The Charismatic Movement and the Two-Thirds world

One claim about the Charismatic movement is that it has resulted in revival and renewal in churches especially in the Two-Thirds world (the primarily non-Western world). Phenomenologically, the claim seems to be true. "Dead" churches have been revived and renewed by the Charismatic movement as it spread throughout the world, resulting in renewed vibrancy and evangelism and witness. Yes, the Word-faith movement and the New Apostolic Reformation have shipwrecked the faith of many, but it seems on the surface that, at least in many parts of the world, the Charismatic movement has actually been a force for good.

It must be noted that where the Charismatic movement initially began, and where its growth has been. It began in the mainline churches in America, churches that were mostly apostate already. Its influence spread to the half-dead and dead liberal churches around the world, moving them away from Liberalism towards some version of Evangelicalism. The Charismatic movement has little if any influence on the churches that are the most biblical, the Reformed churches. That itself should give us some pause. Why is that so?

Now interpreting providence is always tricky, so obviously my view may not be right. One could of course interpret providence by stating that the origin of Charismatism is within apostate churches and its spread in other apostate churches proves that Charismatism is another form of apostasy, being derived from false doctrine. Or one can claim that the Reformed churches were "old wineskins" not able to "hold the new wine."

Coming from a Reformed perspective, and understanding the Gifts of the Spirit to be linked with the purpose for which they are given, which is for the foundation of the Church, it seems to me that one could very well hold to the fact that God does work through the Charismatic movement to reach the dead and dying churches, as using a crooked stick to draw a straight line. The Charismatic movement in some measure may have a bit of the foundation gifts only because of how far they have fallen. They are the condenscension of God in mission settings and in churches so far gone in darkness. In other words, the possible possession of the Sign-Gifts are a mark of immaturity and given for a time to aid believers in their dire need. The problem of course comes when the new believers grow and continue to think that the one or two exceptional manifestations ought to be normative for all time. The pursuit of experiences which God did not promise as normative may result in them going astray, or that they may later grow up and become cessationists.

Speaking from personal experience, I experienced the regenerating work of the Spirit in the church I grew up just as it was influenced by the Charismatic movement. The church I grew up in was a mainline Presbyterian church in Singapore, and thus much of the denomination is infected by Liberalism. I was a Charismatic and being young and naive, wandered towards the New Apostolic Reformation. In God's mercy, I was brought back and am now a cessationist.

So yes, I am willing to grant that God uses the Charismatic movement to reach people. But then, God also used Balaam's donkey, so being used by God proves nothing at all. I am willing to grant that God may in His condescension grant some measure of the Gifts temporarily, but ultimately they will not last. They are a sign of immaturity, and thus, as it is seen in church history, a more mature church will not receive them.

The Strange Fire conference and painting with a broad brush

One of the main critiques of the recently concluded Strange Fire conference is that John MacArthur and the Conference paint with a broad brush and thus tar everyone in the Charismatic movement including those that are more orthodox like Wayne Grudem and John Piper. Phil Johnson has spoken tangentially on the issue in his conference presentation Is there a baby in the Charismatic bathwater? here:

After the conference, Johnson addressed the issue of the broad brush in his blog article on the GTY website The Broad Brush here, making the claim that the orthodox party are covering up for their heretical friends, and thus questioning whether the brush was actually so broad at all since the difference between the orthodox party and their heretical ministry partners doesn't seem so great. The exact point being driven at is succinctly put forward in Tom Chantry's blog post that "any Charismatic belief engenders a lack of discernment, enabling the worst sort of Charismatic excess," a point confirmed by Phil Johnson:

Tom Chantry’s point 1 nails it: http://t.co/NTb40paKcL (His point 2 is perceptive as well.)

— Phil Johnson (@Phil_Johnson_) October 29, 2013

So what are we to say about this? If the issue is the Charismatic movement as a whole, it is true that MacArthur is painting with a broad brush without sufficient nuancing and distinctions. If however the issue is how Charismatism results in little or no discernment, the conduct of Michael Brown and Sam Storms seems to go out their way to prove Johnson's point. Now, I do know Charismatic friends who warn against the charlatans in their movement. The problem is that they are nobodies in the movement. The leaders of the "Reformed Charismatics" like Sam Storms and Wayne Grudem have lent their credibility to heretics like Rick Joyner and Paul Cain. For those who claim to be more spiritual with the gift of speaking in tongues, their lack of discernment is rather telling I would say.

So in conclusion, if Phil Johnson's point is that Charismatism engenders a lack of discernment, the behavior of the "Reformed Charismatics" merely proved his point. In fact, I'm really interested to find any prominent Charismatic that actually warn against all of the charlatans associated with the Third Wave, including those less known like Randy Clark, John Arnott and Steve Hill.

DL: Dr. James White on cessation of the extraordinary charismata

In today's Dividing Line (Oct 24, 2013), Dr. James White helpfully interacted with the contents of the conversation of a caller calling in to Michael Brown on his Line of Fire show, as it deals with the issue of the Charismatic movement and John MacArthur's recently concluded Strange Fire conference.

Dr. White's manner of dealing with the sign gifts is definitely the way to go about doing it. More often than not, Charismatic (reformed or otherwise) treat the subject of the gifts atomistically, which is to say they isolate the question of the continuation of the gifts and deal with that question without situating the question within the larger context of redemptive history; within the whole issue of the purpose behind and function of the gifts. Those questions are not addressed holistically with the issue of the continuation of the gifts, but rather the Bible is treated ahistorically like a Systematics textbook just on THIS issue. It would really advance the argument if Charismatics can began to actually start addressing the Reformed Cessationist arguments instead of trotting out the same old rationale of there being no explicit mention of the cessation of the (extraordinary) charismata (I do note that some have tried, just not the rank and file "apologists").

The 1949 denunciation of the New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) by the Assemblies of God

The New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) is a restorationist movement from within Pentecostalism which veered sharply away from orthodoxy. It is the forerunner and ancestor of today's New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). In its 23rd General Council, the Assemblies of God rejected the entire movement as being unbiblical with an overwhelming majority of delegates voting to sustain the findings of the committee producing the report. The minutes of that General Council would thus be illustrative especially if one were to compare what it condemns to the current craziness in the NAR.

“The New Order of the Latter Rain”

Resolution No. 7 was read by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee as follows:

WHEREAS, We are grateful for the visitation of God in the past and the evidences of His blessings upon us today, and

WHEREAS, We recognize a hunger on the part of God’s people for a spiritual refreshing and manifestation of His Holy Spirit, be it therefore

RESOLVED, That we recommend to the ministers of the Assemblies of God and to churches affiliated and associated with us, that we set our hearts to seek for a continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit founded upon the clear teaching of the Word of God, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we disapprove of those extreme teachings and practices which, being unfounded Scripturally, serve only to break fellowship of like precious faith and tend to confusion and division among the members of the Body of Christ, and be it hereby known that this 23rd General Council disapproves of the so-called “New Order of the Latter Rain,” to wit:

1. The overemphasis relative to imparting, identifying, bestowing or confirming of gifts by the laying on of hands and prophecy
2. The erroneous teaching that the Church is built on the foundation of present-day apostles and prophets
3. The extreme teaching as advocated by the “New Order” regarding the confession of sin to man and deliverance as practiced, which claims prerogatives to human agency which belongs to Christ
4. The erroneous teaching concerning the impartation of the gift of languages as special equipment for missionary service
5. The extreme and unscriptural practice of imparting or imposing personal leadings by the means of the gifts of utterance
6. Such other wrestings and distortions of Scripture interpretations which are in opposition to teachings and practices generally accepted among us

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we recommend following those things which make for peace among us, and those doctrines and practices whereby we may edify one another, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith.

The motion was made and seconded that this resolution be adopted. After brief debate it was adopted with an overwhelming majority.

— Assemblies of God, Minutes and Constitution with Bylaws, Revised: The Twenty-Third General Counci (Seattle, WA: Assemblies of God, 1949), 26-7

Disowning a homosexual son?

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Mt. 10:37)

The homosexual activist group FCKH8 has recently published a letter by a grandfather to his daughter, who has disowned her son after he said he was "gay," and the news has since been picked up by news outlets. What are we to make of this news?

First of all, there is no context whatsoever given for why and how the woman disowned her son. We are not told why she disowned him (besides that he claims to be gay), whether she has tried to talk him out, or whether the son defiantly pursued his "lifestyle" despite the pleas of the mother. All we have is the spin by the homosexual activists that the woman, Christine, disowned her son Chad because he claimed to be a homosexual, which may or may not be the full case.

The questions therefore are (1) Are there grounds for a parent, any parent, to disown their child?, and (2) Does this meet the criteria for legitimate disowning?, and (3) Does the grandfather have any right whatsoever to write that letter?

The first question is an interesting one. But let's look at a few hypothetical scenarios. If a son were to leave his parents destitute, would that be grounds to disown him? How about if a son were to assault his own parents? What about selling the parents into slavery? I would guess that it seems to be the case that heinous crimes could merit possible disowning of children by their parents.

The question then arise as to whether this case provides sufficient grounds for the daughter to disown her son. Again, we are here not provided many details about the case. So it is possible that the daughter was wrong to disown her son. The bigger question however is whether it is possible for any parent to disown his or her child because of homosexuality, and to that I would certainly say yes.

It must be stated that homosexuality is a heinous crime against God. It is first of all, a sexual sin, and secondly, it violates natural law to a great degree. Homosexuality (together with pedophilia, beastiality and necrophilia etc) are considered extremely debased sins (cf Rom. 1:24-27), worse in degree compared to other sins like theft. Now of course, we admit that all sin is sinful before God. Yet there are graduations of sin. For example, it is definitely better to lust than to engage in rape, although both are sinful. Likewise, it is better to covet than to commit a robbery. The failure to understand that there are horizontal graduations of sin is what gives us the generic "evangelical" eisegesis of Mt. 7:1, and the false idea that no one can judge sins (yet ironically they judge the one who judges as committing a worse sin). It gives rise to the specter of the sinner coming before God and praying, "Dear Lord, I thank you that I am not a judgmental person like those Pharisees. I sin openly and proudly, since I know that your blood covers my sin, unlike those self-righteous, narrow-minded and bigoted people."

If parents are to be parents, they are to rear their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Sin has to be reproved and discipline meted out. Homosexuality is a most grievous and wicked sin, and parents ought to discipline any child who moves in that direction. Certainly, discipline has to be meted out with compassion, but it is discipline nonetheless. But what if the child does not listen? The parent should probably continue trying and praying to God for his deliverance. But let's say all avenues have been exhausted. I would then suggest that the parent may have to apply the last measure of discipline: disowning their son/ daughter. Note that I am not saying that parents MUST do that, but they MAY do that. Disowning a child in this instance is analogous to excommunication in a church. Just as the family is like a little church, so likewise to a persistently rebellious child, the only way forward may be disowning the child, and handling the child over to Satan so that his soul may, in God's mercy, be saved. (1 Cor. 5:5).

Now, what is established is that the parent, after exhausting all available avenues, MAY disown their child. This does not necessarily be applicable in this particular case. What is established is that having a recalcitrant unrepentant child who has decided to become a homosexual is a legitimate grounds for disowning. This brings us to the issue of the grandfather.

A nuclear family unit is the basic family unit in Scripture. In Gen. 2:24, it is written that both the man and the woman will leave their families and become one flesh. This does not mean that suddenly, either the husband or the wife is cut off from their parents and have no obligations to them. What it does mean is that the new family unit is in itself subject directly to God. This is a change in the relation between parents to their married child, as compared to their relation with their unmarried child. As a family unit before God, the husband is to protect his wife, EVEN from his mother (her mother-in-law). Parental authority over their children functions in a similar paradigm. Parents have the primary responsibility to raise up and discipline their children, not the grandparents. This does not mean grandparents can't help, but they are not the parents and should not be. Grandparents are also not to usurp the parents' authority by contradicting express instructions given by parents. If parents tell their children, "No sweets before dinner," the grandparents should NOT insist on giving them sweets before dinner. Of course, such things do happen, but the point is: they shouldn't.

In this case, we see the grandfather is giving his daughter a dressing down regarding her decision to disown her son. Here is a blatant case of usurping of parental authority. The grandfather has absolutely no rights to tell his daughter how to parent; he has the same rights as any other person i.e. advice. Of course, what is more grievous is that the grandfather by his actions is promoting immorality. He has the right to take in the grandson, as he has the right to take in anyone off the street into his house if he so pleased. But to castigate his daughter for an action that he has no authority to dictate to her about, and then disown her for disowning his grandson, is preposterous. If he says that disowning is wrong, then he himself shouldn't disown his daughter, otherwise he would just be doing the exact action he claims is wrong. If however he says that disowning is wrong because he thinks that homosexuality is normal, then the problem is in his view of morality. By promoting homosexuality, the grandfather is promoting wickedness in his family. He is one of those stated in Rom. 1:32 who gives approval to those who practice wickedness. So besides his grandson, the grandfather is the one who brings shame upon the family, just as all homosexual activists who promote gross wickedness in the land do to their own families.

