believers, the "higher" ones focusing on the best things and the "lower" ones focusing merely on the good things (p. 25). I must say this, and at various other point, I am rendered speechless as to how to even respond to such misrepresentations. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say perhaps because Frame reads this as speaking of actual Christians who are focusing on good things, while Horton is "denigrating" them for the purpose of setting up the "higher level" of those who focus on the "best things." But this is such a twisted thinking! Horton's point was that these "professing Christians" are in danger of falling away. Their conduct is not that of "second grade Christians," but conduct totally unbecoming of Christians in the first place! Throughout this chapter, Frame questions even whether anyone can be said to fall into this category. Does Horton have to name even more names and make what is clear even more evident? But I guess there is nothing that Frame sees as being unacceptable in the church, except for Confessional Reformed praxis it seems. How can anyone even defend the word-faith heretic Joel Osteen (p. 38) is beyond me. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reading Osteen in the "worst possible sense" (p. 38), for his theology is not hidden at all. Does Frame think that the Bible teaches that men are little gods and that they can claim God's blessings on demand, and only on demand? Does he thinks that it is perfectly in line with Scripture for people to say that God cannot do anything on this world without the express permission of men? Does he believe that it is perfectly legit for Christians to want to be rich and pay seed money to attempt to get a hundred-fold return on their "investments" into God's treasury?!

Frame defends the modern evangelical churches by claiming that there is nothing wrong with "application," since the Bible speaks about them (p. 30). Conversely, he accuses Horton (and the "Escondido Theology") of being against application (p. xxxvii). But this is nothing but a total misrepresentation of Horton's views. The problem is that Horton grounds application in right doctrine. One has to get the indicative of the Gospel before going to the imperatives of the faith. To just preach imperatives or even on "secular" topics is the very definition of "Christless Christianity." Frame does not even show the slightest hint that he knows that is what Horton is actually advocating. Instead, he sees an attack on "applicational preaching" and "preaching to felt needs" as being an attack on any forms of application at all (pp. 35-6), but this is a total non sequitur! Frame also thinks that Horton's critique of the language of "making him [i.e.Christ] relevant" is an attack on any and all forms of translating and communicating God's truth (pp. 35-7). I mean, how can one read a critique of saying that we should not soften the offense of the Gospel as saying that we should not translate the Gospel into another language like Hebrew, Russian, Japanese, or Chinese? Seriously, what world is Frame living in, to make such egregious errors in reading comprehension?

More examples of absolutely horrendous misrepresentations follow. A critique of pietism with its focus on one's emotional feeling of salvation becomes misinterpreted as a denial of the Spirit's witness to our salvation (p. 40). Horton's distinction between Law and Gospel under Frame's pen becomes the separation of Law and Gospel (pp. 44-7). Horton's critique of moralism becomes an attack on all forms of using biblical figures as examples (p. 48). After reading through this chapter, one wonders if there is anything, just ANYTHING, that Frame does not misrepresent.

Frame concluded his chapter with a so-called "summary" of Horton's arguments in Christless Christianity, which are all misrepresentations of his actual positions. They are as follows (pp. 58-9), with my comments.

1. Attention to ourselves necessarily detracts from attention to God.
   Answer: Misleading. Attention to ourselves as primary necessarily detracts from attention to God.

2. We should not give attention to the way we communicate the gospel, or to making it relevant to its hearer.
   Answer: Misrepresentation. Horton's argument is that we should not be focused on changing or watering down the message in the name of communicating the Gospel or making it relevant.

3. God's sovereignty and human responsibility are a zero-sum game. The idea that man must do something compromises the absolute sovereignty of God.
   Answer: Misrepresentation! The issue is not about working on sanctification, but about the Gospel and justification which is totally free and MUST be the foundation for sanctification.

4. God's work of salvation is completely objective, external to us, and not at all subjective, internal to us (Here he backtracks some.)
   Answer: Misleading and misrepresentation. God's work of salvation is not at all subjective in the sense of our emotional feeling of it. The work of Christ in us (regeneration and faith) is objective, not subjective, since God is the one who does the work. It may be expressed subjectively, but the works themselves are not subjective. Furthermore, it is one thing to know of the Spirit's work internally, and another to feel it emotively.

5. God promises us no earthly blessings, only heavenly ones, and to desire earthly blessings is a "theology of glory," deserving condemnation
   Answer: Misleading. God does promise us earthly blessings, but God does NOT promise us "earthly blessings" of health and wealth. The focus of God's blessings is not on earthly gain, but on our sanctification. To desire "earthly blessings" is indeed a "theology of glory" because it desires the glory of the world instead of Christ.

6. Law and Gospel should be utterly separate. There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news.
   Answer: Misrepresentation. Law and Gospel are distinct, but not separate. When used as theological categories, they are not necessarily linked to the text like some simplistic idea of "Law" equals Old Testament and "Gospel" equals New Testament, or even "Gospel" equals the four Gospels.

7. Preaching of the gospel must never use biblical characters as moral or spiritual examples. Nor must it address practical ethical issues in the Christian life.
   Answer: False! Misrepresentation! Preaching of the Gospel must never use biblical examples WITHOUT seeing them in light of Christ and the Gospel, not that they must never be used.

8. A focus on redemption excludes a focus on anything else.
   Answer: Misleading. A focus on redemption does not mean that other issues are not important, just that they are peripheral to the faith, and should orientate themselves with Christ and the Gospel in the center.

9. In worship and in the general ministry of the church, God gives and does not receive; the congregation receives and does not give.
   Answer: Misrepresentation! A rejection of contemporary "participation" in worship does not imply that the congregation is fully passive in worship

10. Analysts of the church must compare the Church's focus on Christ with its focus on other things, rather than considering that many of these other things are in fact applications of Christ's own person and work.
    Answer: Misrepresentation of much of American evangelicalism. It is not that they are applying Christ's person and work, as that they are using Scripture to preach on ethics without Christ and His work being central.

And this is just the beginning of Frame's misrepresentations...