Tag: Protestant

Reformation Day Roundup

~ Bob Hayton

I thought on this day after Reformation Day, that I’d round up some good reading on some of the Reformers. I’m still planning to do the drawing for my Reformation Week Book Giveaway on Wednesday, and the drawing will take place at approximately noon (Central time) on Wednesday 11/3.

Reformation Week Book Giveaway & More

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

This is the week before we celebrate Reformation Day. 493 years ago, on the night before All Saints’ Day, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. Everyone entering the church for the next day’s festivities, would be sure to see his theses, and the door often served as a community bulletin board. Today, we look back to that event, on October 31, 1517 as perhaps the single event most responsible for the start of the Protestant Reformation.

In honor of Reformation Day, I plan on posting several related posts. On the Wednesday after Reformation Day, I’ll be giving away a copy of A Reformation Reader by Denis Janz (Fortress Press). Between now and then, I’ll have a series of posts highlighting selections from the Reformer’s works, and possibly a few Reformation-themed book reviews interspersed in there.

A Reformation Reader gives you multiple excerpts from Reformation era documents, and some historical analysis. It sheds light on the era of the Reformation and while one may not always agree with the author’s conclusions, the selections make for excellent reading. This copy is furnished courtesy of the kind folks at Augsburg Fortress Press. Feel free to read my review of the book, too.

To enter the contest, fill out the form below. If you subscribe to this blog or follow me on Twitter or Facebook, you get additional chances to win. You can subscribe or follow me now, in time to get the additional entry, too. UPDATE: You can post an update to your blog, Twitter or Facebook page publicizing this giveaway for an additional entry, too.

I’ll be updating the tally on which Reformer is the most popular too, in the comments below. Early on it’s John Calvin in the lead ahead of Luther and Huss.

 

This contest is now closed. The winner was announced in this post.

 

Deliberate Doctrinal Partnership: Why Denominations Can Be Helpful

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Denominations are often despised. Even many Christians outside of the independent Baptist movement frown upon such formal, concrete institutions. Indeed, mainline denominations have been trending left over the last hundred years and more, so some of these reactions are understandable.

But with the proliferation of non-denominational churches, and in Baptist circles, the mass exodus of independent churches from the denominations, a strange phenomenon has occurred. Rather than remaining aloof from any formal institutional organization, these churches have banded together in a vast array of associations, fellowships and networks. The problem with some of these new fellowships and organizations may be their newness. A forgetfulness of the past and a devotion to the pragmatic and the new, combine to make such fellowships especially prone to parochialism or doctrinal drift.

In all reality, looking back at the denominations we left, we find many of the same things that we have sought after today. Denominations have a built in missions organization. They have longstanding partnerships among like-minded churches. They offer help to church planters and pool resources for the training of men for the ministry. They also have a connection to the work of God in the past, and a wealth of experience from both the past and the present, with which to bring to bear on today’s challenges.

Certainly some denominations have totally capitulated to doctrinal error. I am not advocating the usefulness of that kind of partnership. Instead I am pointing out that many Baptist and Presbyterian denominations exist which can provide help to churches and a connection with an orthodox, confessional history. Other denominations are also vibrant and faithful, and deserve consideration especially if you plan to plant a church or go to the mission field.

Denominations in and of themselves are not necessarily hierarchical structures where all autonomy is lost when a church joins up with them. Nor is a partnership in this sense a full endorsement of all the activities under the tent that the denomination supports. The beauty of denominations is the doctrinal core that you must unite around to join, as well as the freedom and expansiveness to allow varieties of method and practice, and differences of opinion on lesser doctrinal matters. Denominations stand ready to allow churches to unite around the Gospel, and partner in the work of missions.

Every denomination is not created equal. But a good many doctrinally sound denominations could benefit by the presence of more member churches that are solid in faith and devoted to mission.

My thoughts along these lines were recently spurred on by reading a very helpful article by Ed Stetzer on the subject from this month’s Christianity Today. It is the cover article and is entitled, “Life in These Old Bones.” The subtitle explains, “If you’re interested in doing mission, there could hardly be a better tool than denominations.”