In conclusion, there is nothing inherently wrong with disowning a homosexual son or daughter. Parents MAY disown recalcitrant rebellious children; doesn't mean they should but they may. And if any Christian thinks otherwise, let him meditate on Mt. 10:37 and 1 Cor. 16:22, which reads: "If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!" Fidelity to God requires privileging our love for God above all others including familial ties. Whoever does not do so, is not worthy of Christ.

Mark Noll and his tirade against Creationism

In Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, which is basically a New Evangelical polemic against elements deemed undesirable by the New Evangelicals (Who said New Evangelicals were irenic and tolerant?), Noll inveighed against a couple of issues chief of which are Dispensationalism and Creationism, seeing them both as symptoms of "anti-intellectualism." I must say it is amusing that a point in Noll's general critique is that these views are anti-intellectual because they are mocked by the establishment, which according to the Bible signifies nothing.

Noll tries hard to link Creationism with Dispensationalism, as if to smear the former by linking it with the latter. As with other evangelicals like Del Ratzsch (in this book The Battle of Beginnings), the systematic tarring of the YEC position began from attacking its history, linking it with the Seventh-Day Adventist movement. The problem however is that such is a logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, as if temporary sequence implies logical consequence. The argument can be more plausibly made that non-YEC positions come into place post-Darwin, so does that mean that they necessarily are caused by Darwinism as a logical consequence? It is simply surprising that Noll the promoter of Evangelical intellectual thought would commit a logical fallacy right at the start.

In the book, Noll claimed that "Creationism could, in fact, be called scientific dispensationalism, for creation scientists carry the same attitude towards catastrophe and the sharp break between eras into their science that dispensationalists see in the Scriptures." (p. 195) In response, it must be mentioned that Scripture does speak of catastrophes, EVEN IF one discards the "inconvenient truth" of Creation and the Flood. Christian theology admits of the Fall, the Cross, the Red Sea Crossing, and the Second Coming of Christ. Aren't these all catastrophes in some sense? Or is Noll desiring to impose uniformitarianism upon Scripture too, so that all of Scripture have no catastrophes? Noll's argument therefore commits the fallacy of association. One wonders just how much of the history of interpretation of Genesis 1-11 does he know. When he claims that the YEC position is a novelty in the history of the Church, this only proves he has not read any commentaries on the passages by pre-Enlightenment exegetes on the issue.

The attack on the YEC position continues with Noll accusing its advocates of "Manichean attitudes towards knowledge about the natural world" (p. 196). One wonders what world Noll inhabits. His accusations of creationists as using Baconian induction is strange since none of the professional creationists affirmed their affinity with Baconian induction. In fact, the positivist, hypothetico-deductivist model of science embraced by most scientists today is already outdated. The 20th century has given us Popper's falsification model, Kuhn's scientific paradigm model, and Feyerabend's Dada-ist model. So, what world does Noll actually inhabit? Or is he attacking the YEC position based upon hearsay and conjecture, since he evidently didn't do a good job of representing them? Last I know, misrepresentation is not a virtue of scholarship, so here we have the irony of a historian misrepresenting his object of criticism, and calling them anti-intellectuals?! You should pardon me for not buying that type of inane reasoning.

As with many many people, Noll incessantly confuse "science" with "evolution." All those who reason like him in thought live in the pre-Kuhnian world, a world in which "science" is assumed to be this impersonal enterprise which scientists come and work in, and they are then "dragged" or led through the superior results of experimentation to embrace certain absolutely objective theories of fact "because that's what the experimental results objectively prove." Claiming naivete of creationists who, like the reviled Dispys, read only the "plain" reading of the Genesis account, Noll and those like him have fallen into a more sophisticated naivete regarding the nature of science, in their blindness to the paradigm(s) they function in. They unquestioningly bought into the entire naturalistic paradigm hook, link and sinker, seeing no qualitative difference between "historical science" and "normal operational science." Pressed, they might admit of quantitative difference between the two, just as critics of Kuhn's philosophy of science tried to do the same with Kuhn's category of "paradigmatic science" and "normal science," but the differences are merely quantitative of amount, instead of qualitative, of kind, which they actually are. Noll of course trumpets the "sophisticated" interpretations of Old Testament scholars like Bruce Waltke. Without going into the specifics of Waltke's argument, which Noll did not provide, the question is: Does anyone think Jesus or Paul would have held to such an interpretation of Genesis? None of them lived in an era in which there is such a thing as a fact/ value dichotomy. Postulating that Genesis might not be historical while claiming that it is useful for the ancients imposes upon the ancients philosophical, linguistic and semantic categories of which none of them would have a name for. The goal of biblical exegesis is to understand the meaning of the text in its original horizon as best as possible, not impose foreign categories into the text!

Noll's tirade against the YEC position is therefore, groundless. For a book that claims the terrible state of the Evangelical mind is a scandal, the parts of the book on Creationism is indeed a scandal of the "Evangelical mind."

Ominous Omen: Norman Shepherd

The Federal Vision did not drop out of the sky. Rather, when we peer back into time, we see the seeds of the Federal Vision already in the Shepherd Controversy. Once shrouded because of denominational politicking, the Shepherd Controversy has been revealed to the world through O. Palmer Robertson's book The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003). Here are some choice quotes written by Norman Shepherd in 1978 at the height of the controversy, from his Thirty-Four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works:

20. The Pauline affirmation in Roman 2:13, “the doers of the Law will be justified,” is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compared Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25)

21. The exclusive ground of justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14)

22. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14)

23. Because faith which is not obedience faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5, 10; 1 John 3:13, 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9)

The stated aims of the original New Evangelicalism

[A]s outlined in Ockenga,

1. Evangelicals want to see a revival of Christianity in the midst of a secular world which, because of its loss of contact with God, is facing imminent destruction.
2. Evangelicals want to win a new respectability for orthodoxy in academic circles. This requires the production of dedicated scholars who will be prepared to defend the faith on the intellectual’s own ground.
3. Evangelicals want to recapture denominational leadership from within the larger denominations rather than completely abandon these denominations to the forces of contemporary liberalism
4. Finally, evangelicals want to make Christianity the mainspring in societal reforms that it once was and that it ought to be.

— Ronald H. Nash, The New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1963), 177

The New Evangelicalism began with lofty aims and a sincere desire to promote the Christian faith. Sadly, history has given us the disastrous record of the New Evangelicalism, a movement which spiraled out of the control of its original founders. In his book, Ronald Nash put forward the agenda of the New Evangelicalism with its lofty goals. Yet as we examine these goals, we see that they are all flawed from the start, and thus the seed of the failure of the New Evangelicalism was present from the very beginning.

Goal number 1 is laudable, and certainly all of us should desire to see Christ's name lifted up and the Christian faith esteemed in the world, with many turning to Christ for salvation. The problem with the New Evangelicalism is how it goes about trying to achieve its goal. Can a movement convert a world? Perhaps, but certainly not the Christian faith. The Christian faith works through the means ordained by God, through the Church. Without a biblical doctrine of the Church, how can the goal be attained? How can Christianity be revived when the leaders do not have a proper doctrine of the Church in the first place?

The second goal is really sad, only because it is not possible. It is possible to be scholarly, and Christian theologians should be scholarly. But being scholarly does not necessarily mean that orthodoxy would be "respected" by unbelieving scholars, since the ground of rejection of the Bible's teaching is not intellectual but spiritual. As 1 Cor. 1:18 states, the wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. It matter not how scholarly one is. The unbelieving Academy will not accept the teachings of Scripture no matter how scholarly it is presented. Now certainly Christians theologians ought to be scholarly, but to think that just being scholarly will get one respected in the Academy is a fool's dream. Nash's further proposal to do that "on the intellectual's own ground" is astonishing. What if their ground is one of unbelief? Should we be asked to adopt materialism before we can even began the conversation? What if the "intellectual's own ground" is that "there is no God"?

The third goal is to recapture denominational leadership from the larger denominations. This betrays a naive view of reform as well as a forgetfulness about the recent past. What do people like Nash think happened in the PCUSA that led to the defrocking of J. Gresham Machen? If the liberals stand their ground (which they do) and block all reform actions, should the New Evangelicals wait (forever) for the dream that the Liberals would perhaps one day hand them the denominational leadership?

Lastly, the fourth goal showed the New Evangelical nostalgia for the Old Evangelical social activism, an activism that however has no basis in Scripture.

The New Evangelicals have good motives. However, good motives are never enough. As it has often been said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." By not following the biblical manner for reform and revival, the New Evangelicalism was doomed from the start, although outwards success was phenomenal for a time.

Evangelicalism: What is in a name?

[Previous: Reformed and Evangelical?]

Historically, Evangelicalism as a movement began only around the time of the First Great Awakening. In the deconfessional era and with the slow erosion of orthodoxy in the churches, those who believe in the Bible began to see fellow compatriots across denominations. Pietism with the emphasis on one's personal spiritual walk broke down the link between corporate and individual spirituality, which enables believers to see the former issues that divide them as being of lesser importance compared to their shared conversion experiences in the faith.

Evangelicalism (with a capital "E") therefore seems best defined as a social, as opposed to a theological movement. It is a social movement centered around certain experiences (i.e. conviction of sin, assurance of salvation, burden for the lost) with a claim to follow the Bible; a social movement with a theological claim(s). In other words, the Evangelical claims unity around certain theological truths, whereas it actually is more centered around certain experiences assumed to be consonant with those theological truths.

In his book Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, D.W. Bebbington claimed 4 distinctive characteristics of Evangelicalism. They are (1) Conversionism (a focus on the necessity of each person to individually turn to Christ in faith for salvation), Activism (a commitment to participate with God in his saving mission in the world), Biblicism (a devotion to the Bible as the Word of God written for all of faith), and Crucicentrism (a focus on Jesus Christ and the substitutionary atonement of Christ for sins). In light of historical realities, it is better to elaborate these points as follows (with the underlined parts added for clarification):

1. Conversionism, a focus on the necessity of each person to have a decisive act of turning to Christ in faith for salvation
2. Activism, a commitment to participate with God in his saving mission by identifying all manner of causes to which Christianity has possible implications for and promoting these causes through the agency of trans- and non-denominational agencies
3. Biblicism, a devotion to the Bible as the Word of God written for all of faith with a minimalistic understanding of what the Bible teaches and a naive view of exegesis and hermeneutics, with a corresponding rejection of any authority of creeds and confessions, and an emphasis on individual spirituality at the expense of the corporate dimension
4. Crucicentrism, a focus on Jesus Christ and the substitutionary atonement of Christ for sins without a necessary soteriological framework which shows why the Cross is meant to be central and thus a weak assertion of its centrality.

As it can be seen, each of the underlined parts indicate a particular tradition or practice Evangelicalism has either subconsciously (mostly) or knowingly adopted. The first tradition is revivalism, which emphasized the conversion experience over the reality. Profession of faith is insufficient in this system; one must have the conversion experience in order to be considered a true "born-again" Christian. The difference between the older Evangelicalism and the post-Finney Evangelicalism is in whether the experience is man-made and able to be perceived as to the very day and hour, or whether it is not so.

The second tradition is the continuation of Constantinism as seeing the Church is in some sense intertwined with Society and thus bearing moral obligation upon the church qua church to get involved in all manner of causes. The Pietist tradition elevated the value of godly behavior above doctrinal fidelity, while deconfessionalism eroded the value of theology in general. The last two resulted in the perception of commonality between "evangelicals" from different denominations to come together, instead of them trying to reform the churches or split off from apostate denominations to join orthodox denominations.

The Romantic impulse behind the elevation of experience over doctrine resulted in a denigration of "dead" theology and thus resulted in biblicism, "me and my Bible in the woods." Lastly, Pietism and Deconfessionalism resulted in minimalizing doctrine to its supposed "essentials" which is "the Cross" (whatever that means), leaving the entire soteriological framework behind as being "technicalities."

Evangelicalism is thus more than just a movement that focuses on the Gospel. Implicit in the movement is an entire framework of theology for faith and life which is antithetical to true Christianity. One can be a Christian and be an Evangelical, but one cannot be a biblical Christian and continue to be an Evangelical, for its worldview and praxis are not in line with Scripture.

Reform and Ecclesiology

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (Jas. 2:18)

Evangelicalism (both Old and New) as a movement came about partly as a pietistic reaction to deconfessionalism and growing liberalism. Its piety is by and large a scrubbed-down renovated version of Medieval spirituality, defanged of its worst elements. Yet by and large the Platonic dichotomizing between Spirit and Matter remains in some form, and such Platonism when applied to the life of the church has resulted in a separation of individual from corporate spirituality, and thus a downplaying of the visible church.

The downplaying of the corporate dimension of the Christian life is pervasive among Evangelicals, and it is being further encouraged by the radical individualism found especially in Western cultures. How many times do we see the emphases being placed upon one's "personal relationship with God," and the focus is in self-renewal and sanctification? Even the study of doctrines become a personal affair, as if the study of Christian doctrines have no bearing whatsoever on corporate life in the church. Why otherwise would evangelicals in Liberals church bodies like the PCUSA in the 20th century refuse to separate themselves from their apostate church? Or why would evangelicals like John Stott continue being in fellowship with all the rank liberals in the Church of England? Closer to home, why would people who claim to hold to Reformed doctrines have no problems continuing their membership in non-Reformed churches? Isn't it the case that there is a dichotomizing of individual from corporate spirituality — that as long as one is biblical, it is almost irrelevant what church one attends? After all, the reasoning goes, there are no perfect churches (as if Reformed churches claim to be perfect!) and the most important thing is not one's church membership but one's standing before God.

Theology however is not mere head knowledge. True theology works its implications out in the lives of those who actually believe it. Those who use theology as a mere academic exercise do not actually believe that theology they claim to hold to. This after all is how faith works. Faith does not consist of a mere assenting to propositions, but a true assent that throws one's trust upon the object of those propositions. Likewise, believing the true theology of the Christian faith will necessarily result in the person acting on that theology he claims to believe in. In other words, one's actions "betray" one's actual theology.

Individual and corporate spirituality in Scripture are intricately linked but not the same, distinct but not separate. A person holding to Reformed theology will sooner or later desire to be in a Reformed church. If one believes in Reformed truth, one cannot tolerate the rank errors permeating Evangelical churches on issues like the charismata, worship, church governance, and most certainly piety. Sure, one should try working for reform if possible, but what happens if the church (probably most churches) resist any effort at reform? What if they claim that their view is actually biblical, but it actually is not? If one cannot agree with the leadership on these issues, and they will not bulge, how can one fulfill the command to obey your leaders in Heb. 13:7?

In our lives on this world, works are important. But in Reformed theology, the "works" are not necessarily the "works" looked for in the Pietists. The Evangelicals and Pietists have an unbiblical view of "godliness" — defined as almost synonymous with being civil and kind and being the ideal Victorian lady and gentleman. We discern fruits as being those who act upon the teachings of Scripture, who submit to God and His Word. Those who look humble, kind and outwardly devout, yet reject the teachings of Scripture, as far as the Scriptures are concerned have evil deeds. Such "godliness" is the "godliness" of Man, which stink like filthy rags before an all-holy God. The only "godliness" acceptable to God is the "godliness" of those with true faith, as they place their trust fully and wholly on Christ and His imputed righteousness to them and to us.

The Reformers did not have such a pietistic view of spirituality, and because of that, we have the Reformation. Those who claim to be Reformed must likewise reject Evangelical ecclesiology and aim for consistency between doctrine and life.

The PRCA and what Reformed is

My previous church in Singapore, Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church (CERC), has a magazine ministry called Salt Shakers. At the time I was a member in that church, the church was exploring closer sister church relations with the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA). Given my disagreement with the PRCA on various doctrinal issues, I was obviously not happy with what would happen when such fraternal relations become official. As such, I would probably have left the church even if I have not moved on into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

Recently, the Salt Shakers magazine issue 21 for July 2013 had an article by PRCA theologian Herman Hanko as it relates to being Reformed. The whole article is just sad only because of its total misrepresentation of the Reformed faith.

From the very beginning of Reformed theology with John Calvin, theologians that dealt with the doctrine of the Covenant and most continental theologians maintained these basic doctrines. It is true that some did not, but they were in the minority. The true line of Covenant theology held to the following truths:

• God triune is in Himself a Covenant God.
• He has chosen to reveal His own Covenant life through Christ.
• Christ is the Head of the Covenant, and the Covenant is established with all those who are elect in Christ. Election, therefore, determines who are in the covenant and who are not.
• The Covenant is established and maintained by God through Christ and his work of atonement and redemption. It is, therefore, an unconditional covenant.
• That Covenant is established with believers and their spiritual seed.
• Elect children of believers are, as a general rule, brought into the Covenant at birth, or even prior to birth – as was the case with Jeremiah and John the Baptist (Jer. 1:5, Luke 1:39-44). Baptism does not bring children into the Covenant, for baptism is a sign and seal that they are already in the Covenant.

Herman Hanko, "What is Reformed," Salt Shakers 21 (July 2013): 10-11

The problem with Hanko's position is that his definition of what "Reformed" means is basically what the PRCA thinks "Reformed" means. It has little to do with the actual historical definition of the adjective "Reformed." Hanko's definition of "Reformed" is anachronistic; whatever agrees with the PRCA is Reformed, whatever does not is not Reformed. Instead of approaching the definition of what "Reformed" means with a sincere seeking after truth, he already has an a priori definition of what "Reformed" means and then read all the Reformed theologians within that framework.

We note first of all that Hanko asserts that "[Reformed] theologians that dealt with the doctrine of the Covenant and most continental theologians maintained these basic doctrines." Which theologians? Herman Witsius? Johannes Oecolampadius? Zacharias Ursinus? Which mainstream Reformed theologian before Herman Hoeksema has ever denied the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture (Covenant of Works/ Covenant of Grace)?

The proper way to define what being "Reformed" is to to define it as the teachings of the Reformed Confessions. Defined this way, we find Hanko's revisitionist historical account more than a little problematic. The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1677) is a confession of the Continental Reformed tradition subscribed to by the Swiss Reformed Church and by people such as the Reformed giant Francis Turretin. This is what the Formula says regarding Covenant Theology:

Canon VII: As all his works were known unto God from eternity, (Acts 15:18), so in time, according to his infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, he made man, the glory and end of his works, in his own image, and, therefore, upright, wise, and just. Having created man in this manner, he put him under the Covenant of Works, and in this Covenant freely promised him communion with God, favor and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to his will.

Canon VIII: Moreover that promise connected to the Covenant of Works was not a continuation only of earthly life and happiness but the possession especially of eternal and celestial life, a life namely, of both body and soul in heaven, if indeed man ran the' course of perfect obedience, with unspeakable joy in communion with God. For not only did the Tree of Life prefigure this very thing unto Adam, but the power of the law, which, being fulfilled by Christ, who went under it in our place, awards to us nothing other than celestial life in Christ who kept the same righteousness of the law. The power of the law also threatens man with both temporal and eternal death.

Canon IX: Wherefore we can not agree with the opinion of those who deny that a reward of heavenly bliss was offered to Adam on condition of obedience to God. We also do not admit that the promise of the Covenant of Works was any thing more than a promise of perpetual life abounding in every kind of good that can be suited to the body and soul of man in a state of perfect nature, and the enjoyment thereof in an earthly Paradise. For this also is contrary to the sound sense of the Divine Word, and weakens the power of the law considered in itself.

As it will be seen, the Continental Reformed Covenant Theology agrees with the Presbyterian theology of the Westminster Standards on the issue of the Covenant of Works. The Formula Consensus Helvetica is not some novelty written and adopted by people as a repudiation of their supposed former "one covenant" theology. But let us look at Hanko's points first

Hanko's first point of Covenant Theology is that "God triune is in Himself a Covenant God." The problem here is that the PRCA and Hanko have redefined what "covenant" is. Before Hoeksema, Barth, Schilder and any of these 20th century innovators came along, who actually defines "covenant" without a reference to concepts such as "agreement," "stipulations/ conditions," "sanctions/ punishment" and "reward"? The PRCA redefinition of "covenant" merely means that they are claiming that the triune God have a loving relationship and bond among the persons of the Godhead, and nothing more. The question then becomes, "Do the Reformed historically teach the Covenant of Redemption, otherwise known as the Pactum Salutis?" If they do, do the PRCA agree that such a covenant relation complete with stipulations exist as a covenant arrangement distinct (not separate) from the intra-trinitarian love the persons of the Godhead have for each other?

Hanko's second point is that God "has chosen to reveal His own covenant life through Christ." Again, what does this mean? What is God's "covenant life" even? The historical understanding of "covenant" for the first 19 centuries of the institutional Church is that covenant refers to an agreement between two parties. So in the historical usage of the term, there is no such thing as "God's covenant life" for what is this even supposed to mean? God does reveal His covenant [of grace] through Christ, not His "covenant life."

Hanko's third point subsumes election under the covenant. Christ is the Head of the Covenant, and election determines who is or isn't in the covenant. Here, Hanko flattens Covenant theology and confuses election and covenant. In Hanko's (and the PRCA's) scheme, covenant is election and election is covenant. There is no such thing whatsoever that there can be someone within the covenant (externally) while being not elect. That is why in his fellow PRCA theologian David Engelsma's book The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers, Engelsma was left to grounding infant baptism in the promise God will save the elect children of believers although all are to be baptized. The Covenant must necessarily relate to election to the extent that infant baptism does not necessarily bring an infant into the covenant, but elect infants only. One wonders how one can say that baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, since a baptized infant is not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace in any sense unless he is elect! How does one deal with the circumcision of Ishmael in this system, since Ishmael is certainly reprobate?! Election, covenant, election is covenant.

Reformed theology on the other hand does not so tightly link election and covenant. We recognize that there is an external aspect to the covenant, so there are two ways of being in the covenant. The sign of the Covenant is to be applied to those in the Covenant regardless of whether they are elect. In other words, even if God somehow supernaturally revealed to the minister that baby X is not elect, we still baptize baby X, just as Abraham circumcised Ishmael. We do not so link election and covenant. True, God's promise of salvation extends to the children of believers, but our basis is not some expectancy about their elect status but as an expression of our faith in God's covenant promises regardless of their election status. We baptize infants because the covenant is to believers and their children, not because the covenant is to believers and their elect children! Hanko's fourth point is thus a distortion of Scripture. The promise is to "you and to your children" (c.f. Gen. 17:9-14), not to "believers and their spiritual seed." If the promise is to "believers and their spiritual seed," why baptize infants? Why not wait until they have made a credible profession of faith (thus having a greater possibility of them being actually elect) before baptizing them? Furthermore, if the promise is only to elect infants, one wonder how Hanko and the PRCA actually ascertain which infant is elect or not elect in order that they may be assured they are actually in the covenant of God!

The PRCA are historical revisionists of the Reformed tradition. As we can see, Canons 7 to 9 of the Formula Consensus Helvetica has a fully developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works. Canon 9 of the Formula even rejects the PRCA's doctrine of the Covenant! Among "Continental" theologians, Francis Turretin confessed the Covenant of Works, as do Herman Witsius, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof.

Zacharias Ursinus is the writer of the Heidelberg Catechism, one of the documents that form the Three Forms of Unity, confessed also by the PRCA. Ursinus did use the phrase "one covenant" in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, but that was merely a teaching of the one covenant of grace [Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Second America Edition; Colombus, OH, 1852; repr. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, n.d.), 97-100]. Even here, we see Ursinus describe the covenant in legal terms as follows:

A covenant in general is a mutual contract, or agreement between two parties, in which the one party binds itself to the other to accomplish upon certain conditions, giving or receiving something, which is accompanied with certain outward signs and symbols, for the purpose of ratifying in the most solemn manner the contract entered in, and for the sake of confirming it, that the engagement may be kept inviolable. (Ursinus, 97)

In the same commentary, Ursinus showed that he does hold to some form of bi-covenantalism when he deals with the Law/Gospel distinction, which is the parallel principle to the Covenant of Works/ Covenant of Grace distinction:

According to the definition of the law, which says, that it promises rewards to those who render perfect obedience; and that it promises them freely, inasmuch as no obedience can be meritorious in the sight of God, it would seem that it does not differ from the gospel, which also promises eternal life freely. Yet notwithstanding this seeming agreement, there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. They differ,

1. As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally: the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man.

2. In matter or doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to this, how we may become such as this law requires, viz: by faith in Christ.

3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of obedience in us: the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience.

4. In their effects. The law works wrath, and is the ministration of death: the gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit (Rom. 4:15, 2 Cor. 3:7)

(Ursinus, 499)

Note the language of clause 3 of the conditions. The law here, as a short-form for the Covenant of Works, "promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness." That is the language of the Covenant of Works in a nutshell! Adam if he were to obey would merit eternal life, not due to some "ontic merit," but because he fulfilled the requirement(s) that God has set.

I would like to conclude with a paragraph from Richard Muller's address concerning the relation of the British and Continental traditions, which originally appeared in the Mar/ April 1994 issue of New Horizons:

Even so, there are only two Reformed confessional documents that teach the two-covenant schema of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace - the Irish Articles and the Westminster Confession- and the schema is, admittedly, a minor theme in the Irish Articles. Nonetheless, the two-covenant schema is a significant, even central, doctrinal motif in much Dutch Reformed theology, where it has never been a confessional theme. In the English Reformed tradition, the schema became a matter of confessional teaching - in the Dutch Reformed tradition, it did not. We might even hazard the guess that the difference is rooted purely in the historical development of Reformed theology and in the fact that the Dutch Reformed confessional development came to a close at the Synod of Dort, before the great flowering of Reformed covenant theology, while the Puritan Revolution brought about a confessional situation in England after that flowering had taken place. In any case, this confessional diversity does not mark a point of dissention in doctrine between branches of the Reformed faith. Terminology and interpretation of the prelapsarian covenant varies in the orthodox Reformed systems sometimes the concept is absent, sometimes it is present as a "covenant of nature," and other times as a "covenant of works." More importantly, the outworkings of the doctrine of the covenant of grace are clearly present in the baptismal teaching and practice of all the Reformed churches.

There is no sharp contrast between the "British Presbyterian" stream and the "Continental Reformed" stream. Difference in emphases, yes, but substantial differences no. Thus, the PRCA, with its substantial revision of history, the Reformed tradition and Reformed theology, is certainly not Reformed, regardless of what they proclaim themselves to be.

P.S.: See the quotes from Reformed sources on classical Reformed Covenant Theology here.

The problems with the Shepherding Movement

The first major problem with the Shepherding Movement was that it was extremely adverse to institutionalism, as was much of Charismatism, and thus could not see that what they were doing was essentially creating something analogous to a denomination. The Fort Lauderdale Five were Idealists who believed there could be “organic unity” and discipleship without actual institutionalism. As Idealists, they believe they could just minister to all regardless of the practical reality of church and denominational differences and divisions.

The second major problem with the Shepherding Movement is their unbiblical ecclesiology resulting in an errant view of church office and an errant view of authority. They embraced the idea of “every-member ministry” to such an extreme that anyone and everyone could be a shepherd, thus opening up the ministry to those who were neither called nor trained for the task. Their errant view of authority also gave rise to the excesses and abuses of authority, as they did not have a proper view of authority as it relates to Christian liberty.

The following paragraphs are an excerpt from the article (or mini-book by the time it is completed) I am working on which gives a brief overview of the history of the Church. The Shepherding Controversy is important for all Christians not just because of its practical outworking in some branches of Charismatism, but also because it is an object lesson of what happens when anti-institutional Christianity suddenly encounters texts in Scripture that promotes institutionalism.

[Protestant] Charismatism, with its naive biblicism, rejects most of historic Christianity as it tries to be "fully biblical." The restorationist impulse is prevalent throughout the entire Charismatic Movement. Distorting the Reformation of Sola Scriptura into the principle of Solo Scriptura, Protestant Charismatics are notorious for always claiming that they are just following the Bible (as if their opponents do NOT!) Thus, the Charismatic Movement will always reinvent the wheel. Compounding this problem is an over-realized eschatology, and we have the conditions for the Shepherding Controversy.

We note that the Fort Lauderdale Five, the guys behind the Shepherding Movement in the '70s and early '80s, attempt to reach out to all the Church. Given the anti-institutional nature of Charismatism, this of course means the "Invisible Church." Since there are no denominations in heaven, so denominations are likewise irrelevant on earth. The Church should be one, united in Christ. So if denominations are utterly irrelevant, if unity is so paramount, then what's wrong with the idea of trans-local discipleship? Is the pastor of the sheep being discipled merely being jealous because of the influence someone outside his church has on a member of his church? But I thought we are all united in Christ and thus we should not have such petty jealousy? So are denominations important or are they not? The Charismatic critics of the Shepherding Movement seem to want their cake and eat it too. Is denominationalism actually bad? Then why object to trans-local discipleship?! Furthermore, it is extremely ironic when the Charismatic critics object to trans-local discipleship. Just what does anyone think they are doing when charismatic churches reach across denominational lines (ignoring them really) to minister to other charismatics?! Pat Robertson and the Full Gospel fellowship does it, circumventing institutional denominational lines, but then do they cry foul when someone does it to them?!

On this first point, the Shepherding Movement likes its critics similarly wants to have its cake and eat it too! How can one set up an entire hierarchy comprising churches and ministers and and then claim that they are not a denomination? This is disingenuous, for then what is the reach of this "hierarchy"? Since all of these shepherding relationships are not public, it is understandable that much suspicion be cast on the movement, for who knows whether one's pastor is actually submitted to (and thus under the authority of) one of the Fort Lauderdale Five?

The second point is the radicalization of the idea of "every-member ministry" (the idea that essentially all Christians are able to and may minister like pastors and elders and deacons, thus there is no such idea of the special office). If there is no special office in the church, then the Shepherding Movement's concept of appointing intermediate level shepherds from the "laity" is logical. Since everyone can do the ministry which was once retained for the special office, then the only criteria left is perception of spiritual maturity and whether the person is willing and could commit the time to do the work. Criticism of the Shepherding Movement being a pyramid authoritarian scheme is unwarrented. Swap the "shepherds" with clergy and you will get the episcopal system of church government, so the hierarchy by itself does not necessitate abuse. The problem is the radical "every-member ministry" results in the potential for all manner of abuses by people who are uncalled and untrained for the work they are entrusted with. The Shepherding Movement is thus merely being consistent with the idea of "every member ministry" and thus much of Charismatism have no moral high ground to critique them on this point.

The third point is of course that they have an unbiblical view of authority as it relates to Christian liberty. Much Charismatic criticism it seems are basically unbiblical knee-jerk reactions to the idea that God has actually ordained HUMAN authority over them; radical individualists chafe at the idea that somehow they have to answer to God-ordained HUMAN authority. The problem with the Shepherding Movement as it relates to authority is that it abuses authority, which is not surprising since, well, what can you expect from untrained and uncalled people who are suddenly given almost total power over another person? As Lord Acton says, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." One should not be surprised that untrained and relatively young Christians, given much power over the lives of others, would actually abuse that authority; that abuse is guaranteed to occur!

