Musings of a Former Fundamentalist (IFB) Renewed by Reformed Theology
Check out the promotional video for what looks to be an incredibly helpful little book designed for anyone who wants to read the Bible more effectively. The booklet, Christ-Centered Bible Study, is written by Dave Moser of Armchair-Theology.net and freely available as a .pdf download.
Learn more about the book, and download your free copy here.
I recently received a new book, Retro-Christianity: Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith by Michael Svigel (Crossway, 2012). In reading through just the first couple chapters I’m humored by the author’s frequent use of analogies. Comparisons and metaphors are used with great effect in describing the problems that contemporary evangelicalism has found itself in.
Perhaps the most intriguing metaphor Svigel uses is that of “Peanut Butter Christianity.” He begins by discussing a recent trip to the grocery store to find his wife some “natural peanut butter.” He comes back with a brand name PB which includes sugar, palm oil and salt in addition to peanuts, and we pick up his story in the excerpt below:
Shouldn’t peanut butter made of just puréed peanuts serve as the standard for what constitutes natural peanut butter?
…If I were to liken the authentic, classic Christianity to the truly natural form of undiluted, unmixed, real peanut butter, then the multiple forms of evangelicalism that diverge more and more from this standard become, well, less and less authentic.
What I’m suggesting is this: over the last several decades, many of us evangelicals have become increasingly accustomed to a less “natural” form of Christianity. While still essentially Christian, many aspects of evangelicalism have become victims of “enrichment” by non-Christian ingredients that are meant to enhance the faith. This “enrichment” has been done to make the gospel more convenient, palatable, or marketable. Yet as these added ingredients take up more and more space, the essentials of the faith are necessarily displaced.
Take a stroll with me through the virtual aisles of our evangelical subculture–gift shops, radio stations, television programs, websites, even many of the new, trendy churches. We find ourselves surrounded by positive thinking, self-help, and behavior modification. We’re lured in by self-esteem best sellers, do-it-yourself Christianity, and countless authors presenting the spiritual life as an ascending ladder: seven steps to this, three keys to that, the one prayer that will revolutionize your world, expand your influence, fulfill your desire for happiness. Let’s just be honest. Much of the garbage stinking up the shelves of Christian bookstores is passed off as Christian Living, but it’s mostly psycho-babble or practical proverbs no better than what we find in the secular self-help or generic spirituality sections of our online booksellers.
Modern evangelical Christians who have become accustomed to this trendy, diluted form of Christianity have all but forgotten what the pure faith actually tastes like! In fact, many who are then exposed to a less adulterated faith–a form without all the unnecessary additives–find themselves actually disgusted by the original pure flavor of authentic Christianity, spitting it out and rejecting it as something foreign and inferior–or at least unpleasant to the palate.
The irony is that this purer form of Christianity is the authentic faith once for all delivered to the saints. The biblical gospel proclaimed, the sacraments rightly administered, discipline properly maintained, evangelism and discipleship emphasized, repentance and renewal preached–there is nothing really fancy about these things. In fact, they are so simple to identify and maintain that churches focusing on these fundamentals and freeing themselves from the frills appear to be washed-out has-beens or incompetent wannabes to most big-production glitz-and-glamour evangelicals.
…many forms of evangelical Christianity have been so colored with dyes, so mixed with artificial ingredients, or so drenched in candy coating that they are in danger of becoming cheap imitations that serve merely to distract from–not point to–the essential ingredients of the historical faith.
Just like additive-rich peanut butters that appeal to flavor rather than to nutrition, far too many evangelicals shop for me-centered, feel-good church experiences rather than Christ-centered worship, discipleship, and authentic community. In fact, like sour-faced kids who reject all-natural peanut butter, many evangelicals turn their noses away from authentic expressions of church and spirituality. They would rather keep dabbling in the artificial than adjust their tastes to the real thing. (pp. 29-31)
Learn more about Retro-Christianity at RetroChristianity.org, or pick up the book at Amazon.com, Westminster Bookstore or direct from Crossway.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway publishers. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
Justin Taylor recently posted a video clip from the 2012 Ligonier Conference. The clip was a portion of a panel discussion on how Christians should understand the age of the earth.