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s article and take some thought about the value of denominations. Don’t be ready to cast stones and praise your independence. Thank God for faithful denominations and the churches that founded them.

“Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church” by John H. Armstrong

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Many today agree that the evangelical church in America has problems. It has a consumeristic mentality catering to the pervasive individualism of our society. Church programs are offered, and sermon series advertised in such a way as to get people hooked on the “brand”. Surveys and market research are conducted to find people’s felt needs and deliver. And with such a cheapening of church, it’s no wonder that counter movements abound in Christianity these days. Emergent, post-modern, missional — you name it, people realize the current super-sized church is high on calories and low on nutrition. Many are just abandoning the ship altogether.

One such counter movement is described by John H. Armstrong in his new book Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church (Zondervan, 2010). He contends that a twin focus on mission and unity will heal the Church’s woes.   He calls this missional-ecumenism.

Many of the problems Armstrong sees in today’s church are problems indeed. There is a high dose of sectarianism, and a low dose of biblical community. He reacts against the prevailing consumerism in churchianity. A return to the church’s “ancient/future faith” with a focus on the value of church history and an appreciation of the Apostle’s creed and other universally accepted creeds, he argues, will cure these ills.

Reacting to sectarianism in today’s church, Armstrong encourages a relational unity flowing from our brotherhood and shared faith in Jesus Christ. He wants us to see past our differences, but does hold that these differences matter. Denominations are not a bad thing in his view, but we should reach beyond them and see our shared unity as the “one church” following “one Lord” and sharing “one baptism” and “one faith” (Eph. 4).

I can agree to an extent with all of this. I too see John 17 and Jesus’ prayer for unity as being too easily dismissed in evangelicalism today. I think we need more charity, more grace, and a greater realization of how big our agreement is if we share in the core truths of the gospel. I agree that working together with other Christians and not viewing them as the enemy positively impacts our evangelism. I even share some of Armstrong’s specific criticisms of the modern church:

[There is] a small view of the church and a big view of our own importance. We have exalted our interpretations of the Scripture by boldly proclaiming: “My authority comes only from the Bible.” (pg. 131)

Some popular evangelical writers dehistoricize the church and make a case for revolution not reformation. They throw out the past. (pg. 107)

…Scripture is clearly not so much a treatise on systematic theology as the unfolding story of a people– the people of God…. A humble and faithful Christian life is marked by “fear and trembling” (Philipppians 2:12) and a willingness to allow for mystery. (pg. 96)

The culture with its decadence, relativism, consumerism, and wanton rebellion against the revealed will have God is actually the symptom of our problem. The root cause is a deeply divided, morally compromised, theologically indifferent, biblically ignorant, and culturally conformed church. The gospel has been reduced to a minimal set of consumer-related facts. The “sinner’s prayer” has replaced the kind of radical conversion that results in life-changing grace. In the process, the larger narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation has been lost. With this loss there is no coherent understanding of the kingdom of God. The church has now become a religious society of the comfortable. Serious Christians should cry out to God for his mercy and grace to be poured out on the church. (pg. 194)

Where Armstrong goes wrong, in my opinion, is jumping from the “one church” ideal in the NT, to affirming that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are part of that “one church” because they affirm the Apostle’s Creed. In vain did I look for any discussion of the Reformation and why Rome really isn’t advocating a false gospel when they do not preach justification by faith. Instead I found statements like this:

My understanding of biblical oneness combines two commitments that are often considered separately. the first is a commitment to work in every conceivable way to demonstrate the God-given spiritual oneness I share with other believers through our union with Christ….

But my second commitment goes even further. Many Protestant evangelicals are satisfied with informal person-to-person expressions of oneness. Because they tend to view the church as a voluntary association, they see no need to seek unity with other churches….

This two-commitment approach… has practical consequences for those who consider themselves evangelicals. It means I can no longer be… anti-Catholic…. With deep conviction, I am compelled to regard both Catholics and the Catholic church with love and esteem. (pg. 60-61)

…the Western church was torn apart by the Protestant Reformation. This movement challenged the Catholic Church to renew itself but resulted in in a massive schism leading to errors on every side. Eventually, these schisms resulted in the birth of several major divisions within historic Protestantism, leading to an endless variety of new churches built around human personalities and doctrinal differences. (pg. 89)

I appreciate the exhortation to unity and the admission that people who don’t think like us may well be honestly following Christ. But I think Armstrong is advocating a dangerous course when he encourages us to just view all Catholics or Orthodox adherents as genuine Christians. At this point, I need to let Armstrong explain in his own words at some length.

…We have heard a lot about culture wars in the United States for thirty years. I am far more concerned about the truth wars waged by polemicists inside the church. This is the bitter fruit of sectarianism. It lacks charity and leads to mean-spiritedness.

Privately, I hear people ask, “Who is a real Christian?” with regard to their own family members or members of their congregations (including pastors). If a Catholic becomes an evangelical, then those who remain Catholic are viewed by the “convert” as non-Christians….

I am wearied by this attempt to say who is and is not a real Christian… I find it destructive of everything true to Christ’s teaching. During my journey to catholicity, I made a conscious choice to give up this approach. After all, if a Christian is someone who has “the Spirit of Christ,” then I do not know who truly has “the Spirit of Christ.” Scripture further declares, “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Timothy 2:19)…. Real conversion and true faith are God’s work. And since all three of the great traditions of Christianity teach that those who share in proclamation and participation must also have explicit living faith, I began to openly encourage explicit faith rather than wage attacks on others.

Once I took this step, I became more concerned about my own faith and attitudes. I no longer had to answer many of the questions people asked me about other people–questions that only fed my pride. I ask, “Why should you care about what I think since I don’t know the real answer?” I then ask, “Have you confessed faith in Christ? Are you his baptized follower?” If the answer is affirmative, then I proclaim the gospel and let the Spirit work as he wills. God will judge the heart… (pg. 150-151)

I can’t accept Armstrong’s explanation here. Certainly a glib, non-chalant condemnation of others is wrong. I also believe there are many true believers that aren’t Protestant. But I believe Scripture requires us to be more discerning and careful in this matter. I don’t want to publicly affirm Catholicism’s dangerous teachings about the gospel and the relative emphasis on Mary, works, confession, saints and things like that. Paul’s concern for unity didn’t prevent him from making strong condemnations of false doctrine, just see Galatians 1.

This book will stretch you and cause you to think. And much in the book is actually helpful and good. But I would encourage only a discerning use of the book by mature Christians.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com and direct from Zondervan Academic

This book was provided by Zondervan Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Why I’m Leery of the Manhattan Declaration

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Someone recently asked me what I thought of the Manhattan Declaration. For those who don’t know, the declaration I’m referring to links Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants together under the banner “Christian” to stand for life and traditional marriage in our culture. It’s an attempt to stick together as Christians in our opposition to these increasingly abandoned values in our culture.

Here is my response. I understand good Christian leaders to be with me against the declaration, and others have signed it in their desire to stand for life and for transforming the culture. I haven’t really read the arguments or taken a side necessarily. But here is my perspective.

I can appreciate it for what it is, but 2 things keep me from signing.

1) It seems to single out a prizing of life and heterosexual marriage as being what Christianity is all about. I don’t think it is the role of the Church specifically to be legislating morality, as that doesn’t work due to fallen human nature. Instead we need to proclaim the gracious gospel of Christ.

2) It joins hands with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in what could easily blur the distinctions between them and traditional Protestants. Again the gospel of salvation by grace through faith is what differentiates us from these other groups who claim the name Christian. That is an important difference that shouldn’t be obscured.

Still, I don’t think the declaration necessarily requires understanding it this way. It is just a declaration in one sense, so I can understand those who sign it. But the need of our country isn’t a united defense and legislative protection of marriage and preborn children, it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that life is a small cause that we shouldn’t fight for. It is to say that heterosexual only marriage (in my view), isn’t such an important cause.

For more on what I’m getting at in point 1 above, check out my post: America — A Pagan Nation? My pal Jason Skipper over at Fundamentally Changed agrees with my assessment that this declaration represents a compromise with the gospel.

But what do you think? Why or why not do you support this declaration?