Much better is Scripture's view of authority as it relates to Christian liberty. As the WCF states:

II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life. (WCF 20.2-3)

Christian liberty is given to all believes, yet the liberty ends where the law begins (just as liberty begins where the law ends). Authority within a church therefore follows the word of God, and it is only to be obeyed insofar as it conforms to God's Word and God's Law. Where Scripture does not speak however there is liberty, and no person can bind the conscience of another on such matters.

The Shepherding Movement misunderstanding of authority is what give rise to the specter of shepherds dictating to their sheep who they can date and who they should marry, among other "excesses" of that movement.

The Shepherding Movement is not dead, although it has officially disbanded. Its doctrines can be found in the G12 movement (which in Singapore is found in Lawrence Khong and FCBC), and possibly many other charismatic movements. While the critics like to paint the Shepherding Movement as alien to the Charismatic Movement, even "demonically-inspired," the fact of the matter is that the Shepherding Movement drank from the same well as the Charismatic Movement. Their ecclesiologies are remarkably similar, and both unbiblical. The only major difference between the Shepherding Movement and its critics is that the former focus on visible church unity through formal accountability while the later focus on invisible church unity without formal accountability.

As long as Charismatics continue to be anti-denominational and anti-institutional, they are always susceptible to errors such as the Shepherding Movement. There will always be Charismatics who react against the "invisible church" mindset and focus more on the visible church, and since they are still operating with the same foundationally errant paradigm, all manner of error and abuses may arise.

Discipleship in the Charismatic Shepherding Movement

The movement held high expectations for participation and involvement. Members were expected to verbally commit themselves, to tithe their income, be fully involved in all aspects of church life, and submit all areas of their personal lives to their shepherd's counsel. Members were confronted by their shepherd if they failed to live up to their commitments.

[S. David Moore, The Shepherding Movement: Controversy and Charismatic Ecclesiology (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2003), 78]

I believe Scripture knows of no such power given to any man, church or denomination.

The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

Such anti-intellectual obscurantism, of which [Mark] Noll said dispensationalism and six-day creationism were the most obvious manifestations, had made evangelicals a marginal group. Not in the broader culture, of course, .... but rather in those sections of society where ideas were the stock-in-trade, where mainstream intellectual engagement took place. ...

Fifteen years later, the intellectual and cultural poverty of American evangelicals would seem to continue, even as church attendance is holding up reasonably well in the US ... Without making a judgment for or against any of the following positions, I would add these common beliefs of evangelicals to dispensationalism and six-dayism as causes of the movement's social and intellectual marginality: biblical inerrancy, opposition to women's ordination and homosexuality and abortion, religious exclusivism, and rejection of the broad claims of evolutionary science. Commitment to any or all of these positions places one at the fringe of culture, at least of thoughtful, educated culture.

— Carl Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2011), 10-11

The New Evangelical historian Mark Noll, having accepted the culture's view of Christianity especially its interpretation of the 1925 Scopes Trial, attacked belief in Dispensationalism and 6 day creation as being anti-intellectual. While Dispensationalism is wrong, I do not think it is necessarily anti-intellectual, noting that Dispensationalism in the person of Lewis Sperry Chafer established a theological seminary (Dalls Theological Seminary), not just a mere bible school.

Carl Trueman in the introduction to his book The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind points his finger at the real problem with the New Evangelicalism. The real scandal is that there is no evangelical. In other words, Evangelicalism is a social movement that stands for nothing (doctrinally) actually. Mark Noll's accusation of anti-intellectualism and attack against Dispensationalism and 6-day creationism is merely his disapproval of those two views. In his opinion, the holding of those two views in his opinion is preventing the secular academy from taking his circle of Evangelical scholarship seriously. But as Trueman has pointed out, there are tons of other beliefs that are just as objectionable and offensive to the secular academy and society in general. In our time especially, holding to the historical and biblical view that homosexuality is sin is considered "anti-intellectual" and bigotry.

The problem with Mark Noll's analysis, and with the New Evangelicalism, is that they do not actually agree with Scripture when it says that fallen Man is fundamentally illogical and does not accept the wisdom of God. True Christianity will always be in the margins, except for short periods where the Spirit of God works mightily in most of society like during the Reformation. The Gospel and the entire Christian faith is the stumbling block. The problem is not intellectual, but moral and ethical. Apart from regeneration, no one will think that the Christian faith is true and wise; it is foolishness to them. It matters little whether religion scholars are smart, because the problem is NOT intellectual.

So if one wants to remove all that the secular academy is scandalized by, "evangelicals" should also jettison biblical inerrancy, opposition to women's ordination and homosexuality and abortion, religious exclusivism, and rejection of the broad claims of evolutionary science. Do this and gain the "respect of your peers." But then, don't call yourself Christian, for you would have just given up the faith.

Denominationalism and Sin

Denominationalism entails separation, which is not good. Therefore, it is not ideal and should not be, unless unity would result in even greater evil.

The divisions between denominations, if legitimate therefore, implies that joining together would result in sin. The division between Presbyterians and Baptists is probably the best example of this. A Presbyterian by conviction is one who believes that not bringing one's infant children for baptism is sin. It is not just an option or something good. It is mandated by Scripture. A Presbyterian by conviction must see the Baptists' denial of infant baptism as sin, as is their practice of what he sees as re-baptism. Just because they profess the true faith does not mean that therefore they are not perceived to be sinning in their denial of the inclusion of children in the Covenant of Grace. A Credobaptist by conviction similarly sees the Presbyterian affirmation of infant baptism as robbing the child of making a profession of faith, and giving rise to the possibility of false assurance of salvation, and thus it is sin. Both sides see the other side's position as entailing sin, and thus the necessity of differing denominations.

If however, one church does not see the position of another church as error and sin, why is there a division? In fact, that is one grievous error of Congregationalism (and independent Baptist churches). Those who reject connectionalism (the necessary but not sufficient precursor to Presbyterian church polity) are guilty of schism against the Body of Christ, for why aren't they seeking to have at the very least fraternal relations with churches of like faith, and try to work towards the unity Christ which we already have in Christ (but is not fully visibly realized now)?

Denominationalism is not ideal, but it is the best arrangement given our finite knowledge this side of glory. The alternative is some version of tyranny or anarchy, neither of which glorifies God.