The full discussion on this question, available on video here, starts at 42:09 on the video and lasts through 75:40 (the end). It is mostly R.C. Sproul Sr., Stephen Meyer (a Christian scientist and author who subscribes to Intelligent Design), and Del Tackett (known for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project), although Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul Jr. also make some brief comments.
I appreciated both R.C. Sproul Sr. and Stephen Meyer’s emphasis that this debate should be intramural and congenial. Good people can disagree on this issue and still mutually affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and stand against the materialistic drive of this age.
Taylor went on to quote from and point us to a report from the 2000 PCA report on the question of differing interpretations of the days of Creation. That report carefully defines terms, explains most of the various positions which aim to remain true to the text, and evaluates each view helpfully. A historical review of the position of the Church on the days of creation is also provided. The PCA concludes that this issue shouldn’t divide their church and aims to show that people holding to the various views can have unity in standing for Biblical supernaturalism when it comes to creation, and against a naturalistic worldview. I recommend you check out that paper.
In recent years, this debate has become more and more caustic. And some of the participants have moved farther and farther afield from the Bible’s account of creation. Peter Enns has gone so far as to deny the existence of Adam, and the historicity of the Exodus and much, much more! That being said, although a slippery slope does exist, the Church has always had varying positions on this issue. Holding to supernatural creation is more important than holding to a young earth or literal 24 hour days. There are many exegetical reasons offered against the young earth view, and some of them, in my mind, are convincing. But as Stephen Meyer points out in the panel’s discussion, the Church has to be careful not to get sidetracked into an intramural debate over the days of Creation instead of confronting head-on the new atheists denials of the existence of God and the Bible’s supernatural claims.
I expect my readers hold a variety of positions on this issue as well, so drop a comment and we can discuss this further. Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?
I came across an interesting post that raises a good question. Is it really okay to modify your actions based on the weaker consciences of some?
Here’s the post:
In 1857 a few white members of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa asked permission to celebrate the Lord’s Supper separately from their black brothers and sisters. The General Assembly believed their request was wrong, but it acquiesced “due to the weakness of some.” This concession soon became the norm, as white Christians increasingly chose to observe the Lord’s Supper without their black siblings. Their racism prompted the unwanted black Christians to leave and start their own churches. And so the South African church, divided by race, eventually became a vocal supporter of apartheid. In 1924 the DRC argued that the races must remain separate, for “competition between black and white on economic levels…leads to poverty, friction, misunderstanding, suspicion, and bitterness.”
How might the history of South Africa be different if the church had not conceded to the sinful request of a few “weaker brothers”? We are thankful for leaders such as Nelson Mandela who gave their lives to end apartheid. But it’s a shame on the church that their sacrifice was even needed.
Peter gave in to the “weaker brothers” in Antioch. He knew they were wrong to insist that Gentiles live like Jews, but afraid of what they might say, he refused to eat with Gentiles when these Judaizers came to town. Paul recognized this was a big deal, for the reason these Jews split from the Gentiles put the gospel at risk. How would the history of Christianity be different if Paul had not stood up to Peter’s shameful concession?
It’s never right to do wrong because others think it’s right. We must not violate our conscience on the flimsy ground that “They wouldn’t understand,” “It’s what they expect,” or “Just this once, what will it hurt?” It may seem easier to give in, but our concession will make life harder down the road.
–Read the original post from Mike Wittmer
I think you can definitely get in trouble if you’re always giving in to “weaker brothers”. It’s one thing to aim not to offend, it’s quite another to live your life with the weaker brother always potentially popping up at every turn.
What do you think? Is Mike Witmer way off base here? Am I?
I had the opportunity to watch some of the Master’s Tournament this year. I love watching golf (and try to play my hand at it, albeit rather poorly). So I caught some of the Master’s on Saturday, and was able to watch the conclusion of it on Sunday.
I was impressed with Bubba Watson’s win, and was thoroughly amazed by his unbelievable shot out of the woods and hooking onto the green to capture the victory. But I was unaware of the fact that Watson is a Christian.
He seems to be a solid Christian who is vocal about his faith, and I just wanted to point my readers in the direction of a few articles that make this point clear. I love the name Bubba, and his personality sure is winsome. But knowing we share a common faith makes me respect him even more.
Here are some links for additional reading: